2.1 

One time I changed my Mind on something important I was in Spanish and then I switched to plant science because I didn't understand it. 

I think scientists change their minds because they find out additional information that they didn't see or recognize before. I think they change their minds in general is the proof there or fact. Example petolymny said that earth was at the center of the universe and he was wrong Copernicus said that the sun was in the center of our solar system.

2.2 

1.  I can see stars, the moon, near galaxy's, northern lights, nebulas. No I don't think it looks like earth is at the center of the universe. 

2.Earth moves faster than mars so when we pass 

Mars It loos like mars is going faster but earth is passing it.

3. It helps us with the view of the universe because it was said that other planets orbited us and it helped us understand with the sun about how we orbited it.  I think this Is correct and it is logical.  Yes it makes perfect sense to me.  At the time there was not another logical answer for the time period.

4. He changed his mind because he reviewed more about the theory he discovered  that earth isnt at the center of the universe but more that the sun is in the middle of the solar system he discovered that earth is 3 in our solar system for rotations around the sun. He supported his claims through scientific proof and evidence, also through facts.  He used logic because he thought it wasn't right by thinking about it, he then used evidence to prove his logic.

Galileo didn't agree with pternomys theory on how the earth was at the center of our universe Nd he knew that earth was a rotating planet. Galileo tested his claim through his invention he telescope proving his theory and expanding off of copernicus's theory.  Not only did he accept it he literally built his claim off of it. He also used intuition, logic and evidence. 

2.3 

It extended my conjectures by explaining an evolution of theory's and building off one another with scientific evidence and facts.  I think he changed his mind from excessive work and studying in the astronomy field. His extensive research  and time and evidence is my evidence. 

Galileo was a good astronomer. I think he changed his mind because Copernicus had evidence present and Ptolemy didn't have enough evidence present. My evidence is that he didn't agree with ptolemnys theory and he  liked copenicus's  theroy.  

2.4

Copernicus rejected Ptolemy because he didn't agree with his theory.  He also did more research than Ptolemy.  It doesn't make sense for the epicycles. Earth Isn't a big enough planet for other planets to orbit.  He was using logic when he supported his claims. Like how. Expand on his ideas

Galileo rejected it because he agreed with Copernicus and his threoy. He Explained the retro grade motion of the planets by gravitational pull. He explained the claims of copernicus by reading them and basing his own idea on them. This is correct and very logical.  He based his claims on evidence.  What evidence. Expand on his ideas

Scientist can Change their minds on various things. In the case of Ptolemy he didn't have enough evidence. Copernicus comes along completely disowns ptolemy and his theory  and brought a completely different look to the table. They completely  forget about the first theory move on to the next until they prove the next wrong then they could go back. 

Copernicus took the idea of the earth being at the center of our universe and tossed it in the trash can. Galileo took Copernicus his idea and made it his own. That was better than the original.  It is good that Copernicus changed his mind. Otherwise we might still thing that earth was at the center of our universe. 

2.5 I learned that I am on the very small scale I learned compared to the earth I am on the unseeable level even compared to Webster. It's I'm like an ant and almost not even a nano pixel on the universe level. Yes it opened my yes to realize how small i am. Yes how big the universe is. Yes the smaller they were the more detailed.

2.4 the main idea beyond this picture is to show different scales. This helps me think about different scales just how they are arranged starts out at the bottom most detailed working up higher to get to the top as the biggest area that is the least detailed. It helps me think of scales and powers of ten and reading   Braudel is that they increase slightly and they all have different levels of organization in each scale.

The graph starts out vivid but detailed then it goes up to get more expanding and less detailed. Yes the last sentence I just did makes me think of scales because of the the vast categories and how it is organized. Yes i have the Japan bomb dropping in ww2 the area of explosion we looked at direct impact and going further out. You can look at direct and look at what would happen 1 mile away and further distances. No I didn't expire nice any difficulties. 

Part 2.1 What David is trying to get acrossed is that when you look at things at different scales you then you get different answers for each scale. For example the picnic level or normal level is different the 1000 light years away. And how a single carbon atom mis diffrent from that compared to 100000 light years.

The main ideas is that diffrent scales you view the more vast and detailed they are. So if you look at the earth you get a bigger idea and less details also vice versa. 

I had the same ideas from the powers of ten essay and the scales essay.

It extends my learning on how I can view diffrent things on diffrent scales in both the past and the present do know diffrent areas of importance of diffrent things

2.2 he uses scales in his two essays but he is focoused more on the surface  or the vast things not really teenie tiny details like the powers of ten does. 

I think he does agree with David in some ways more than other David is more dead set on accuracy I think where fernand is more set on the surface like the picnic level almost not going down to the nano or microscopic level just normal. 

I think they do support each other views but their thought processes vary because no one thinks Alike fernand didn't want to go as in depth as David did

He would have stopped at 2 because he didn't want to go too small of detail but not in great depth either

Part 2: the advantages of looking same object from different distances can be good. These are good because up close you can notice some things you may have never seen before. Theses are also good because these can help your recognizes how small or big something is. A good example of what I said in sentence three would be the earth compared to our sun is gigantic and our sun compared to VY Canis Majoris our sun is literally one pixel. From. A shorter distance you can see more clearly than you would at a farther distance like on those green highway signs the farther you are away from them the harder they are to read when you get closer you can see them perfectly.

Part 1:  We study history on many different scales to understand history and know the precise details. We study the universe to get a better Idea of how we began 13.7 billion years ago. We study ur DNA to show how we evolved from the most primitive creatures to who we are today. What I noticed in our raisin picture of how small the earth us compared to our sun. And where the sun was it was hard to see it from the end of the hall where the raisin and baseball were.

Story url http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2483623760748983937#editor/target=post;postID=7645512065380094901;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=1;src=postname

Bhp response number 2

Origin storys help us to better understand where we came from
I think it really depends on opinion like some people believe that the big bang created the earth and some believe god created the world some people might have more belief of science creating the eArth and some may have more belief that god created it

I think the big bang is the most important. I think this because when this event happened it created stars. When the stars enveloped billions of years later. We evolved into life. But without the big bang we would be nothing. Without nothing we would be just white no galaxy's just white.