<span>Much of our understanding of the basic structure and composition of Earth and the other planets in our solar system is not strenuously debated. We can infer a surprising amount of information from the size, mass and moment of inertia of the planets, all of which can be determined from routine astronomical observations. Measurements of surface chemical composition, either by direct sampling (as has been done on Earth, the moon, and Mars) or through spectroscopic observations, can be used to estimate elemental abundances and the degree of chemical differentiation that occurred as the planets condensed from the solar nebula. Remote observations of the gravitational field can be used to understand how a planet's mass is distributed, whereas the strength and shape of the magnetic field provides some constraint on the structure of a metallic core. The specifics of structure and composition, however, are much more debatable. And it is these details that tell us a much more extensive and ultimately more interesting story about the internal dynamics of the planets and their evolution. As a result, trying to determine them is frontier research in almost all fields of earth and planetary science.
</span>
hope that helped *smiles*
Answer:
Answer. The more an experiment is repeated, with the same outcomes, the more biased it becomes
Explanation:
If we had the same climate every minute of every hour tons of carbon would circulate the earth and climate change would make the polar ice caps melt from all the carbon around
This is refered to as the chemical symbol. It is derived from the Latin name for the element which is why some elements like potassium (K) and sodium (N) have symbols different from their name on the periodic table.
<em>the following diagram explains it clearly:
</em>
