What specific quantitative success in observational astronomy supports a claim to 'hardness'?

Answer

Testing Einstein's General Relativity through observing the bending of light around massive objects.

The claim that astronomy deserves a strong designation of 'hardness' is supported by its verifiable quantitative successes, particularly in cosmology. A prime example is the validation of Einstein's General Relativity. This required observing how massive celestial bodies influence spacetime, causing light from background sources to bend around them—a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. The predictions made based on General Relativity concerning this light bending have been confirmed with high accuracy, validated to many decimal places. Such high predictive success in an observational field rivals the precision often associated exclusively with laboratory-based sciences.

What specific quantitative success in observational astronomy supports a claim to 'hardness'?

Related Questions

What characterizes "hard" sciences like Physics and Chemistry according to methodology?Which physical disciplines form the theoretical underpinnings of Astronomy?Where does Astronomy encounter methodological stumbling blocks associated with 'softer' fields?What influences the placement of a scientific field along the hard/soft spectrum besides epistemological rigor?What concept suggests that dividing science into a sharp 'hard' or 'soft' binary is inaccurate?What is the key difference making modeling a rainforest ecosystem more difficult than modeling a pendulum?What specific quantitative success in observational astronomy supports a claim to 'hardness'?What specific aspect of data acquisition prevents astrophysicists from controlling phenomena like a chemist?What are the disciplines generally considered the bedrock of the 'hard sciences'?Why does the validation loop for observational astronomy differ from a typical terrestrial lab setting?
classificationastronomyscience