Astronomers would make a scientific hypothesis, which is a proposition based on some logical inference from observations. More focussed observations and measurements are then done to see if it is right or wrong. If no fault can be found after the tests are completed, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
In physcial sciences like astronomy no theory be proved but all theories are capable of being disproved. Thus scientists continually examine all theories in the light of new ideas and observations to see if the theories can stand up.
A theory that stands up for 100 years, like Maxwell's electromagnetic theory for example, becomes generally accepted and has a good chance of being right.
Astronomer
Who is 'marcator'? , I think you mean 'Mercator' , the Dutch geographer and astronomer.
A hypothesis for paper chromatography depends on what you are making the hypothesis on. A hypothesis for the speed of chromatography could be that you think the speed of the process can be changed depending on the type of paper, or whatever the stationary phase is, and the type of solvent being used.
There is no such thing as an "unskilled astronomer". You can be an amateur astronomer if you have an interest in astronomy; you can even build your own telescope, and make important astronomical observations. And most of the comet hunters are amateur astronomers; the "real" professional astronomers don't bother to search for comets, because they know that so many of us "amateur astronomers" and hobbyists are looking. Obviously, an amateur astronomer doesn't get paid; outside of university settings, there are very few professional astronomers who get paid to do astronomical work.
pimma
The same way you would write one.
You would test your hypothesis by predicting what the results of your experiment will be so it's like a type of prediction. Another way is what do you think the outcome will be.
In hypothesis testing, a Type I error occurs when a true null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected, while a Type II error occurs when a false null hypothesis is not rejected.
When writing hypotheses the null hypothesis is generally the hypothesis stating that there will be no significant difference between the variables you are testing. An alternate hypothesis would be a hypothesis suggesting that the results will be anything other than not significant. For example if you were testing three concentrations (low, medium, and high) of a type of medication on cancer cells, then one example of an alternate hypothesis would be that the medium concentration would decrease the number of viable cancer cells.
i dont really know but i think its 8 years of education traing to be an astronomer
Rejecting a true null hypothesis.
An astronomer or astrophysicist would be most likely to study a meteor flying through outer space. They would use telescopes and other observation tools to track the meteor's path, analyze its composition, and understand its impact on the surrounding environment.
a polish astronomer and mathematican.
The best hypothesis for a homemade flashlight would be that the type of battery used will affect the brightness of the light. This hypothesis allows for a straightforward experiment where different batteries can be tested to see which one produces the brightest light.
Failing to reject a false null hypothesis.
zero. We have a sample from which a statistic is calculated and will challenge our held belief or "status quo" or null hypothesis. Now you present a case where the null hypothesis is true, so the only possible error we could make is to reject the null hypothesis- a type I error. Hypothesis testing generally sets a criteria for the test statistic to reject Ho or fail to reject Ho, so both type 1 and 2 errors are possible.
A scientist uses inductive reasoning when testing a hypothesis. This involves making generalizations based on specific observations or data. By testing the hypothesis through experiments or observations, the scientist can gather evidence to support or refute the hypothesis.