Go to ground.news/chem for an objective, data-driven way to read the news. Subscribe through my link to save 40% off unlimited access!
@Alfred-Neuman2 ай бұрын
bro you talk like we are all supposed to know what is oxegen and you dont even explein correctly like come on bro do you think we are all nurds? lol like serious bro you should at least add some clips of fortnite or roblox while you talk to makes it inturesting.
@keyrock1772 ай бұрын
@@Alfred-Neuman This might be the dumbest comment I've ever read...
@Alfred-Neuman2 ай бұрын
@@keyrock177 Thanks! :D
@ArcticNemo2 ай бұрын
Their original logo was related to the electrical symbol for a common reference. I find this a much more positive image than the second logo being drawn to reflect a different meaning, worn down or cut to fine pieces. ...of course, this was accompanied by less utility and closer paywalls 😢
@evan52372 ай бұрын
It's always amazing to see how intelligent the scientists and philosophers of the past really were. Purely through logic and observation they created new knowledge that was remarkably close to the actual phenomenon, all without the tools and context we take for granted today. Simply incredible work.
@scottydu812 ай бұрын
Our ancestors were not morons! They were just working with far less information
@tippyc22 ай бұрын
>Purely through logic and observation they created new knowledge that was remarkably close to the actual phenomenon In a way, science has come full circle back to this. Thats basically what quantum mechanics is. Theorists have been creating and refining quantum theory for around a century, but only relatively recently have we built the kind of experiments like CERN that can actually test the theories. And it turns out they were pretty close.
@nuru6662 ай бұрын
@@tippyc2 Who'd have thought all that time in school would end up paying off... Oh, wait! ;)
@adamk.71772 ай бұрын
Bro, they inhaled mercury gas. Sometimes they were intelligent, sometimes they were... too experimental.
@tippyc22 ай бұрын
@@adamk.7177 And they stood around in rooms with fatally radioactive material. Whats your point?
@ewantaylor27582 ай бұрын
Phlogiston theory always makes me wonder which of our current scientific models is totally wrong, but explains things well enough that we still haven't caught it.
@jacquiecotillard96992 ай бұрын
I feel the same way- that we aren’t missing some inexplicably huge gap in our understanding, but rather our overlapping systems obscure trends that oppose each other. Not to start a whole thing, but the most promising intersectional vector may be theory of mind and body. Scientific materialism’s denial of embodied attention counters the indefinable esoterica of systems like nei gong or qi gong to a standstill, both invalidating each other perfectly. Our limited mastery over the body by science is undeniable, but at no way seeks to enclose that knowledge for immediate use by the embodied. Without these technologies bettering each other collaboratively or even competitively, we are missing out on unimaginable lines of experimentation, for what seems like a simple lack of proper methodology.
@Gary-o9t2 ай бұрын
All of them are. We cant model anything to the precision of a femto-decimal. So in principle all our models are "wrong" but some are useful for our purposes. Engineers rise up! Praise be to the power of assumptions!
@jacquiecotillard96992 ай бұрын
@@Gary-o9t have you seen the recent atto-microscopy developments? We’re getting somewhere, can’t say if that somewhere is “closer” to anything
@mox39092 ай бұрын
@@Gary-o9t The Axiom is Dead! Long Live the Axiom!
@brain_snakes2 ай бұрын
My money is on gravity being the primary force that holds together galaxies and solar systems.
@jmchez2 ай бұрын
The main proponent of executing Lavoisier was the revolutionary leader and newspaper publisher, Jean-Paul Marat. Marat had gone to visit Lavoisier to push some sort of pseudo-scientific idea. Lavoisier was offended and rudely kicked him out of the house. Marat was, in turn, humiliated and vowed to get revenge. It's interesting that the best known painting of Lavoisier is the one of him and his wife, painted by Jacques-Louis David. Ironically, David made an even more famous painting, "The Death of Marat".
@ZaniahiononzenbeiАй бұрын
Interesting to think that the "Alex Jones" of his time is the reason for his death.
@plebbers879926 күн бұрын
Marat was the guy in the bathtub, correct?
@jmchez26 күн бұрын
@@plebbers8799 Yes.
@Tinil02 ай бұрын
"For it could not remain united if its property were to repel and not to attract" Well, it's a good thing Ramsay died in '16, a year before the proton was discovered. He would be very angry that protons stick together!
@tyruskarmesin54182 ай бұрын
Well, their property is to attract. They repel electromagneticly, but the strong force attracts them.
@tylisirn2 ай бұрын
And how protons do that would be another mystery for the next 50+ years! It was finally solved by theory of quantum chromodynamics developed over 1960s, early 70s and empirically verified in late 70s, early 80s.
@fellinuxvi3541Ай бұрын
@@tyruskarmesin5418 That's the point, you could theoretically conceive such an explanation to bind phlogiston with earth.
@aniksamiurrahman6365Ай бұрын
@@fellinuxvi3541 What differentiates Phlogiston from proton is that, for proton, those properties were put to test as soon as it became technologically possible. The flaw in Phlogiston hypothesis is that, people back then didn't feel the need to experimentally verify so rigorously.
@fellinuxvi3541Ай бұрын
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 That's not a problem with the theory itself though. Precisely the problem I have is that these guys are trying to disprove phlogiston a priori or by first principle, when experimentation is the only way and you can't just deduce from the get-go that phlogiston has to be false.
@acenutella11962 ай бұрын
historical chemistry is so interesting
@LendriMujina2 ай бұрын
If coal is almost pure phlogiston, and phlogiston has levity instead of gravity, therefore coal should fly around. You can really tell they were grasping at straws with that explanation, even without taking into account modern knowledge.
@alexrogers777Ай бұрын
yeah the claim that phlogiston had negative mass was pretty obviously just a post hoc rationalization they pulled out of their ass when confronted with the observation that metals *gain* mass when burned
@BoleDaPole27 күн бұрын
Coal is almost pure phlogeston yes, but the parts that aren't weigh it down drastically.
@Mnemoniforma9.00Ай бұрын
1:23 Worth noting that on the opposite side of Eurasia, alchemists had the Wu Xing, a completely different system of five elements in two complementary phases that interacted in cycles of suppression and generation.
@pergutoАй бұрын
It's interesting to see how phlogiston theory works surprisingly well as you can roughly equate it with "negative oxygen" or low oxidation states, allowing most statements of oxygen theory to be translated to phlogiston theory and vice versa, e.g. "absorbing phlogiston"="emitting oxygen/getting reduced", "oxygen has positive mass"="phlogiston has negative mass" etc.. Kinda reminds me of how, in electrical engineering, it rarely matters whether current truly flows from + to - or - to +, or of how positrons can be described as holes in the Dirac sea of negative energy electron states
@Plan-xb1hs2 ай бұрын
Phlogiston truthers gonna be mad when they hear this
@aniksamiurrahman6365Ай бұрын
I'm waiting for the revival of Phlogiston theory and to hear how Oxygen is an evil conspiracy of the deep state. I'm hearing this kind of thing not only for flat earth, but luminiferous aether as well.
@alexrogers777Ай бұрын
Reject oxygen Retvrn to phlogiston
@dominictarrsailing2 ай бұрын
being able to restore the calx by heating with pure phlogiston must have seemed very compelling. I guess the oxygen moves over from the metal oxide to the carbon The phlogiston antigravity bit made me imagine the lifting power of a phlogiston blimp! probably MUCH more dangerous than just hydrogen. However, if phlogiston is negative mass but coal, which is (almost?) pure phlogiston, is curiously heavy. Thanks for the great video. It's really interesting to learn about the thought process people went through to produce modern science. For me personally, knowing about the history helps me to actually understand that science, a lot more than just learning about what we know now.
@ewantaylor27582 ай бұрын
The weight of coal was my first thought, too. Even if the other elements gave it some weight, surely it must have been suspicious that the stuff which had the purest amount of negative-weight matter was not wieghtless or at least incredibly light? Goes to show the willingness to overlook a detail in order to make a theory fit neatly.
@MP-te3bt2 ай бұрын
Your clear voice and graphics make all of your videos so easy and interesting to watch. How amazing that you have all of those historical books?! To have all of that evidence and information in your hands must be an incredible feeling. Thanks for another great video and all of the hard work you must put in to it. Looking forward, as always, to the next one!
@BradleyCathcart2 ай бұрын
I'm totally on board with this historical-focused approach to science education
@an_asp2 ай бұрын
That was excellent, and I loved the inclusion of so many contemporary sources. I love seeing the reasoning of people from the past, many of whom were quite smart but were missing essential information. Not to mention, for every "phlogiston", you can also find examples of people making surprisingly correct conclusions much earlier in history than one would expect, just from clever reasoning about their observations. It really gives you a window into how a lot of the knowledge we take for granted was learned.
@HappyGingerWolfАй бұрын
I love that priestly decided to inhale this new mystery fire mercury gas basically as soon as he discovered it
@KallePihlajasaariАй бұрын
After the mouse trials though. He had probably sniffed acid and ammonia fumes in the past and wanted a bit of insurance it was not lethal.
@DanteGabriel-lx9bq2 ай бұрын
It's always amazing to study the history of chemistry science. It's just beautiful, in my opinion.
@elchamyto642 ай бұрын
Awesome video! I read a book some months ago about chemistry history where phlogiston and other associations of many elements yet unknown to the time appeared, you should talk more about them and how they were debunked. Understanding how the great minds of those times managed to do it is always interesting to see! :)
@trevorhaddox68842 ай бұрын
Old science books are awesome. It's cool to find sometimes lost or little known bits of science history, or to see old fashioned terms used in original contexts. For example, the ether theory of electromagnetism was still common even in the start of the broadcast radio era in the early 1920s, well after the discovery of electrons and the start of quantum physics.
@craiglee32532 ай бұрын
the "4 elements" view was on the correct track. The three phases (solid, liquid, gaseous) and the energy released or required in the phase changes.
@luipaardprint2 ай бұрын
Actually plasma is considered a phase nowadays. 🤓
@stephenhawking9781Ай бұрын
There are many phases, go learn some thermodynamics
@ninjirealАй бұрын
Craig is right, nerds are on a 5th phase called copium
@ArkadiBolschek2 ай бұрын
23:43 Wait, is that why oxygen is called _Sauerstoff_ in German??
@Luke-cv7bg2 ай бұрын
French and English create new words from Latin and Greek roots. German (sometimes) just compounds Hydro = water (Greek) Hydrogen = water maker Wasserstoff Tele = far (Greek) Vision = seeing (Latin) Fehrnsehe Etc etc. (et cetera Latin and the others) und so weiter
@herosstratos2 ай бұрын
23:58 Oxygen was assumed to be the basic component for the formation of acids. 24:18 Therefore, in 1779, Lavoisier proposed the term oxygenium ("acid former") for oxygen. Therefore German: "Sauer" (acidic) + "stoff" (substance).
@Seele2015au2 ай бұрын
@@Luke-cv7bg Oxygen is called "sanso": "acid-element" in Japanese. By the way, hydrogen in Japanese is "suiso": "water-element".
@ArkadiBolschek2 ай бұрын
@@Luke-cv7bg Yeah, I knew German scientists traditionally prefer not to use Latin or Greek roots. But I always wondered what their rationale was for calling Oxygen "Sour stuff".
@stefanjohansson12342 ай бұрын
Aha, and in Swedish oxygen is named Syrgas or Syre, "acidifier" maybe since acid is named Syra.
@evanhodgson414112 күн бұрын
First video of yours! I really enjoyed the content. The historical science text is so fascinating along with the amazing stories that go with them. You did a great job
@douro202 ай бұрын
Apparently Priestley defended phlogiston theory to his death.
@scottydu812 ай бұрын
Lysenko defended his bullshit too
@grimwaltzman2 ай бұрын
It takes some strong convictions to believe in things that were proven wrong time and time again. You won't make it as a pseudoscientist if you are not determined till the end.
@is98932 ай бұрын
I always get so excited when I see you’ve posted a new video! This one didn’t disappoint :)
@renegade1520Ай бұрын
Great video! Thanks for covering this topic.
@benmcreynolds85812 ай бұрын
A concept that used to exist in the past, that always resonated with me, is Ether. The concept of The Ether and that the universe consists of an Ether is just a cool concept that i feel could be expanded upon & adapted in creative ways. Giving us ways to explain what make up the different regions of so called emptiness throughout our universe
@Arbyjar2 ай бұрын
I agree, but I actually like the experiment disproving it as a medium for light even more. There’s no reason to say that ether can’t exist, but not in the way it has been described historically. On a more physics-esque note, ether could be the new name for the fabric of space-time, or maybe the Higgs field?
@benmcreynolds85812 ай бұрын
@Arbyjar Exactly! You get it! It's refreshing to read your reply. That's exactly how I've liked to ponder about this. Taking the classic concept & converting it into a new accurate realm instead of all that previous inaccurate alchemist type stuff. This is just a fun thought experiment but I feel like it'd be possible to create multiple types of accurate categories of Ether.. I know that's a loose way to describe it.. but here's some vague examples: There's the category you already mentioned, then there could be separate layers of Ether. Like a way of describing different regions with different particle densities. Maybe even to describe different atmospheric contents. All I'm trying to say is there is different amounts of particle densities throughout space. Even in the so called vacuum of space. We recently learned there is a "bubble" around our Sun, around our solar system consisting of solar wind, charged particles in the Heliosphere. Just imagine what we have yet to discover around galactic clusters, nebulas, etc. etc. I just think there's depth to this niche and ways to utilize an old inaccurate term and turn it into a new accurate useful term
@cipaisone2 ай бұрын
Fairytale believers
@Arbyjar2 ай бұрын
@@cipaisone ? What
@scottydu812 ай бұрын
I keep coming back to the idea that the ether and the higgs field are kinda similar
@BoomRoomFiveАй бұрын
Awesome video, you have a new sub :) It really puts our held beliefs about our world in perspective. I'm sure we have many phlogistones!
@phpART2 ай бұрын
Great video. One of my favorite channels on KZbin!
@RafaCB09872 ай бұрын
It is really fascinating to see how much things that we take for granted today have come to be
@pingnick2 ай бұрын
Wow has a feel similar to Kathy Loves Physics and History Channel-thanks!🎬🚀
@MySerpentine2 ай бұрын
I guessed that they were going to think of antigravity before you said it.
@charlesmanning34542 ай бұрын
Thank you for such a detailed history of ideas!!!
@Т1000-м1и2 ай бұрын
"This sounds like lame sci-fi" type old science is always somewhat entertaining
@10xGeneration2 ай бұрын
Ridiculously amazing video. Please never stop!
@amadeosendiulo2137Ай бұрын
I didn't even know about Michał Sędziwój!
@AsmodeusMictian2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the awesome video!!
@lwaldron97452 ай бұрын
Dark energy and dark matter are the phlogiston of today.
@silentdrew76362 ай бұрын
I was going to say String Theory but that works too
@xostler2 ай бұрын
My money is on quantum gravity but idk if I’ll make it 300 years to collect
@tristanridley16012 ай бұрын
Absolutely! They keep finding conflicting data.
@terrestrialTerror2 ай бұрын
Dark matter isn't a theory, it's a series of observations. There are theories of dark matter but dark matter itself is not a theory.
@lunatickoala2 ай бұрын
@@terrestrialTerror The name "dark matter" is misleading because the observations are gravitational anomalies. They could be the result of particle dark matter, they could be the result of needing to modify our understanding of gravity, and there's also the nightmare scenario in which both are true. But the name implies that it's particle dark matter and theories like Lambda-CDM have "dark matter" in the name. One suggestion I've heard is that the series of observations be called "Dark Gravity" to clearly differentiate the observations from the theories. To someone who isn't well aware of the distinction, it sounds absurd for someone to first claim that "dark matter" (the observations) has been seen over and over and is irrefutable while "dark matter" (any of the particle theories) is unproven. And undoubtedly some people who are aware of the distinction still think it's a lousy if not absurd name.
@tyrone1498Ай бұрын
So glad I was at work and had the random thought of learning the history of chemistry
@jeffallen33822 ай бұрын
How were you able to pronounce all those names? Wow!
@Kadranos5 күн бұрын
When I learned the story of phlogiston in highschool chem (alongside some other examples), it led me to conclude that scientific knowledge itself must periodically be dephlogisticated to purge itself of rigid and failing orthodoxy adhered to through mere consensus. Something scientists forget at the peril of many.
@TOBAPNW_24 күн бұрын
9:35 phlogiston needn't have had anti-gravity properties, it would merely have to be lighter than air. I suppose the result is the same, but the mechanism is different.
@thequeenofswords7230Ай бұрын
Fire-air! Oh my God, watching Chemistry develop out of Alchemy is so adorable.
@cipaisone2 ай бұрын
Excellent video. If you haven’t done yet, I would like a video about vitalism, and how it was disproved ( despite to this day many people still believe in it, or in more sophisticated fairytales)
@statickaeder29Ай бұрын
How wonderful, to find such an old book!
@deathracoffeeАй бұрын
I love this, you are doing such a great job delivering these stories! Have you read Sam Kean's Disappearing Spoon? Similar stories to your content
@fariesz67862 ай бұрын
my compliments for the pronunciation of the German names. small advice: a ‹v› in German is, for all intents and purposes, always pronounced like an ‹f› so the word «von» should sound like "fonn"
@Chemistorian2 ай бұрын
Thanks for pointing this out, I’ll try and remember that for next time!
@tedwalford7615Ай бұрын
I think aether was prematurely rejected. We know that light travels at different speeds in different media. Therefore a medium can slow light. We've long known the speed of light in "empty" space, but we now know that space is not empty. Might light speed be instantaneous were it not for some limiting substance or energy in so-called empty space? Might the just-discovered Higgs Field, or something else not quite yet discovered, be that aether that was once conjectured? Otherwise, why should there be any limit on the rate of propagation of electromagnetic waves?
@smileyp45352 ай бұрын
13:02 why is it in the books all the "S"s in words are replaced with "f"s? (Except at the end) "almoft", "comfuftability", "refins", "fufibility", "fuppofes", etc (they obviously had the letter 's' since they use it at the end and at the beginning of the name "Stahl" so what gives?
@landrypierce9942Ай бұрын
They aren’t ‘f’ they’re long ‘s,’ written ‘ſ.’ We don’t use that letter today, but the point is it’s the standard ‘s’ sound but longer.
@smileyp4535Ай бұрын
@@landrypierce9942 oh but wouldn't a "long s" always sound like "ess" like in "suc-cess"
@irasponsiblyАй бұрын
@@smileyp4535it was just a style thing, and putting long s at the end of the word didn't look as good, so it wasn't done.
@niikasdАй бұрын
@@smileyp4535 no it's just an s, it was used to save space. Long refers to it's shape.
@smileyp4535Ай бұрын
@@niikasd hmm I wonder why it went out of style
@ptonpc2 ай бұрын
What always gets me is how *close* some of those ideas were to what we understand of reality now. They were not correct but you can see *why* they thought.
@luipaardprint2 ай бұрын
Just consider this comment 300 years in the future about today
@battleoid2411Ай бұрын
@@luipaardprintI'll set an alarm but im not sure I'll wake up to it
@BruhMan-m3r2 ай бұрын
Amazing video!!
@zionent83922 ай бұрын
Imagine living in a time where people didn't even knew what they were breathing.
@gljames242 ай бұрын
Lots of people don't know of all the particulates and pollutions in the air they are breathing.
@giin97Ай бұрын
Considering the number of deaths per year directly attributable to coal power plant emissions and the number of people still defending their existence, I'd say that still describes us pretty well. Shoot, even 15 years ago, a disconcerting percentage of British teens when polled about food sources had no idea that cow's milk was an animal product. Humans on average, even today, are kinda dumb :P
@BoleDaPoleАй бұрын
Yea people was so dumb back then lmao fools didn't even kno they was breathing 😅
@ANIME_AFFINADOАй бұрын
Make a video about History of Madame marie Curie and her discovery of radioactive substance..
@erictaylor5462Ай бұрын
26:00 There is a physical response to a drop in blood pressure inside the head that renders this idea almost certainly untrue. If for some reason blood pressure in your head drops even a little you will lose conciseness instantly. When the head is severed pressure inside the head drops to zero, so while the victim if a decapitation is likely unconscious even before the blade has finished its work. So these stories of victims seemingly being aware of anything after decapitation are either false, or they are autonomic responses.
@SotraEngine4Ай бұрын
In Norwegian the old name for exygen was surstoff -- meaning sour material
@Taskforce1Ай бұрын
damn it's super interesting to think through this evolution of discovery as they woulda thought about it. thinking about the flame as substance bleeding out of the log rather than a chemical reaction. its cool to see the different layers of reality being discovered. wonder what comes after quantum.
@Т1000-м1и2 ай бұрын
I somehow guessed that alchemists tried to invent exotic matter with this one
@Mmouse_2 ай бұрын
Tbf... Lacking the knowledge the air, fire, water and earth theory is a good stab at what's going on.
@Science4Real22 күн бұрын
Just thinking about how scientists back then had to struggle to explain phenomena that seem so obvious to us now, like burning fire, shows such creativity. I wonder if there’s any theory in modern times that's clinging on like phlogiston was
@omnirathАй бұрын
What a well phlogistigated video
@jacksonwilliams89712 ай бұрын
Excellent video, love your research and writing style! Onnnnne lil nitpick: “Aristotelian” is pronounced like “uh-wrist-uh-TEE-lee-in”
@Chemistorian2 ай бұрын
Thanks for pointing this out! That’s the one pronunciation I didn’t think I needed to look up, so of course I managed to get it wrong 😅
@joshuab45862 ай бұрын
I can’t believe that Lavoisier guy invented oxygen and cursed us all
@giin97Ай бұрын
6:00 heh. Wasn't expecting mass. I was expecting the major problem to be that you couldn't heat charcoal and ash to make wood, and slowly heating wood makes charcoal in the first place.
@moonsterdark5255Ай бұрын
Fascinating.
@Napoleonic_S2 ай бұрын
I know this would not fit into this channel but it would be interesting to compare this phlogiston theory with the aether theory... For one both involves "the air".
@seagie382Ай бұрын
I mean solid liquid gas plasma, they were correct
@andyedwards9011Ай бұрын
It’s not surprising at all that people thought phlogiston has negative mass, since in addition to burning things gaining weight, fire (the escaping phlogiston) travels upward. Sure, they couldn’t explain how it’s held together with some substances despite this repulsion, but there are plenty of modern examples of a repulsive force being overcome by a stronger attractive force
@kujojotarostandoceanman2641Ай бұрын
Human's knowledge really got a huge progress
@BoleDaPole27 күн бұрын
Bring back phlogiston!
@JeffBilkins6 күн бұрын
It could be fun to start a series (or second channel) with 'serious' science videos on these aged theories (as if they are the current science).
@alexwang9822 ай бұрын
So good
@dovahfruit950325 күн бұрын
"While watching this video, I want you to pretend that you've never heard of oxygen" "Okay" "For most of human history, we had no idea of its existence" "Of what's existence?"
@Yora212 ай бұрын
In German, Oxygen is still called Sauerstoff, which means "acidifying matter". (And Nitrogen is called Stickstoff, "suffocating matter".)
@Basement_crusader2 ай бұрын
This reminds me a lot of dark matter theories where what we have discovered is the inverse of its presence. Phlogiston is like inverse oxygen in a way.
@joels3102 ай бұрын
The thing about people is that no one wants to be the one who disagrees with the masses and there are likely many theories that are widely accepted which are grossly errant but no one even questions as it seems sensible enough, so why question the narrative?
@blapty2 ай бұрын
In many ways the philosophers of old were right in those are some of the most common phases of matter. Earth, solid; Air, gaseous; Water, liquid; and fire, plasma. Others phases are far more exotic and are not immediately obvious to the casual observer. One could see how they would come to such of an insightful conclusion.
@brachypelmasmithАй бұрын
that antigravitational property of flogiston was really grasping at straws.
@randydewees73382 ай бұрын
Old Priestley should have kept at it! He seemed to have a sense of humor too.
@blueheartorangeheart37682 ай бұрын
We making it out of Natlan with this one
@GPN007aАй бұрын
Air = Gas, Fire = Plasma, Water = Liquid, Earth = Solid. Shit they were kinda right 😂
@AricGardnerMontreal2 ай бұрын
It was the first time there was even a theory that was trying to be sensible. Something to pull apart to find the truth, cool video
@omnirathАй бұрын
In the west yes
@organobot2 ай бұрын
phlogiston was mentioned off-handedly in a science textbook i read as a kid and i've been curious about it ever since :)
@xostler2 ай бұрын
People 400 years from now: “can you believe the knuckledraggers believed in _quantum gravity?”_
@damienasmodeus92827 күн бұрын
We don't believe in quantum gravity. Lol
@davidwillis501623 күн бұрын
Thanks
@whirl3690Ай бұрын
To give some credit to the theory of phlogiston having "anti-gravity properties," it *would* explain why flames rise.
@RonSparks21122 ай бұрын
How dd Scheel know that the gas he produced constituted approximately 1/3 of the mass of "common air"?
@KallePihlajasaariАй бұрын
When you oxidize a metal with concentrated sunlight in an inverted test tube over water it rises about one third of the way as O2 in the air is consumed but never more.
@johnnzboy2 ай бұрын
I've encountered references to phlogistan before and wondered about it - thank you for the comprehensive explanation and history of it, very informative and enjoyable.
@scottbergeson872625 күн бұрын
Put Barry Soetoro in Hennig Brand's retort!
@Superbrains2 ай бұрын
The death of Antoine was so tragic. It was not fair😢
@sean..L19 күн бұрын
Missed opportunity to have red calx by aphex twin played in the background
@mario0de72 ай бұрын
Ah the beauty of science its often wrong but it never says its right, it only says what the best theory is
@tedwalford7615Ай бұрын
"Dark matter" and "dark energy" seem like today's phlogiston.
@atzurasАй бұрын
Short version: Ramsay got high with oxygen and his first thought was : "I can sell this drug as a luxurious good. "
@hemmel777Ай бұрын
Dark matter/energy is the Phlogiston of our era
@SerunaXI2 ай бұрын
13:00 I am glad I've seen enough videos on old english words and spellings. All them long s letters look like fs.
@metal87powerАй бұрын
How did people breathe before discovering oxygen?
@osvaldodomingos9041Ай бұрын
Holding a Book with that value without Gloves should be considered a Crime!!
@omnirathАй бұрын
Most book in this shape can very safely be handled barehanded, it’s done on a regular basis in specialized libraries
@m.streicher82862 ай бұрын
I love 'Fire Air' .. Lesser men would've been trying to name the stuff before they even knew what it was.
@aniksamiurrahman6365Ай бұрын
Phlogiston, Luminiferous Aether, 10 dimentional string, dark matter may be.
@vinniepeterssАй бұрын
great!
@leonlee8524Ай бұрын
Them ignoring mass is like us ignoring consciousness and our inability to realize we need post-einstenian thinking. Just as Einstein needed post-Newtonian thinking.
@balazsvarga18232 ай бұрын
Flogiston? The volcanic scifi crystals used by the Imperium? I thought they made it up.