Almost everything we know today about the stars and their life cycle is a direct result of the correct interpretation of our main source of evidence on the stars (their spectra) by a graduate student of very Young appointed Cecilia Payne.
Before its discovery in 1925 astronomers thought all the stars were made on exactly the same elements as the earth, in the same proportions as their spectra appear to show that(spectra also show that, of course).
Now, with Cecilia, we know that the differences are due simply to different amounts of ionization of hydrogen and NOT to the various elements.
Since the hydrogen atom is the only simple enough to do what we do out in the way they do it all started to fall in place and we jumped light years ahead in our understanding
The number of stars in a galaxy can change due to the birth and death of stars, as well as interactions with other galaxies like mergers and collisions. Additionally, new stars can form from the gas and dust present in galaxies, contributing to changes in the total number of stars over time.
Dead stars, such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes, play a crucial role in understanding the lifecycle of stars and the universe. They contribute to the formation of new stars by enriching the interstellar medium with heavy elements. They also serve as laboratories for testing theories of physics under extreme conditions. Additionally, the remnants of dead stars can provide insights into the history and evolution of our galaxy.
Yes, new evidence or developments in the future can cause a scientific theory to be revised or even discarded. As our understanding of the world grows and advances, theories must evolve to fit the new information. This process is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
Yes, stars are constantly being created and destroyed. Stars can last millions or billions of years, but there are so many of them out there that it's pretty common for them to come and go.
From the material of old stars.
Yes, a hypothesis can be changed based on new evidence or data that contradicts the original hypothesis. It is important for scientists to revise their hypotheses in order to accurately reflect the most current understanding of a phenomenon or issue.
New evidence has led to the understanding that atoms are not indivisible, as previously thought, but are composed of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. Additionally, the discovery of isotopes showed that atoms of the same element can have different numbers of neutrons, leading to a more complex understanding of atomic structure.
atoms cannot be divided
atoms cannot be divided
yes because theories are always changed when found new evidence
atoms cannot be divided
Scientific theories can be changed or replaced when there has been significant evidence for the change. The scientific method must be used to create a new hypothesis, which must then be proven.
Yes, a scientific theory can be rejected if new evidence or observations contradict its predictions or if a more accurate theory is developed. The rejection of a theory is an essential part of the scientific process that helps refine our understanding of the natural world.
To create new understanding
To create new understanding
I NEED THE STUPIED ANSWER FOR MY HOMEWORK !! eltham hill technolgy collage london ....
Scientific views evolve as new evidence is discovered and new technologies are developed. Advances in fields like genetics and biochemistry have provided deeper insights into the complexity of life, leading to changes in models and theories. Scientists strive to update their understanding based on the most current and accurate information available.