The purpose of an experiment is to establish a functional relationship that would apply wherever there is no other disruptive variable. Given that we believe EM radiation is indefinite and requires no medium I see no reason not to apply Maxwell's and Feynman's ideas universally.
The first sentence, for the most part, is correct Tommy. But, the statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“We BelieveÃ¢â‚¬Â speaks to the metaphysical nature of the experiment, and not the empiricism of the scientific method. Whenever one puts too much emphasis on the Ã¢â‚¬Å“metaphysicalÃ¢â‚¬Â, they are doing so by faith. We can only Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricallyÃ¢â‚¬Â state, what we can empirically prove. Therefore, everything else (defended as fact) is taken on faith. And when these pseudo-facts are promulgated as fact in the popular media (and scholastic indoctrination via the public school system) without actual empirical evidence, it does become a religious-like dogma.
A prime example of this overstating of evidentiary Ã¢â‚¬Å“beliefsÃ¢â‚¬Â (there are many others) was a July 23, 2001article in Time magazine by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman that claimed a toe bone fragment of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba proved Ã¢â‚¬Å“the creature walked on two legs.Ã¢â‚¬Â This a priori evidence from the fossilized fragment of a toe bone!! They built the entire case from that Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidentiary beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â (or faith statement) and then go on to say Ã¢â‚¬Å“meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature that stood up and walked 5.8 million years agoÃ¢â‚¬Â. They from loaded the article with more unfounded statements like Ã¢â‚¬Å“How Apes Became HumansÃ¢â‚¬Â, and the find was Ã¢â‚¬Å“One Giant Step for MankindÃ¢â‚¬Â.
The causal reader will no nothing more than skim over the information, not look at it critically, and say Ã¢â‚¬Å“look, more proof for evolution!Ã¢â‚¬Â
Looking at the OP, other than your direct questions and the equivocation caveats the thrust seems to be that "you can't get something from nothing". The laws of conservation and momentum back this up within the post-BigBang Universe.
That is incorrect Tommy; the laws of conservation and momentum back this up within the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Universe having a beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â postulate (which is of far superiority than steady state infinity) and nothing else. The big bang model is just a hypothesis, that when defended dogmatically, is a faith statement because; The big bang model and the second law of thermodynamics reveal that space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning, period. Nothing else!
The BB marks a beginning to expanding spacetime, the laws of physics and causation as they are known to us. To wonder how something came from nothing presupposes both that there was nothing at some earlier time and that there was time prior to BB.
The Ã¢â‚¬Å“BBÃ¢â‚¬Â is nothing more than a tag place on the beginning of the universe. The presupposition is in positing that something can come from nothing, not that something can come from something. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B ) and Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B )Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Every effect has a cause; this fact is self-evident, and it is logical, reasoned, methodical and diagnostic. So, unless you can provide evidence of non-being causing being, the above is unassailable.
My first answer in my previous post draws upon the TOE and nebular theory. Exactly how natural autocatalysis emerged on Earth many thousands of millions of years ago is as yet unknown but the Oro and recent Joyce experiments provide insight.
Not only that, but your promulgating of time is unknown as well, and is therefore a Non sequitur due to its subjective (and therefore non-empirical) nature.
My second answer was necessarily philisophical. Philosophy is the no-man's land between dogma and science and can converse with both. I would not describe my position as faith-based as I do not contend that it contains some dogmatic truth resistant to contradiction or adaptation. I would like to think that the epistomelogical premise I offered is simple and potentially universally applicable.
It is only universally acceptable to those of like mind Tommy (epistemologically speaking). And therefore is faith based if defended.
Again, none of the above answers (or even comes close to answering) the OP. But it is insightful none-the less, and good conversation.