My name is Mavis D. Alcala and I am a professional writer. Our investigation of the Moon and the over 840 lbs of lunar rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts revealed several interesting facts about how the Moon and the rest of the planets of the Solar System formed. An important result revealed by all of those samples was that there are five stages of planetary evolution. Briefly describe each of the five stages, being sure to include the age or duration of each stage for the Moon. Now, pretend that we never landed on the Moon and instead we landed on Venus and returned rock samples from Venus to the Earth to be analyzed in a similar fashion. Explain your answer using specific details and/or references to the various stages of evolution. You learned that up until about 30 years ago, the origin of our Moon was hotly debated.
The planets and the moon in the dark sky on the other hand appear to have multiple trajectories depending on the time of year, etc. The Assyrians’ kingdom however was dismantled by a combined effort of the Babylonians and their allies in the late 7th century BC. No more omens are exclusively sought after in the night skies, but scientific observations and mapping efforts of the night sky and its objects is beginning to be realised. The ancient Greeks made a great contribution to the scientific community, from agriculture to astronomy. The ancient Greeks have great curiosity and have developed many of the ideas we use today for science, mathematics, astronomy essays and medicine today. Many cultures have innovative scientific development and scientific and ideological traditions, but Greek science endured the storm of time due to its solid foundation in mathematics, measurement, astronomy and medicine.
This debate was eventually addressed in a conference where the participants narrowed down the possible formation scenarios to just four, and by the end of the conference, had zeroed in on just one theory for the Moon’s formation. List the four original theories proposed for the formation of the Moon and highlight the one theory that eventually prevailed. Choose one of the three theories that failed and describe the reasons for its failure – in other words discuss the constraints that it failed to address.
For example, he gives a very good explanation of why natural philosophers were initially so opposed to the Copernican theory. He shows that these philosophers were fully justified in rejecting heliocentrism at that point in history because it directly contradicted the accepted physics of the time. None of these errors is particularly damning for Smith’s true philosophical enterprise.
Less forgivable is Smith’s misleading account of the Tychonic system, in which he claims that it was more complicated than the Copernican system (it wasn’t), and that it was not widely embraced . When philosophy of science emerged as its own special discipline in the early twentieth century, its primary concern was to provide objective justification for belief in scientific theories . Instead, he focuses on why new scientific theories are proposed and why we choose one theory over another. Rather than focus on the truth of the theories themselves, Smith focuses on the human desires that those theories fulfill.
|Books I Love||
In fact, very few astronomers really believed in the reality of Copernicus’s theory when it was first introduced, and we can use Smith’s philosophy of science to understand why. There were no new and surprising phenomena that the Ptolemaic theory failed to account for but which Copernicus could explain. Smith correctly notes that the Copernican theory was only slightly more accurate than the Ptolemaic, and even that advantage stemmed from Copernicus’s new observations rather than from advantages inherent in his new theory. The Ptolemaic theory could have been updated with the new observations, and it would have been just as good as the Copernican theory. Smith implies that the Ptolemaic theory had gotten too complicated, but in fact it was no more complicated than the Copernican theory.
Although the elliptical astronomy of Kepler was, in hindsight, a great step forward, Smith is careful to point out that Copernicus himself would not have approved of Kepler’s new astronomy. Moreover, Smith correctly states that Kepler’s new astronomy was too abstract to be easily pictured in the mind. Thus it was not until Giovanni Domenico Cassini’s observations of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which showed that these moons followed the same laws that Kepler had proposed for the planets, that Kepler’s new astronomy was fully embraced. Smith also correctly notes that it was Descarte’s system of natural philosophy that really won widespread acceptance for Copernicus’s heliocentric idea, even though the Cartesian system was unsatisfying for astronomers because it could not reproduce Kepler’s laws. What the Cartesian system did was to provide a mental picture of the invisible linkages that could cause the planets to orbit the Sun. That mental picture was able to transform wonder into admiration more readily than Kepler’s abstract mathematical astronomy.
Adrian Cho authors this second in the series and highlights the fact that dark matter is merely a term for describing whatever it is that holds everything in the universe together. He argues that unlike dark energy, scientists stand a reasonably good chance of one day actually detecting a particle of the stuff, which would of course prove that it really does exist. Receive news, sky-event information, observing tips, and more from Astronomy’s weekly email newsletter. The editors of Astronomy magazine have selected 13-year-old Julia Derzay of Pewaukee, Wisconsin, as the winner of Astronomy’s 2015 Youth Essay Contest.
|My Other Website|
|My Other Other Website|