Now, are we done? Have we written what we have here in scientific notation?

This is scientific evidence from wellknown researchers forced to work in secret.

But of course, the drama is, it clearly shows that incremental change is not an option.

It also shaped Darwin's scientific method, as well as that used by his peers.

Is that scientifically proven?

Has that been scientifically proven?

Scientific

Scientific Format

There is no scientific basis for these claims.

The evidence is conclusive.

I'd say it is. I told you that yesterday.

Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget.

So I have 1.75 times 10 to the negative 3.

There's a whole video on that.

So x and y have to be single digit numbers.

sciencey?

Let's do another one.

It takes data and turns it into information that we the people can use to make decisions.

It turns outif you look at the available scientific evidence on the internet

And I want to write it as just a numerical value.

Hopefully it will clarify things a little bit.

But it doesn't.

We do this, of course, with matters of race, and politics, and everything else, and we do it in science as well.

0, 2, 7.

The verdict is a tribute to their fairness.

Have you got any physical proof?

Express 0.0000000003457 in scientific notation

But they're not asking us to write it in scientific notation.

Or maybe because I am a forensic scientist, and I could boil you from the inside out and never leave a trace.

I want to make a case.

We investigate claims of the paranormal, pseudo science, fringe groups and cults, and claims of all kinds between, science and pseudo science and non science and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, non science, and plain old non sense.

We're here to catalog the chemical evidence.

Proof?

It sounds arrogant to say that most people are smarter than the average person.

I will need proof.

let's remember what it means to be in scientific notation.

Something Something scientific, right. What?

Would I be willing to provide a scientific endorsement of a mood boosting bottled water?

Which is times 100.

So let's multiply first, and then let's get what we have into scientific notation.

look at this situation and say, Well, there's nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about really right about or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science.

Wow, wow!

Where is this evidence ?

Have you any proof?

How do you know?