If a group of scientists have access to one data, from the data they can draw conclusions either through mathematics or just thought experiments.
Those thought experiments is different for any scientist, no one thinks the same especially when the topic is difficult.
For example when talking about parallel universes, scientists have come up with the weirdest examples of a multiverse. Some thinking of a brane universe, while others say that its a landscape universe, quilted universe. All of their 'evidence' seems correct but they have opposite meanings.
A weird analogy is 'religion'. All the religions seem to have 'evidences' (hardly) that attract people towards it, they all make sense but that doesn't mean that their evidence is right.
----
Now if they're trying to break down the data using maths, there could be a great uncertainty and measurement error that if done enough could change the whole idea behind the data.
Interesting question, I can babble for days for this but lets keep it as that
Would you be able to post the gel electrophoresis results?
Molten Mattet Seeps through the crust and forms new land.
Answer:
the velocity is zero, the acceleration is directed downward, and the force of gravity acting on the ball is directed downward
Explanation:
Is this exercise in kinematics
v = v₀ - g t
where g is the acceleration of the ball, which is created by the attraction of the ball to the Earth.
At the highest point
velocity must be zero.
The acceleration depends on the Earth therefore it is constant at this point and with a downward direction.
The force of the earth on the ball is towards the center of the Earth, that is, down
all other alternatives are wrong
Answer:


Explanation:
The collision is elastic so we can use the conservation of momentum


Describe the motion in axis x'



Describe the motion in axis y'

