Yes, because you'll find out if all gravy has the same reaction.
I would suppose that the scientist with the super powered telescopes would discover planets before the astronauts would.
If scientists are not objective, they will not be able to interpret the information they discover correctly.Let's try an example. Suppose a scientist was convinced that a chemical he invented would be harder than a diamond. If he was an objective scientist, he would test the chemical and be honest about whatever results he found. If he was not objective, he would interpret any information as proof that the chemical was harder than a diamond - or he would say that something went wrong in the experiment if it didn't prove that.
It's not suppose to .
I suppose that you think to atoms.
Higher, I suppose.
Answer According to the scientific method, scientists perform an experiment. Answer I suppose you could say scientists perform an experiment next, but that is skipping some crucial points. How can you perform an experiment when all you have are ideas? Before you test out your hypothesis, you need to gather materials and draw up your procedure. Scientists just don't jump into something; they need a step-by-step plan of how they will carry out their test. In addition, they will also make predictions given their hypothesis. They need to know what result(s) will support or falsify the initial hypothesis.
Yes, I suppose you could call that a science experiment.
I would describe such a scientist as an environmental scientist.
Why would you ask something like this!!! ,but yeah i suppose.....
I suppose the answer must be by control of human activities
I suppose that the chemical analysys of the condensed water can offer information.
While conducting an experiment, it is important to have a experimental control. Suppose you are conducting an experiment to determine what factors affect the rate of evaporation of water. If you want to determine if presence of wind affects evaporation, you can take two containers of water and place one in a windy place and the other in a place with no wind. However all other factors should be identical like surface area of containers, surrounding temperature, liquid quantity and temperature etc. Hence, the need for a controlled experiment is to eliminate bias and to ensure that the data is valid.
I would suppose that the scientist with the super powered telescopes would discover planets before the astronauts would.
If scientists are not objective, they will not be able to interpret the information they discover correctly.Let's try an example. Suppose a scientist was convinced that a chemical he invented would be harder than a diamond. If he was an objective scientist, he would test the chemical and be honest about whatever results he found. If he was not objective, he would interpret any information as proof that the chemical was harder than a diamond - or he would say that something went wrong in the experiment if it didn't prove that.
212 degrees F, I think
I suppose "the Mohorovičić discontinuity" is what you are looking for. But, Mr. Mohorovičić was not a Yugoslavian, he was a Croatian. So the question should be "What was named after a Croatian scientist and is found between the crust and the mantle?", if the Mohorovičić discontinuity indeed is what you are looking for.
Yes. I suppose it would be hard to verify through experiment, but there is no specific reason why it shouldn't - basically, it has mass. Even light is affected by gravity.