Hypothesis for situations

bunniebones — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:29:20 GMT

Help me find the most suitable hypothesises for these four situations.

1. You observe a leaf outside your window floating upwards in the air.

2. You observe a withered plant that appears to be dying.

3. You observe no stars in the night sky.

4. You observe this evening's sunset to be very red.

Thanks

Bunnie Bones

I found the answer at ...

bunniebones — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:12:01 GMT

1) Air currents, either from the air trying to flow around the house or heat-based convection.

2) Dehydration or disease.

3) Clouds or glare from ground level lighting (eyes only have a certain range of contrast they can pick up, street lighting forces the eye to adjust to bright objects, thus limiting it from seeing faint ones - the phenomenon is also readily apparent, particularly, in cheap web cams as they adjust to brightness, things which were bright become dark and hard to see relative to the brighter object).

4) As the sun begins to set, the light must travel farther through the atmosphere before it gets to you. More of the light is reflected and scattered. As less reaches you directly, the sun appears less bright. The color of the sun itself appears to change, first to orange and then to red. This is because even more of the short wavelength blues and greens are now scattered. Only the longer wavelengths are left in the direct beam that reaches your eyes.

The sky around the setting sun may take on many colors. The most spectacular shows occur when the air contains many small particles of dust or water. These particles reflect light in all directions. Then, as some of the light heads towards you, different amounts of the shorter wavelength colors are scattered out. You see the longer wavelengths, and the sky appears red, pink or orange.

RE: Hypothesis for situations

Rocmike3 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:53:38 GMT

Okay, your question is one of scientific rigor. Scientists must first Observe, then Propose, then Postulate, then Theorize, then Confirm, any finding that we make.

1. You observe a leaf outside your window floating upwards in the air.

First, we consider two factors: what made the leaf float, and what is it floating in? AT first, we're tempted to presume that the leaf is floating in air, but science denounces presumption. Regardless, we consider first the simplest explanation: Occam's Razor. Our theory suggests that the leaf is floating in the wind, which of course presumes air, and that it is moving. However presumptuous, we consider it first.

2. You observe a withered plant that appears to be dying.

Here we have our first point in common: MOST plants have leaves. Still a dangerous presumption, but we have established a pattern. Now, we test the pattern by reviewing our first point. If points 1, and 2, coincide, then we have a postulate, but it is not yet confirmed by other theory or even observation.

3. You observe no stars in the night sky.

Here we see the need for "openness and fairness" in science. At first, the idea erupts that the air is so full of leaves that they occlude our view of the stars, but we must also consider something far more likely: that atmospheric disturbance could also cloud our view. Now, we must decide on the greater likelihood: disturbance or occlusion, possibly both. Sadly, more often than not, we wind up with more questions than answers. Here arises the idea of the Moot Question. These are questions that do not lead us to a correct answer.

4. You observe this evening's sunset to be very red.

Now, we are going to eliminate as many moot questions as possible. We see the sun, it is in a "red" phase, but can we quantify what it should ideally look like? Remember, we must quantify, not qualify. While we have dismissed that leaves occlude our view of the stars, then why can we see the stars at all during the sunset? Eliminate all but the concept of atmospheric disturbance, noting that atmospheric disturbance accounts for the leaves appearing to float.

Whenever you do a research project, remember that you must keep an open and analytical mind. Consider all the known variables, but do not develop a fixation on any one of them.

Now, we consider an experiment to verify all the observed phenomena.

1. Find a plant with naturally dried leaves. Place it in a tube with an anemometer at the top to find the leaf's terminal velocity (the speed it will fall through air).

2. Place a telescope in the tube and take a shot at the dusk, to determine the wind speed that will result in optical aberration.

Continue until you know enough about the optical properties of air to Advance your theory.

Then sigh in disgust as you find that some other researcher already puiblished a paper on those properties ten days before you published.