In some form or another it has always been supported. It kind of took a back seat to other scientific theories such as geology and evolution around the 1800s, but has made a strong comeback in the last 30 years or so. Nothing supports it. It is not a scientific theory.
You need to have done the research on the project you want to write a hypothesis for. It is essentially just a guess of what you think will happen based on what you know about the experiment's components. Sentences can be long and technical or short and straightforward depending on what the experiment or instructor entails.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
The geocentric model, which posited that Earth was the center of the universe with the sun and other celestial bodies orbiting around it, was replaced by the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus in the 16th century. This heliocentric model placed the sun at the center of the universe, revolutionizing our understanding of the cosmos.
3, or perhaps more. It depends on the theory to which you ascribe. For example, recent research done at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS) led to the creation of ekpyrotic theory. According to ekpyrotic theory, our universe and its creation stems from the collision of two "branes" that could theoretically and literally represent parallel universes. According to Julian Barbour, an infinite number of parallel universes exist, since every time a decision is made on either the microscopic or macroscopic level, a bifurcation is created leading to the birth of a new "universe". Long answer short, minimally 2 parallel universes, maximally infinit.
The Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) is a statistical measure used in hypothesis testing to compare the likelihood of observing the data under one hypothesis versus another. It is calculated by taking the logarithm of the ratio of the likelihoods of the data under the two hypotheses. A higher LLR suggests stronger evidence against the null hypothesis.
For as long as people have been interested in the beauty of creation.
the answer is a hypothesis
Hypothesis A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation. It is tested by gathering more information to see if the explanation holds up. If not, a new hypothesis is made and tested. Note that hypotheses (and theories) can never be proven, only disproven. If a hypothesis is well-supported, it may be upgraded to a theory. However, no matter how long a hypothesis has been around; no matter how many people believe it; no matter what the prevailing consensus is, just one piece of evidence can destroy the hypothesis.
Since God created man. Day 5 or 6 of creation.
Since the creation of the Sun, 4.6 billion years ago
Keep in mind that the word "theory" has a different meaning to scientists from how most people use it in casual conversation. In science, a theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. hi look i just wanna say that we need a sentence not a definition oh yeah and i rly didnt understand that thing you wrote no offense
The Inuit people have an oral tradition, not written. These oral traditions when first recorded noted that they have used totem poles since their creation (the creation of the Inuit People that is).
Galileo was teaching the Copernican heliocentric (sun centered) hypothesis of the universe as fact and openly declared he had no proof to offer. Many in the Vatican, including the pope himself, supported Galileo's claims. However, the pope advised him to stop teaching it as fact when it was only a theory or hypothesis. Galileo refused and began publishing some very anticlerical and sarcastic remarks about the pope and the Roman Curia. He quickly lost any support he had in the Vatican and was sentenced to house arrest by the Inquisition. Pride was his downfall. Copernicus had long supported the heliocentric hypothesis but had no problems with the Church as he did not teach it as a fact.
It has been taught far too long that "an educated guess" was know as a hypothesis. However, the true meaning of a hypothesis is simply a proposed solution to a problem that must be tested in order to validate and be considered reliable. An hypothesis must also be provable false. "There are no elves" is a bad hypothesis because it is impossible to prove the absence of something.
The Giant Impact Hypothesis is probably the most favoured today. This has it that a body about as massive as Mars, (Now called Theia) had accumulated in the Lagrange points, and about 4.5 billion years ago, this made a low velocity collision with the early Earth. It is thought that most of the nickel-iron of the Moon descended into the core of the Earth.Computer models concur with this hypothesis, and further support is obtained from samples collected from the Moon itself.
As long as Jessica has information to back up her hypothesis there is nothing wrong with it.
as long as you want but dont make it to short or 1-3 sentences not too long