Want this question answered?
That it is expanding.
distance
The law of definite proportions, the law of conservation of mass, and the law of multiple proportions all provide evidence for the existence of atoms.
When Alka-Seltzer and water come into contact it creates a reaction that produces gas. This is evident by the fizzing bubbles. In order to support the law of conservation of mass you would need to capture and measure the gas.
traits affecting IT support governed by law
That it is expanding.
Sometimes
distance
By using a therom call hubbles law and hubbles constant this is the calculation: 1/Ho=d/v=t t= 3.09x10 22/71000x31566926 t=13.738 billion years old
Everybody has diff ideas. They all think that they are right. There is enough evidence to support a theory but not a law.
Hubble's Law states that (more or less) the distance to a galaxy is a constant multiple of the distance to that galaxy. For example, if one galaxy is moving away from us at three times the speed of another galaxy, then that means it is also three times as far away. The Law indicates that the Universe is expanding and had a beginning. Before Hubble's Law, many astronomers thought that the Universe did not have a beginning (it always existed).
You don't need physical evidence for proof. Just the fact that your afraid of your abuser is enough to get the law involved.
Burr W. Jones has written: 'Jones on evidence, civil and criminal' -- subject(s): Criminal Evidence, Evidence (Law) 'The law of evidence in civil cases' -- subject(s): Evidence (Law), Civil procedure 'The law of evidence'
I know of no empirical evidence to support that. It sounds like some kind of propaganda from a mother-in-law...
A theory is an idea system with a lot of evidence to support it--for example, the theory of evolution. A law (in science) is an idea system with proof attached to it--no contradictions--example, the law of gravitation.
To develop a scientific law a person must first start off with an experiment or hypothesis. A person will then need evidence to support their theory/hypothesis. If the evidence is sufficient enough then they must provide a conclusion explaining their findings and how they are correct.
Edward J. Imwinkelried has written: 'The new Wigmore' -- subject(s): Confidential communications, Evidence (Law) 'California evidentiary foundations' -- subject(s): Evidence (Law), California 'The new Wigmore' -- subject(s): Confidential communications, Evidence (Law) 'Evidentiary foundations' -- subject(s): Evidence (Law) 'Pretrial discovery' -- subject(s): Discovery (Law), Pre-trial procedure 'Uncharged misconduct evidence' -- subject(s): Reputation (Law), Admissible evidence, Evidence (Law)