Something From Nothing

[atrib]

Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.

So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.

These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.

 

[Wiploc]

The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.

So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.

These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.

Nonsense.

For instance, Einstein's theory entailed light's being bent by mass. So astronomers figured out how to test that. They predicted that stars would seem to be out of place when viewed next to a (closer) massive object. Then they ran the test and confirmed that stars do seem to move when they pass behind massive objects. Mass does bend light.

Theory, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis. That's an experiment. It happens all the time in astronomy.

That's why we have to talk about dark matter, because astronomers experimentally determined that there isn't enough known matter in galaxies to hold them together.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.

So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

Well, yes... but the lab is called "the universe" and we can track universal development (and expansion) using telescopes thanks to the speed limit of light.

We have a new lab. The James Web Telescope. For some years now a major lab was the Hubble telescope.

These are not laboratories. No* experiments are being done in astronomy. Only observations.

*DART mission may count, if you consider that "astronomy". But it has limited scope within astronomy.

Nonsense.

For instance, Einstein's theory entailed light's being bent by mass. So astronomers figured out how to test that. They predicted that stars would seem to be out of place when viewed next to a (closer) massive object. Then they ran the test and confirmed that stars do seem to move when they pass behind massive objects. Mass does bend light.

Theory, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis. That's an experiment. It happens all the time in astronomy.

That's why we have to talk about dark matter, because astronomers experimentally determined that there isn't enough known matter in galaxies to hold them together.

I am just arguing the semantics. Astronomers have observationally determined. I would imagine an astronomical "experiment" would be something like: "let's add more metals to that star's atmosphere and see what its spectrum looks like", or "let's make a sample of stars with different masses, let them grow in the lab and see which ones explode first", or, to use your example, "let's place different massive objects in front of some background stars and measure the distortions". Astronomers don't have control over the independent variables of what they study. However, by observing enough objects they can piece together relationships based on those independent variables and assess theories with the observations. Nature can provide us what we need in many cases.

I don't think we disagree on what astronomers do; I just balk at using the word "experiment" because it connotes certain things to me that astronomers can't do. Sometimes I am too pedantic about scientific terms.

 

[steve_bank]

Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.

I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?

 

[bilby]

The Big Bang is not an answer to any metaphysical question. It is a proven theory based on demonstratable facts. The question then becomes how did the Big Bang occur? "Where does this all come from?" Is not answered. That question is pushed back is all.

So, yhe BB can be demonstrated in a lab under controlled conditions?

It is lie theists defending provable creationism.

That's a response right out of the shitheap beloved of creationists. Seriously, only the characteristic spelling mistake makes it distinguishable from a cut-and-paste from a creationist website.

It's of course 100% true, justified, reasonable, righteous and godly, to assert (without a shred of evidence) that anything not done in a laboratory under controlled conditions isn't science.

Next these atheistic communist evildoers will be trying to claim as "science" things done by people who weren't even wearing a white coat at the time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.

I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?

A really small net.

 

[steve_bank]

Lets not forget the Large Hadron Collider. Also, Steve doesn't seem to understand how scientific models work.

I understand only two well. Elecronics is based on quantum mechanical models used in simulations, SPICE models. There are multiple levels of models depnding on what you are doing. Are you familiar with Ebers-Moll?

Are you famier with mosfet model parametrs and what they mean at the QM level?

When I was at Lockheed our group had space in a microwave chip facility. I knew someone whose job was taking measurement data on microwave parts and developing simulation models for the chip designers. Her degree was physics.

I have a relatve who workd on the cryogenic coolig systen for the Brookhavne RHIC ring. I got to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber. In a colision experiment do you know how partcles are detected without looking it up?

A really small net.

You obvious;y understand the true nature of the question and thread.