How do scientists believe the solar system formed?

Our solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a dense cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The cloud collapsed, possibly due to the shockwave of a nearby exploding star, called a supernova. When this dust cloud collapsed, it formed a solar nebula—a spinning, swirling disk of material.

Explanation:

Explanation:

Approximately 4.5 billion years ago, gravity pulled a cloud of dust and gas together to form our solar system. While scientists aren't certain of the exact nature of the process, observations of young stellar systems combined with computer simulations have allowed them to develop three models of what could have happened so many years ago.       Birth of the sun                                            A massive concentration of interstellar gas and dust created a molecular cloud that would form the sun's birthplace. Cold temperatures caused the gas to clump together, growing steadily denser. The densest parts of the cloud began to collapse under its own gravity, forming a wealth of young stellar objects known as protostars. Gravity continued to collapse the material onto the infant object, creating a star and a disk of material from which the planets would form. When fusion kicked in, the star began to blast a stellar wind that helped clear out the debris and stopped it from falling inward.  Although gas and dust shroud young stars in visible wavelengths, infrared telescopes have probed many of the Milky Way Galaxy's clouds to reveal the natal environment of other stars. Scientists have applied what they've seen in other systems to our own star.  After the sun formed, a massive disk of material surrounded it for around 100 million years. That may sound like more than enough time for the planets to form, but in astronomical terms, it's an eye blink. As the newborn sun heated the disk, gas evaporated quickly, giving the newborn planets and moons only a short amount of time to scoop it up.

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

this null effect is caused by a weak manipulation and ineffective internal validity. in a scientific study, as the one dr. morimoto is trying to perfom, internal validity refers to the confidence placed in the cause-effect relationship and to how well an experiment is done and able to eliminate confounding variables.