Mendeleev predictions were correct.
There are many criteria for a scientific theory, it would kill me to list just one, so I'm goint to let you pick from the list. It should be testable. It should be able to be falsified. It's predictions must conform to the observations It should have been repeatedly tested
A theory is a working model by which we understand natural phenomena. To be a valid scientific theory it must be able to make predictions about the natural phenomena that it is concerned with that if experimental results showed the predictions were wrong then the theory would need to be discarded.
Yes, and zinc chloride and hydrogen are obtained.
In 1886 a German chemist named, Clemens A. Winkler discovered germanium. He discovered the first trace of germanium in the mineral argyrodite, while isolating it. (But germanium rarely makes distinct minerals.) He purified it to find the new element. Before this in 1871 a chemist named, Mendeleev predicted there would be a new element, that would have properties similar to the ones in silicon. His predictions were proved to be true.
In 1886 a German chemist named, Clemens A. Winkler discovered germanium. He discovered the first trace of germanium in the mineral argyrodite, while isolating it. (But germanium rarely makes distinct minerals.) He purified it to find the new element. Before this in 1871 a chemist named, Mendeleev predicted there would be a new element, that would have properties similar to the ones in silicon. His predictions were proved to be true.
We at Answers.com were hesitant to make predictions, but most of the reliable pundits, pollsters, and political scientists did make predictions: based on the available evidence, the majority said that President Obama would win. And that is exactly what happened.
It would be a soft metal with a low melting point.
A conclusion can only be made with solid evidence. A prediction is a foretelling of the future, a guess of what could happen soon. Predictions are not always the truth, but if there was evidence to back up the prediction, then a conclusion would be made to make it true.
Some information that would help: unambiguous evidence that there are systematic, independently verifiable differences in personality based on date and time of birth, and systematic, independently verifiable evidence that unambiguous and non-frivolous predictions made from astrological readings have later come true.
bi and po
It would be unwise to make predictions in the absence of evidence. On the other hand, it would be prudent to test for the possibility that the water table might fall.
If an isotropic microwave radiation, with a spectrum identical to that of a 2.7 K blackbody, did not exist, then Big Bang Cosmology would be pretty much refuted. But it DOES exist, and it's nature is pretty much exactly as predicted by BBC. It, like all other observational evidence, supports BBC and refutes its alternatives.
There is a few reasons, But I would say, for Making Predictions:)
Calmly explain the definition of a theory i.e. a hypothesis which has been supported by much and varied evidence and has made tested and confirmed predictions. However, those who make this claim often use it to justify personal opinion, so a logical explanation won't do much to change their mind (if they even listen to it at all).
Defending against false allegations of terrorism is much like defending against any other false allegations. The general idea is, lies are refuted by telling the truth. You would have to examine the basis for the allegations, whatever evidence or reports have been collected, and explain what really happened, and produce whatever confirming evidence you can, to prove your case.
Because it came true. All of the prophets made completely accurate predictions in the Bible, including Isiah.
aristotle believed that the heavens would be wonderful and you would see the gods