theories :)
No, it can not because, a scientific law is absolute.
Significant figures are important in measurement because they determine how accurate a scientific claim can be. There always has to be a small amount of uncertainty in an answer, because no measurement or calculation is ever 100% absolute.
However much we may discover about the universe we live in , there is always more to discover. We can never be 100% certain that we have all the information and all the logical analysis of that information that we need to arrive at the complete and absolute truth. Therefore, science does not deal in absolute truth, it merely arrives at reasonable conclusions based on the existing data. Theories can be proven in a sense, but more precisely, they are supported. Proof is never absolute. However good a theory may be, there may still be a better theory that will be developed in the future.
Celsius and Kelvin scale are also valid and useful. Celsius scale is a conventional scale based on the freezing and boiling point of water. Kelvin scale is an absolute, scientific, based on thermodynamics scale.
Because - 'absolute zero' (0 Kelvin or -373 Celsius) - is the temperature at which everything freezes. Scientific testing has not found any substance or object that does not freeze below absolute zero.
Theories
Theories
theories :)
theories :)
If my memory of third grade serves me, that would be a theory. Theories are based upon observations (e.g.: Observation: That guy's left side looks limp. Theory: He had a stroke) and are not absolute, as until it is tested and proven, there is no way to tell for certain if a theory is true or not.
All scientific theories are basically just consensuses of postulates to guide scientific research in a search for evidentiary proof. Consequently no theory is absolute fact. In the case of the Big Bang theory we also have the problem that we are trying to figure out what happened billions of years in the past, long before any human beings were around to observe those events directly. We have lots of astronomical observations which are relevant to this theory, but it is possible to imagine more than one way to interpret those observations. That said, you should also know that the evidence for the Big Bang theory is quite strong, and no one working in the field of cosmology has any serious doubt about it. It is very well supported. But it is not absolute fact. Nothing in science is taken as being absolute. For absolute truth, you must turn to religion.
Scientific knowledge is not absolute.
The mean absolute percent prediction error (MAPE), .The summation ignores observations where yt = 0.
a French philosopher: Thomas Hobbes
It is all doubtable, testable and open to disproof. This is the strength of the scientific method; it is a heuristic. It does not lead to absolute truth. There are some basic observations that are probably undeniable for all of time, but the more speculative or theoretical a scientific principle is, the more it is vulnerable to change or re-interpretation.
It means that the observations are all close to their mean value.
I believe not.