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

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?

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?

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.

The red shift of other galaxies supports which theory?

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.

The discovery of primordial gas clouds supports which theory?

Global warming is defined as the slow increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and is caused by pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2). While the gradual increase in temperature cannot be refuted, scientists argue over the cause.

Scientist 1:

Global warming is caused by increases in atmospheric CO2, which is directly created by humans and their consumption of fossil fuels. The natural CO2 released from carbon sinks has a different isotopic ratio from the CO2 released from fossil fuels. Current measurements of the radioactive isotopes of CO2 show that it is from human activity, not from nature. The Earth’s carbon sinks cannot absorb these large amounts of unnatural CO2 emissions. About fifty percent of the CO2 produced by mankind remains in the atmosphere, unable to be absorbed.

Scientist 2:

The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not the cause of it. When the temperature increases, the CO2 in carbon sinks is released. While humans do cause release of CO2, the carbon sinks absorb it. The activity of the carbon sinks increases to allow for higher levels of CO2 absorption. Proponents for human causation of global warming point to the warming and cooling of the stratosphere, however, these temperature fluctuations are caused by changes in the sun’s heat. These proponents also look at the acidity of the ocean as evidence of human causation, however, the rise in ocean acidity is within the normal range of fluctuations over the past ten thousand years.

The main beliefs of each scientist can best be described by which of the following statements?

Global warming is defined as the slow increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and is caused by pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2). While the gradual increase in temperature cannot be refuted, scientists argue over the cause.

Scientist 1:

Global warming is caused by increases in atmospheric CO2, which is directly created by humans and their consumption of fossil fuels. The natural CO2 released from carbon sinks has a different isotopic ratio from the CO2 released from fossil fuels. Current measurements of the radioactive isotopes of CO2 show that it is from human activity, not from nature. The Earth’s carbon sinks cannot absorb these large amounts of unnatural CO2 emissions. About fifty percent of the CO2 produced by mankind remains in the atmosphere, unable to be absorbed.

Scientist 2:

The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not the cause of it. When the temperature increases, the CO2 in carbon sinks is released. While humans do cause release of CO2, the carbon sinks absorb it. The activity of the carbon sinks increases to allow for higher levels of CO2 absorption. Proponents for human causation of global warming point to the warming and cooling of the stratosphere, however, these temperature fluctuations are caused by changes in the sun’s heat. These proponents also look at the acidity of the ocean as evidence of human causation, however, the rise in ocean acidity is within the normal range of fluctuations over the past ten thousand years.

Upon what part of the global warming discussion do both Scientist 1 and Scientist 2 agree?

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.

It can be inferred from Scientist 2's statement that the flatness problem __________.

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.

From the context of the passage, "light year" most nearly means __________.

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?

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?