A hypothesis could be that your power is the same. Or it could be that your power is a million times greater or only one millionth. You decide!A hypothesis could be that your power is the same. Or it could be that your power is a million times greater or only one millionth. You decide!A hypothesis could be that your power is the same. Or it could be that your power is a million times greater or only one millionth. You decide!A hypothesis could be that your power is the same. Or it could be that your power is a million times greater or only one millionth. You decide!
When more than one hypothesis is shown on a scientific paper, the alternative hypotheses can be numbered. They could use a format like, Hypothesis No. 1, Hypothesis No. 2, and so on.
a poorly designed hypothesis
1). Present an observation or calculation that disproves the hypothesis. 2). Go off to your room and pout.
It really depends on what your hypothesis is! But I expect a hypotenuse could be more useful in this context. However, knowledge of the hypothesis, hypotenuse even, is not enough to enable you to find the perimeter.
State the problem. State the hypothesis. State whether the hypothesis was supported by the data or not supported. Give examples of the data that show this ^ Uncontrolled variables, improvements to make to the project. How this could be useful in the real world What comes next- how would you expand this?
Henri Becquerel was convinced that his hypothesis about the spontaneous emission of radiation from uranium was supported when he observed that uranium chloride crystals exposed to sunlight could fog a photographic plate wrapped in opaque paper. This suggested that something unseen was being emitted by the uranium that could cause this effect.
Yes. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of some observable event. An experiment is designed to test if the hypothesis is possibly correct. Broadly speaking, there are three possible results of an experiment.The results are inconclusive (for example, the experiment was not designed well or some unplanned event occurred).The hypothesis is disproved (the experiment showed that the hypothesis was not a good explanation).The hypothesis is shown to be possible (a hypothesis can never be proven correct because the results could be caused by some factor not considered in the experiment).
Becquerel was convinced that his hypothesis was supported when he observed that photographic plates wrapped in opaque material were still fogged after being exposed to uranium salts. This suggested that an invisible form of radiation was being emitted from the uranium, supporting his hypothesis that certain materials could emit energy without external stimulation.
In science, it is impossible to prove a hypothesis true because new evidence could always arise that contradicts it. However, a hypothesis can be supported by evidence, increasing our confidence in its accuracy. Scientists constantly test and refine hypotheses to improve our understanding of the world.
You address your hypothesis and state whether the data supported the hypothesis of not. You address what errors may have affected the outcome of your data and how they could be controlled better next time. You address what new questions or extensions of your experiment could be followed up on.
It is impossible to prove a hypothesis true because science aims to falsify hypotheses rather than prove them true. A hypothesis can only be supported by evidence, but it can never be proven definitively true because new evidence could potentially challenge or change our interpretation of it.
The main objection to Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift was the lack of a plausible mechanism to explain how continents could move. Wegener's idea of continents plowing through solid oceanic crust was not supported by scientific knowledge at that time, leading many scientists to reject his hypothesis.
Oparin's hypothesis proposed that Earth's early atmosphere could have supported the formation of organic molecules, providing the foundational idea for Miller and Urey's experiment. Miller and Urey's experiment aimed to simulate early Earth conditions and demonstrated that organic molecules, including amino acids, could indeed be produced in a laboratory setting, supporting Oparin's hypothesis.
because your hypothesis could be right or wrong
Yes, Miller's experiment supported the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis by showing that simple organic molecules, such as amino acids, could be formed under conditions resembling the early Earth's atmosphere and environment. This provided experimental evidence for the idea that the building blocks of life could have emerged through natural processes.
Benjamin Thompson's experiment, where he showed that metal can be melted by friction produced by boring a cannon, disproved the caloric theory by demonstrating that heat could be produced by mechanical work rather than through the transfer of a mysterious fluid called caloric. This experiment challenged the prevailing understanding of heat as a fluid and supported the emerging kinetic theory of heat.