The nebular hypothesis is supported by several key pieces of evidence, including the observation of protoplanetary disks around young stars, which indicate the presence of gas and dust from which planets can form. Additionally, the consistent composition of planets within our solar system aligns with the hypothesis, as they exhibit a gradient in materials based on their distance from the Sun. Furthermore, computer simulations of solar system formation tend to replicate the observed structures and dynamics of planetary orbits, lending credibility to the idea that a rotating cloud of gas and dust could evolve into a solar system.
It is difficult to prove the nebular hypothesis because the formation of solar systems happens over billions of years, making direct observation of the process challenging. Additionally, there is the lack of direct evidence from other forming solar systems to compare with our own. The hypothesis relies on simulations, models, and indirect observations to support its validity.
No, nobody uses the term "solar galactic hypothesis". You may be referring to a "solar nebula", in which a cloud of gas and dust collapses under its internal gravity to form a star and perhaps some planets.
The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems). It suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material.
The nebular hypothesis was proposed by Immanuel Kant and later developed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It suggests that the Solar System originated from a rotating cloud of gas and dust, known as the solar nebula.
The events that make up the nebular hypothesis include the collapse of a nebula of gas and dust due to gravity, the formation of a protostar at the center, the spinning of the protostar into a disk, and the accretion of material in the disk to form planets and other celestial bodies.
The evidence from a data table supports a hypotheis is i dont know.
The circumstantial evidence that supports that hypothesis that high fructose corn syrup is harmful to humans is the fact that obesity is so high. The instances of diabetes is another piece of circumstantial evidence that supports this.
they had hip bones
If you have studied hard in life science you should know this but the real answer is that yes the nebular hypothesis was made by helium and hydrogen..
There is evidence that the Nebular hypothesis was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.Immanuel Kant, who was familiar with Swedenborg's work, developed the theory further in 1755. A similar model was proposed in 1796 by Pierre-Simon Laplace.
Theory of evolution
All of the continents fit together like a puzzle.
The hypothesis is supported by data from previous research studies, observational data, and controlled experiments. This data may include statistical analyses, graphs, tables, findings from literature reviews, and expert opinions. Additionally, the hypothesis may be supported by correlations, significant p-values, and reproducible results from multiple studies.
Evidence tests a hypothesis by providing data that either supports or refutes it. This process involves collecting observations or experimental results that are relevant to the hypothesis. If the evidence consistently aligns with the predictions made by the hypothesis, it strengthens its validity; if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, it may lead to its rejection or revision. Ultimately, rigorous testing and evaluation of evidence are essential for establishing scientific credibility.
evidence that supports it.
Major rivers on different continents match
The Nebular Hypothesis.