A well-supported hypothesis is a theory that appears to have a lot of evidence behind it. This evidence helps to make it seem likely that the hypothesis is true, but it is still just a theory until it has been proven.
To do it right
Experimentation.
No. A theory is more certain: it is a hypothesis which has had some supporting evidence.
No because a hypothesis s an educated guess..It doesn't need supporting details only you final conclusion needs evidence
Yes, because if enough people prove the hypothesis and produce evidence supporting it it can become a theory.
I don't know. :p
Rejecting a hypothesis shows you that it was wrong and it shows you what not to do. It can help lead you to a better, more accurate hypothesis the next time.
To support a hypothesis means you agree, and may even give supporting evidence.To refute it means you submit evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect , or you make a cogent and persuasive argument against it.
evidence supporting the idea of sea-floor spreading.
it depend if the hypothesis is good or wrong. depends if the hypothesis is correct. An hypothesis is, in simple terms, a "guess" based on observed data. For this reason, the data to support any hypothesis can be manipulated to prove it either "right" or "wrong". Neither is more helpful. All scientific endeavour should be tested and retested.
it was proposed by edward Édouard Roche it's not so real .... no supporting evidence is there for this hypothesis
Evidence supporting the hypothesis of continental drift includes the fit of continental coastlines, matching rock formations and fossils across continents, and the alignment of mountain ranges. Additionally, the distribution of ancient glacial deposits and paleoclimate data further support the idea that continents were once connected.