In the one of the pictures provided by the NASA which stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration who were also the ones that assigned the mission Apollo 11, no stars could be seen. But with common sense, one should see brighter stars when you are in outer space right? The authors explains that the conspiracy theorists are wrong.
With all this change people are constantly questioning certain things about the moon and its origins. Why does the moon seem to change in size at times? Or how is that even possible for the moon to change in size from where we are standing here on earth. When creating my own personal hypothesis the question of why does the
b. Not all planets rotate in the same direction. c. Revolution, not rotation, causes Earth’s days and nights. d. none of the above 15. Which of the following planets is NOT a gas giant?
There was a confusion and big argument about Pluto’s classification. It has been named the 9th planet for over 75 years. But in 2006, people started to decide on a ‘new definition of planet’, which did not include Pluto. It is now classified a dwarf planet. Pluto’s orbit is very different, because it orbits the opposite direction that the other planets do.
Cladius used the term epicycle to help describe retrograde motion. His model was called epicycle on deferent. In his explanation, the earth is stationary and the planets, moon, and sun rotate and orbit around it. So the line of sight makes it seems as though the planet has stopped and reversed. An astronomer names Nicolaus Copernicus the proved Cladius’ theory incorrect.
We are certain that the Earth is roughly spherical. First, it is apparent during a lunar eclipse that the shadow cast on the moon is curved. Second, one can fly around the earth in a straight line in any direction and end up in the same place. Finally, we have some nifty photographs from both astronauts and satellites. 1 1 Answer: Independent support 3 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 3 2
The generic term has been used by astronomers over the past century for a possible or suspected object. Once the object is found, it is given a real name, as was done with Pluto and Eris, both of which were once referred to as Planet X. If a new object turns out to be not real, or not a planet, then you won't hear about it again. If it is real, it is no longer called Planet X.” This proves that the supposed dangers of Planet X, Nibiru, or other such astronomical object being in the path of Earth’s orbit as well as any claims of governments knowledge of the existence of any such earthbound objects by conspiracy theorists (e.g. Nancy Lieder’s claims (www.ZetaTalk.com)) are based on nonsense and public misconception about a commonly used astronomical phrase.
Meteorites likely traveled in space for millions of years before visiting us here on Earth. They were bathed in cosmic rays, but are not dangerous or radioactive. If your rock looks just like other Earth rocks, it probably is one. Meteorites look and feel different from the ordinary rocks around them. Recently fallen
Ole Roemer, Cassini’s assistant, used Cassini’s data and additional observations of his own to determine the relationship between the earth’s distance from Jupiter and the timing of Io’s occultations. He used his estimate of the time light took to traverse earth’s orbit (22 minutes) to predict the delay in Io’s 1676 eclipse to be approximately 10 minutes. (Roemer did not know the diameter of the earth’s orbit, so he never actually made a prediction of the speed of light.) Roemer presented his results to the French Academy of Sciences,
Scientific reasoning is the process, which provides evidence for scientific theory. Induction is common throughout scientific reasoning since scientists’ use inductive reasoning whenever a limited data is used to form more general conclusions (Okasha, 2002). Induction is used to decide whether claims about the world are justified. Inductive reasoning is prevalent throughout science since it is common to have a sample size that does not include all of the possible test subjects needed for the study. This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect.