Two physics students are describing a concept called the orbital radius.

Student 1: Orbital radius is defined as the distance from an object in orbit to the object that is being orbited. For example, this would include the distance from a satellite orbiting Earth to the Earth. Several factors affect an orbiting object's orbital radius. The mass of the object compared to the object being orbited, the speed at which the orbiting object is moving, and the gravitational force pulling at the orbiting object.

Student 2: An orbital radius is the distance from an orbiting object's center to the center of the object being orbited. The only thing that affects an orbiting object's orbital radius is the object's speed. A faster orbiting object will have a lower orbital radius and vice versa. 

Jupiter has 67 moons orbiting it. When studying why these moons never collide, it is revealed that all 67 of jupiter's moons have different orbital radii. What would the students say about their speeds?

Two physics students are describing a concept called the orbital radius.

Student 1: Orbital radius is defined as the distance from an object in orbit to the object that is being orbited. For example, this would include the distance from a satellite orbiting Earth to the Earth. Several factors affect an orbiting object's orbital radius. The mass of the object compared to the object being orbited, the speed at which the orbiting object is moving, and the gravitational force pulling at the orbiting object.

Student 2: An orbital radius is the distance from an orbiting object's center to the center of the object being orbited. The only thing that affects an orbiting object's orbital radius is the object's speed. A faster orbiting object will have a lower orbital radius and vice versa. 

It is found that all 67 of Jupiter's moons have different masses and different orbital radii. How does this new information affect each student's claims?

Two physics students are describing a concept called the orbital radius.

Student 1: Orbital radius is defined as the distance from an object in orbit to the object that is being orbited. For example, this would include the distance from a satellite orbiting Earth to the Earth. Several factors affect an orbiting object's orbital radius. The mass of the object compared to the object being orbited, the speed at which the orbiting object is moving, and the gravitational force pulling at the orbiting object.

Student 2: An orbital radius is the distance from an orbiting object's center to the center of the object being orbited. The only thing that affects an orbiting object's orbital radius is the object's speed. A faster orbiting object will have a lower orbital radius and vice versa. 

Two satellites, one very small and one very large, are in orbit around the Earth in what is called geostationary orbit. Geostationary orbit is a precise distance from the Earth where many commercial satelites are sent. The two satellites are found to have the exact same orbital speed. How does this new information affect the students' claims?

Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land. 

Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier. 

Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.

Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.

Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake. 

Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.

Which of the following findings would most closely resemble the hypothesis of scientist 1? 

Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land. 

Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier. 

Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.

Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.

Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake. 

Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.

Which of the following findings would best support the hypothesis of Scientist 2?

Glaciers move, on average, 1 meter per day, although many are known to move faster or slower depending on their size. Whether they are alpine glaciers, which form high in the mountains, or continental glaciers that cover huge areas of land near the poles, glaciers are responsible for breaking up rock and moving sediment as they move across the land. 

Below is a chart of average speed of movement of an alpine glacier per year, as well the amount of sediment displaced by the glacier. 

Two scientists have done research on an alpine lake that lies in the path of the glacier. Each took five samples of sediment from the lake.

Scientist 1 believes that the glacier is beginning to melt as it moves lower in elevation, releasing some of the sediment it has carried into mountain streams and springs, causing the makeup of sediments in the lake to change. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains brown chert, a rock that can only be found in elevations higher than that of the lake. Scientist 1 took his sample from the sediments that washed ashore on the beach of the lake.

Scientist 2 believes the glacier is not melting, but displacing rock beds so that the sediment loosens and breaks free of the bedrock and then is carried by wind and other erosive elements to the lake. He notes that the sediment from the lake bed contains only trace amounts of the brown chert, not enough to suggest the glacier is melting. Scientist 2 took his samples from sediment deposits at the bottom of the lake. 

Below is a chart of the sediment collection samples and the percentage of brown chert found in each.

Could scientists 1 and 2 agree on anything concerning the glacier?

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

Which of the following best states the basis for the belief of Scientist 1?

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

Scientist 2 uses what piece of detail to support his overall viewpoint?

Earth’s moon rotates like a satellite around Earth. It is the fifth largest moon in the Solar System and is best seen at night. The Earth’s moon is about 384,400 km from Earth and has an orbital period of twenty-seven days. Most scientists agree that the Moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago; however, there are several conflicting theories on the moon’s origin. Below two scientists discuss what they believe to be true.

Scientist 1 

The Fission Theory states that the Moon and Earth were once the same formation. A part of the formation separated from Earth and became the moon. The formation that broke off to form the moon most likely came from the Pacific Ocean Basin. The rock densities of the moon are similar to the rock densities of the Earth’s mantle. This is because the part that broke off from the Earth to form the moon broke off from the outer part of the Earth’s mantle. The theory that the Moon and Earth formed separately is highly unlikely. For this theory to be true, Earth’s gravitational field would have had to pull the moon into orbit. This is unlikely because it would have required a very particular set up. Most objects that come into the Earth’s gravitational field have elliptical orbits. If the Moon was pulled into orbit with the Earth, it would have a comet-like elliptical orbit—which it does not.

Scientist 2

The Impactor Theory states that a small planet collided with the Earth just after the solar system was formed. This caused large amounts of materials from the outer shell of both planets to break off. This debris started orbiting the Earth and forming one collective body of material. That collective piece is what we now call the moon. The lunar rocks studied are burnt, implying they were heated at one time. This would make sense because when the small planet and Earth collide, the material became heated due to impact. In addition, the Moon does not have a magnetic field like Earth, but some of the rocks on the surface of the Moon hint the Moon could have had some sort of magnetic qualities at one time. This is because the Moon was partially made up of Earth’s outer rocks.

What is the main conflicting viewpoint between Scientist 1 or Scientist 2?