Not with the naked eye, but with a microscope, yes.
No it is to small, smaller then a cell.
An optical microscope can provide enough magnification to see most of the cell's parts.
The discovery of the cell was possible due to the invention of the microscope.
The low power objective lens, typically 10x, is best for viewing the whole cheek cell as close as possible. This lens provides a wider field of view, allowing you to observe the overall structure of the cell while still achieving adequate magnification. Higher power lenses may provide more detail but offer a narrower field, making it difficult to see the entire cell.
It indicates your location, and makes it possible for others to see your location when your phone is turned on and within range of a 'cell' tower.
If the camera was looking through glass, it may have captured an image of the person taking the photograph or film, via their reflection.
Hooke's microscope could not see the cell of an animal cell which is a eukaryotic cell.
It is not possible to do that.
The cell is growing and, most importantly, checking to see that replication is possible during the next phase which is synthesis. Checks and repairs to the genetic material happen during G1.
no, there can be a possible mutation but nothing major. there is movement inside the cell though.
Not with the unaided eye it isn't. You really need at least 250 x magnification to see features of a typical neuron (20 or so micrometers in diameter).
An electron microscope allows us to see cell organelles. It uses a beam of electrons to create a detailed image with high resolution, making it possible to visualize structures at the subcellular level.