How to find conflicting viewpoints in earth and space sciences - ACT Science

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

Assuming that all observed evidence to this point is correct, if a new theory were proposed to explain the origins of the universe, what feature must it be able to explain?

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

If Scientist 1's theory were correct, which of the following would be a worthwhile question for scientists to further study?

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

On what grounds might Scientist 1 criticize Scientist 2's theory?

Scientists have long debated the origin of organic molecules on Earth. Organic molecules are those based on the atom carbon, which can form four distinct bonds in contrast to the fewer number allowed in most other non-metals. As a result of this property, carbon can give rise to the enormously complex molecular shapes necessary for life to arise.

Some scientists argue that organic matter was dissolved in water ice on comets, and brought to Earth early in its history. These comets crashed into the early Earth, and deposited carbon-based molecules in copious quantities to the Earth’s surface as their water melted.

In 2014, the first space probe landed on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Suppose that scientists find the following information from 5 distinct samples after landing on the comet. Each sample was taken at a single geographical location, but 5 meters deeper than the last. Sample 1 was taken at a depth of 1 meter below the surface.

These samples were compared to 5 similar samples from the surface of Mars. Scientists posited that this comparison would be meaningful because we know that life does not exist on Mars the same way that it does on Earth. Thus, they are comparing a known non-biological celestial body, Mars, with another celestial body, the comet, which may be seeding life on suitable plants.

The atmosphere on Earth protects the surface from damaging radiation that is abundant in space. Comets lack this atmosphere, and radiation is known to be capable of breaking bonds in complex molecules like organics. Suppose a scientist suggests that no organic molecules could survive the radiation that they would experience on a comet, and thus the measurements in the passage must be due to contamination. Which of the following findings would most directly refute this scientist's claim?

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?

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, though it has decelerated significantly, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.8 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their modern state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

Which of the following, if true, would most support Scientist 2's claim?

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.

When it comes to the Moon, both scientists agree that                     .

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?

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 do both the viewpoint of Scientist 1 and the viewpoint of Scientist 2 have in common?

According to the Big Bang theory, which proposes that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, all matter and energy were at one time compressed into a single microscopic point. This point then exploded outward in all directions in a rapid expansion. The expansion has continued to the present day, which has allowed matter to cool to a state at which stable atomic components can form. The Big Bang theory proposes that our universe is finite in age, and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, there exists a cosmological horizon, which is the maximum distance light or energy could have travelled since the occurrence of the Big Bang. Since the universe is still expanding, however, regions of space that are visible from our vantage point are not within each other's cosmological horizons. For example, if galaxy A is 10 billion light years away from us, and galaxy B is 10 billion light years away from us in the opposite direction, there is a total distance of 20 billion light years between them. The universe has only existed long enough for light, energy, or information to travel 13.7 billion light years between them; thus, it is not possible for any contact to have been made between the two galaxies. Yet, even these vastly separated regions of space have been observed to be extremely homogeneous—they have remarkably similar features and properties despite being so far away from each other. The question, therefore, is what caused this apparent homogeneity observed in the universe. If matter rapidly expanded outward, why does the universe have such a uniform appearance in every direction? If the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation for this horizon problem is needed.

Scientist 1

In the current state of the universe there exist regions that lie beyond the cosmological horizons of others, and therefore cannot possibly be influenced by them. This was not always the case. At a point in time mere microseconds after the Big Bang, all of the matter in the universe experienced a period of exponential expansion, known as inflation, before the rate of expansion fell to a more stable level. This inflation led to all regions of the universe having homogeneous features, even though they are not capable of affecting one another in any way in their current state.

Scientist 2

Although there is ample evidence that a Big Bang occurred, the horizon problem, as well as the flatness problem, suggest that the Big Bang is not the full story of the inception of the universe. The horizon problem can be solved if, instead of viewing the Big Bang as the "beginning of everything," we stipulate that the expansion seen after the Big Bang was already occurring for some time before the Big Bang occurred. This marks the Big Bang as a sort of "causal horizon," which disallows us from directly observing evidence from any period beforehand. If we assume the universe is cyclic, the homogeneity of the universe is explained as the result of a continuous cycle of expansion and compression, which would naturally lead to a universe having uniform features.

Which of the following, if true, would undermine both scientists' positions?

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.

If research concluded that the Moon's composition was the same as the Earth's composition, which viewpoint would this support?

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 piece of information would help support Scientist 1's point of view?

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 evidence listed below could be used to support the viewpoints of both scientists?

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

Summarize the differences between the scientists' theories.

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

What data would support Scientist 1's theory?

Since the early 1900s, there has been a steady increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature, resulting in a phenomenon called “Global Warming.” While the steady temperature change has been well documented, the cause of global warming remains controversial.

Scientist 1

Scientist 1 believes that “external forcings” are the cause of increased temperature over the past century. “External forcings” can direct the change in temperature over thousands of years. One example of an external force is variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth orbital cycle lasts 26,000 years and causes general trends in warming and cooling.

Scientist 2

Scientist 2 believes that global warming is a man-made phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane. Greenhouse gases have a natural warming effect, however, an increase in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases many enhance that effect. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased 36 percent while the amount of atmospheric methane has increased 148 percent.

Assume that both Scientist 1 and Scientist 2 were correct. How would temperature change over the next 20,000 years?

The origin of the universe has been a highly debated topic among physicists. In the middle of the twentieth century, there were two prevalent models regarding the origin of the universe. The first model, called the Big Bang Theory, suggests that the universe was spontaneously created approximately 14 billion years ago. The second model, called the Steady State Theory, suggests that the universe contains no beginning or end, is always expanding, and contains a constant density.

Initially, the Big Bang Theory was widely disregarded by physicists and astronomers. In fact, the name “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle, a supporter of the Steady State Theory, who used the term in a derogatory manner. The Big Bang Theory suggests that prior to the creation of matter, a physical object that occupies space and possesses mass, the universe was filled homogenously with high-energy density and very high temperature and pressure. The universe was rapidly expanding and cooling resulting in the creation of atoms. The initial atoms that were produced were much lighter than the atoms currently found on earth, the lightest of which are hydrogen, helium, and lithium. After this initial creation of the universe, it continued to expand. The Big Bang Theory is now the prevalent theory for the origin of the universe.

The Steady State Theory suggests that there is no start or end to the universe in time or space, yet the universe is always expanding. Furthermore, the Steady State Theory states that new stars and galaxies replace old stars and galaxies and the overall appearance of the universe does not change over time.

Two sources of evidence are used to support or refute the discussed hypotheses. The first piece of data is the presence of primordial gas clouds, pockets of the universe that contain gases lighter than those found in the current universe. The second piece of evidence is that other galaxies are “red shifted”. The term red-shift indicates that as objects move farther away, the light they emit changes wavelength and appears to be more red.

Which model suggests a greater age of the universe?