@alexlalov7152 YT algorithm does funny things. But check out ALL the Crash Course series. Try Hank on Crash Course Chemistry. I think there is an episode about Phlogiston. Hank and his bro John are two of the first edu-content creators here on YT.
As an engineer for 35 years and a person with multiple degrees who studied Physics, Electronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering right now I am fixated on those knitting machines and the sewing gear in the background. I just love history too but also steampunk novels of which many take advantage of those ideas from that time. BTW newly subscribed to see what else you'll talk about.
Thanks for watching! I love being able to combine science with things like sewing or knitting. I've also noticed this cross section on UA-cam of a few knitting machine channels run by people who are also engineers or computer programmers. I think the two overlap.
Also, knowledge in the form of raw data. Scientists can be so invested in their failed theories and work that they intentionally withhold contradictory data to support their incorrect theories. Like how a certain vaccine was declared safe and the best way to block infection by a certain pathogen and the spread of it, but the scientists hid contrary clinical data, and stopped collecting contrary field data, just to bolster their claims. One company even sought to hide its actual internal findings from the public for 75 years. To this day, that vaccine still isn't considered safe for the general public, as it still remains at EUA status, yet every person is urged to take it. Yes, there's billions of dollars to be made, so trust the (manipulated) science! The damage it has done will be difficult to extrapolate, as much of the world has taken it, and there's no push to compare their outcomes against the unvaccinated people of the world. That's what real science should investigate. I took a few shots back then, but later was appalled to discover how bad we were misled. Perhaps, one day, we'll get a full and truthful review of the pros and cons of the shot. Hopefully, that'll be soon, as few will live another 75 years to learn the truth.
Super insightful video. As an anthracologist (subfield of archaeology that deals with fire and fuel management) I have thought a lot about the fuel choices that people in the past made, but,, embarrassingly, I have never really thought about how people conceptualized what fire is. Definitely taking this thought into all my future research.
o: Any interesting information or resources about historical fuel acquisition and use? I've looked into it somewhat in the past, but it seemed somewhat difficult to get much info from casual interest online.
That's such an interesting field I've never heard of before! I would be curious to know how historical concepts of fire or even how elements work factored into people's fuel choices. I guess it would be in a sense like how beliefs about health and the human body guided some questionable medical practices in history.
@seigeengine no exhaustive information that I can think of archaeologically, most of the material is either on journal articles or buried the appendix of reports. Perhaps there's a text for a region in less familiar, and best bet is its in french since that where a lot of anthracologists seems to be from. Ethnographically, the information is similarly buried in older Ethnographic accounts (at least for California where I'm familiar with in those regards), often it seems Ethnographs were not particularly interested in the practical details of fire.
@BriannaDignard it's an interesting thought, I know the karok when preparing juncus effusus for being basket material used fire, and that they have a specific taboo against using california lilac in that specific task. The "why" behind I'm less sure of, but that's an example none the less of certain beliefs impact fuel choice. I wonder if there are ethnographic examples for things not being burned because of the perceived nature of what fire is.
I'm honestly impressed that they pegged combustion as a process that requires multiple inputs, balanced out starting and ending mass, and used an analogue for chemical energy. They had the right idea but they were missing some of the pieces of the puzzle.
Yeah, I think it is interesting to look back on historical scientific beliefs and see how close they were to what we have today but just missing one or two pieces that really make all the difference.
So this could actually be tweaked for the flogiston to be anti-oxygen, kind of like the positive charge thought as "moving" in electric current. So the flogiston has a mass BUTT the rust, instead of burning and releasing its flogiston into air, has its flogiston stable and sucks the air in to bind it with said flogiston and increase the overall mass. And for the other flammable materials the flogiston unbinds from them and binds to the air above. And what makes objects flammable is that unbinded flogiston which stabilizes after binding to air and letting out some energy. This is really nice.
That one is 100% true. Let the smoke out of any piece of electronic or electrical equipment and it doesn't work anymore. As long as the smoke is inside it works better. What's most important to remember is that any machine can be a smoke machine if you operate it wrong enough. 😂
The thing I find amazing about phlogiston theory is just how CLOSE it is to being correct! It was a theory based on real evidence and fit a lot of the data. It correlates very well with Carbon Dioxide and/or negative Oxygen.
I truly hope that you are a science teacher in real life. I found this video very captivating and informative. Your enthusiasm is contagious! I can't wait to see your next video
Me too! Old science was wild, but honestly given what they knew and the observations they were making, sometimes their theories make sense for the time.
@@BriannaDignard Its definitely quite fascinating to see how people's thought process progressed, even going back to early 17th century astronomers who thought the stars were painted onto a fixed "ball" surrounding the solar system. Really cool because it kind of does make sense :P given what they knew and saw. Its crazy to think how we got as far as we have today.
@@BriannaDignard like how quantum mechanics is violating like everything but we're also finding that quantum mechanics literally only applies at smaller scales and at larger scales it's literally unobservable to the point where it's impossible to explain larger scale phenomena with _just_ quantum mechanics and so classical mechanics is still a unique and correct thing at those scales. it's totally ridiculous
Ether is true. The problem is that the consequences of incorporating ether to physical systems and particular quantum mechanics will destroy the current balance of power. Just for a reminder about balance of power is the so called red mercury: officially does not exist, but Samuel Cohen (the inventor of neutron bomb) acknowledge its existence.
love your take on this! it explains this awkward name. RUB A535 (also known as Antiphlogistine) is a rubefacient introduced in 1919 and manufactured by Church & Dwight in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Auntie Phlogistine :)
I really appreciate your enthusiasm for science and the scientific method. Keep it up and know that you're doing all the right things to make it big! 😎🤘
3:24 The BALLOON WITH AIR will actually weigh more because all the extra air inside it is compressed slightly which makes the air inside denser and heavier than the air outside and the skin has the same mass. So overall the system (balloon+denser air) is heavier than the deflated balloon.
Apologies if this was already mentioned, but if anybody wants to dig deeper into this, I would highly recommend the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn. It's the source of the term "paradigm shift", and he uses phlogiston theory, early quantum theory, and the Copernican Revolution as examples of how such paradigm shifts happen.
There's also a related hypothetical substance offered by Lavoisier (the same one who discovered oxygen) as an explanation for heat and temperature changes. When one body warms up another, it's supposedly because of this fluid called caloric flowing from the hotter one to the colder.
And it also fits the data really well. The rate at which heat flows from one material to another is the same as water flowing from higher to lower pressure. It's easy to imagine materials as being saturated with this "element of heat" like a sponge soaked in water. The equations and analogies for it just work out surprisingly well. There's just one problem: nobody could ever isolate the substance, and it proved as elusive as the "graviton" particle for gravity...
The more profound change in the age of enlightenment is the development of the scientific method and how scientific theories had to be subservient to experimental evidence. Experiment became the gold standard. If the current theory doesn't explain the experimental results, then it needs to be amended or thrown out.
chemist here fun fact one of the early issues with oxygen replacing phlogiston is we didn't know the mass of oxygen and because of that the ratios in the reactions were all over the place. This is visible in many old chemistry textbooks with for the formula of water from hydrogen and oxygen have the ratios sometimes really off like one which had the oxygen atom to hydrogen atom at an 9:1 ratio and many that have it as 1:1
3:20 Correction - the statements made aren't true - you can do this yourself, or there are several demonstrations on UA-cam showing that the balloon with air *is* heavier, and pulls down the arm of a balance when deflated (after previously at equilibrium with both inflated). Part of this is also likely due to the air in the balloon being partly compressed, thus being overall denser than the surrounding air.
This is how science has always worked. The modern equivalent that came to mind immediately was Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It was originally something that was theorized just to make the equations balance. Now there are more and more proofs of its existence. Another one would be String Theory. It sorta explains some things, but many scientists see problems with it.
This was called the Phlogiston theory, all matter consisted of Phlogiston, the stuff was released when something burned, what was left was called the calx. I have some VERY old chemistry books, some of which date back to the late 1700's, two of them had pressed and dried flowers and plants and mosses inside, one of which was a four leaf clover (!)
In other words, phlogiston was basically a primitive abstraction for "whatever it is that allows combustion to occur, we don't have the technology to analyze this any deeper"
The Algorithm seems to have struck. I never really thought too deeply about the origin of this term as used in some whacky comics, so that was a nice bit of history. As for spreading scientific knowledge: Always a worthy pursuit, though frequently a tedious one. Keep your enthusiasm. :)
The theory of phlogiston became more convoluted near the birth of modern chemistry in the late 18th century. At first it was believed to be "the substance of fire" something similar to anti-oxygen or lack of oxygen, but in the end it failed, because there were too many pair of substances that can burn together.
Phlogiston is my favorite scientific theory that turned out to be wrong. First off, the name is fire - pun intended. Saying "phlogiston" is just great. Like, it's so fun to say I'd almost be willing to accept phlogiston as real, despite fully knowing it is not, in order to get to say phlogiston all the time. Secondly, I like how the basic idea of phlogiston makes sense, but it still turned out to be completely wrong, and it's a really easy, non-controversial example of how when properly applied, the sciences are self correcting.
Preistley explained why the products of combustion weighed more than thr original material by saying that Phlogiston was "the principal of levity", i.e it possessed negative weight. In other words, it weighed less than nothing. Priestley invented anti-gravity!
Phlogiston theory sounds an awful lot like quantum theory today. I'm convinced once our measuring devices become more sophisticated and advanced as time goes on, probability theory will just disappear or collapse, so to speak.
What the hell, how do you have so little views. annd i just looked at how many insteresting topics you cover. ill be binge watching a bunch of your videos. watching this video gave me a similar feeling to when i found out 0 (and negative numbers) didnt exist for so much of our maths history
Our current understanding of physics is not wrong. It will never be shown to be wrong, even if a new theory is presented that is more accurate than the theory we have now. It is a misconception that Einstein proved Newton wrong. Einstein's theory of gravity was more accurate than Newton's. Even so, for most calculations dealing with gravity, you use Newton, because in most cases you don't need to be so accurate. Imagine planning a road trip from San Francisco to Portland, Or. You don't need yto know how many milimeters are between the two. Miles is accurate enough.
I don't know that's entirely true, history certainly has shown it isn't. But you are correct in that which set of rules are best to use, is a matter of scale. At least as far as I know which may not being saying much, heh.
The fun thing about phlogiston and why it worked for so long as an explanatory model is that it wasn't so much _wrong_ as it was _inverted._ Phlogiston was just negative oxygen: the amount of phlogiston inside a substance that it could release was really the amount of oxygen it could chemically bind; the maximum capacity of phlogiston that a volume of air could absorb, before it became "saturated", was really the amount of oxygen it contained; and once the experimental methods became sophisticated enough to capture and weigh _all_ the byproducts of a combustion reaction, it turned out that phlogiston had _negative_ weight. Air that had become saturated with phlogiston weighed less, and a substance that had released all its phlogiston weighed more (as long as you actually weighed _all_ of it and didn't disregard all the soot, ashes and gases that escaped and flew away on the updraft of the combustion). To this day, electrical current is still defined as the movement of the _positive_ charge, even though we now know that it's the electrons, which carry a negative charge, that actually _move_ in the physical sense, and that the atomic nuclei, which hold the positive charge, remain in place. It's like looking at an hourglass and measuring the time by how fast the _empty space_ moves into the upper bulb - it works perfectly fine, even though the grains of sand are the parts that actually, physically move. Incidentally, that's a cool knitting machine in the background.
You make a good point, it's fun to see how close they got without knowing every detail still. And thanks for the comment on the knitting machine. It's my hobby when I want to humble myself with a mechanical object because I'm still learning to use it haha.
So was the Phlogiston theory being used as making do to try to explain combustion before Lavoisier akin to the Ptolemaic system being the defacto theory trying to explain celestial mechanics before Copernicus and Kepler?
Yes! The evolution of our understanding of celestial mechanics has definitely changed over thousands of years as we gather more and more scientific observations to refine our current theories.
Since when is balloon + air lighter than the empty balloon? Unless it's a hot air balloon which isn't the case here? Slightly compressed air in air does not provide lift. Helium and hydrogen do, because their density is less than the surrounding air.
The chemical compounds were still the same, but the scientific terminology changed to make the names more accurate and descriptive of what that compound was.
Hey i just subbed to you. i found your thumbnail by accident on youtube. educational video content for my daughter to watch and for me too. Majority of big educational content creators seem to be men and i wish to have more women in it.
3:13 "But people just kinda dismissed that, it was just one of the results they were like 'eeeeehhhhhhh we don't entirely know' ." There are things like that still in science today lol.
Nice job, but did you a balloon full of air is lighter than an empty balloon? Only true if the air is hot, and that is only due to a density differential in the atmosphere. All things being equal, the air in the balloon has weight - a very demonstrable weight.
Just because phlogiston has negative mass and negative volume is no reason to dismiss a perfectly good scientific theory! What if we are wrong about iron and mercury, too, and they are also deficits of negative mass element-holes?
The quantum 'foam' or zero-point energy are getting to sound more like the Aether day by day. Not to mention dark energy. Phlogiston at least sounds cool.
A great question is WHY they were so wrong about phlogiston and I would say that they didn't know much about chemistry, nothing about atoms, molecules etc. and so they were in the dark pretty much. Once more discoveries were made in various disciplines, they all clicked together and phlogiston no longer made any sense. I don't think something like a periodic table will one day come crashing down like that because all these things are very well established and consistent with observations and measurements. What can happen is that a better underlying explanation of subatomic particles will be discovered etc. but it will not affect the macroscopic properties and behaviours that the periodic table is about. It will still be a useful model, even if the underlying theory might improve or even shift completely. I think a better example would be the Big Bang or other cosmological theories because we don't know much (if anything) about the true nature of the cosmos and our observations are very limited and so there we are in a similar situation like with the phlogiston.
Yea, it reminds me of "Dark Matter" where we attribute something we can observe, yet not easily explain, to a hypothetical from of matter that is almost defined exclusively by its observed effect on gravity. But in all honesty, I don't know how fair this comparison really is because I don't know that much about physics.
It's a flatbed knitting machine! It can knit things like sweaters using fine yarn a lot faster than you could by hand assuming that you know how to use it correctly. I've had mine for almost a year now and it still kicks my butt a lot.
The parts where you cup your mouth as a sort of "hint hint, this is parenthetical" gesture was amusing but I feel like it might hint that you need to structure your explanation better so that you don't need parentheses. Interesting video, but there are other channels I think I'd rather watch. Have a like before I go, and good luck!
I would add one interesting detail. Why do you think people didnt come with these theories earlier? Because everyone who did, was burned at stake by church as a heretic. Human technology and scientific development stopped for 1800 years. People shouldnt forget what religion really is.
I read a sci-fi novel where humans figure out the aliens are actually hiding on Earth and making magic work in order to prevent us from actually figuring out science, right up until the 1800s or so. :-)
Didn’t you learn about the phlogiston theory in your chemistry classes in school? It should have been introduced as an example of the use of scientific method. Certainly was taught when I was at school.
I actually took a class dedicated to some of the great discoveries in science history which included a unit on phlogiston. I wanted to share that information I learned with anybody curious, even if they didn't study science in school.
There are some similarities there. Scientists always try to create the best explanation for their results and observations even if it isn't always "correct". As we learn more, we change those explanations. But people are stubborn so sometimes it takes a lot of observations to finally realize they got it wrong.
@BriannaDignard there is stubborn. And there is also a willingness towards simplicity. Oxidizing exothermal chemical reactions aren't all that simple to people who think the world is flat.
Literally anyone who insists that science doesn't change doesn't know jack about scientific history and sounds more like an evolution denying YEC or a flerf than anything else lol
It seems like people do the same thing today. Most scientific theories today have a lot of inconsistencies (like plate techtonics, which was disproven all the way back in the 1960s), but people try to bend the theories to match their beliefs rather than scrapping failed theories and starting anew. -- I personally feel that learning should be fun. So what if something we believe turns out to be wrong? That's the fun of it: trying again, learning something new, exploring new ideas...
did you release your research about plate tectonics? because actually, they found proof for plate tectonics in the 60s and this is nowadays the standard theory maybe you are confusing it with Carey's hypothesis of a "growing Earth" wich was disproven around the 60s (in favor of tectonics)
are you saying after all those cavemen fires none of the them figured out that without "air" and wood (phlogiston) there was noway a fire would burn "man we stupid" hehehehehehehehe i always said that about the human animal it's the stupidest animal on the planet heheheheheheehehe
From time to time I come across a video like this one, and I think 'this is what UA-cam is for'.
Thank you, I appreciate your comment!
@alexlalov7152 YT algorithm does funny things. But check out ALL the Crash Course series. Try Hank on Crash Course Chemistry. I think there is an episode about Phlogiston. Hank and his bro John are two of the first edu-content creators here on YT.
@@BriannaDignard Thanks Brianna. Subbed to watch where you go with this channel. I watch many STEM channels.
I could not agree more!
As an engineer for 35 years and a person with multiple degrees who studied Physics, Electronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering right now I am fixated on those knitting machines and the sewing gear in the background. I just love history too but also steampunk novels of which many take advantage of those ideas from that time. BTW newly subscribed to see what else you'll talk about.
Thanks for watching! I love being able to combine science with things like sewing or knitting. I've also noticed this cross section on UA-cam of a few knitting machine channels run by people who are also engineers or computer programmers. I think the two overlap.
those knitting machines will challenge every curious mind
Love that you pointed out how theories change over time with new knowledge!
Glad you liked it!
Yea, just like religion. (worlds largest eyeroll).
Also, knowledge in the form of raw data. Scientists can be so invested in their failed theories and work that they intentionally withhold contradictory data to support their incorrect theories. Like how a certain vaccine was declared safe and the best way to block infection by a certain pathogen and the spread of it, but the scientists hid contrary clinical data, and stopped collecting contrary field data, just to bolster their claims. One company even sought to hide its actual internal findings from the public for 75 years. To this day, that vaccine still isn't considered safe for the general public, as it still remains at EUA status, yet every person is urged to take it. Yes, there's billions of dollars to be made, so trust the (manipulated) science! The damage it has done will be difficult to extrapolate, as much of the world has taken it, and there's no push to compare their outcomes against the unvaccinated people of the world. That's what real science should investigate. I took a few shots back then, but later was appalled to discover how bad we were misled. Perhaps, one day, we'll get a full and truthful review of the pros and cons of the shot. Hopefully, that'll be soon, as few will live another 75 years to learn the truth.
I feel like I need dephogisticated air every time I finish a jog.
Super insightful video. As an anthracologist (subfield of archaeology that deals with fire and fuel management) I have thought a lot about the fuel choices that people in the past made, but,, embarrassingly, I have never really thought about how people conceptualized what fire is. Definitely taking this thought into all my future research.
o: Any interesting information or resources about historical fuel acquisition and use?
I've looked into it somewhat in the past, but it seemed somewhat difficult to get much info from casual interest online.
That's such an interesting field I've never heard of before! I would be curious to know how historical concepts of fire or even how elements work factored into people's fuel choices. I guess it would be in a sense like how beliefs about health and the human body guided some questionable medical practices in history.
@seigeengine no exhaustive information that I can think of archaeologically, most of the material is either on journal articles or buried the appendix of reports. Perhaps there's a text for a region in less familiar, and best bet is its in french since that where a lot of anthracologists seems to be from. Ethnographically, the information is similarly buried in older Ethnographic accounts (at least for California where I'm familiar with in those regards), often it seems Ethnographs were not particularly interested in the practical details of fire.
@BriannaDignard it's an interesting thought, I know the karok when preparing juncus effusus for being basket material used fire, and that they have a specific taboo against using california lilac in that specific task. The "why" behind I'm less sure of, but that's an example none the less of certain beliefs impact fuel choice. I wonder if there are ethnographic examples for things not being burned because of the perceived nature of what fire is.
I'm honestly impressed that they pegged combustion as a process that requires multiple inputs, balanced out starting and ending mass, and used an analogue for chemical energy. They had the right idea but they were missing some of the pieces of the puzzle.
Yeah, I think it is interesting to look back on historical scientific beliefs and see how close they were to what we have today but just missing one or two pieces that really make all the difference.
So this could actually be tweaked for the flogiston to be anti-oxygen, kind of like the positive charge thought as "moving" in electric current. So the flogiston has a mass BUTT the rust, instead of burning and releasing its flogiston into air, has its flogiston stable and sucks the air in to bind it with said flogiston and increase the overall mass. And for the other flammable materials the flogiston unbinds from them and binds to the air above. And what makes objects flammable is that unbinded flogiston which stabilizes after binding to air and letting out some energy. This is really nice.
I hate that you used an "f" instead of the proper "ph". Phooey!
Reminds me of the Smoke Theory of electricity.
That one is 100% true. Let the smoke out of any piece of electronic or electrical equipment and it doesn't work anymore. As long as the smoke is inside it works better. What's most important to remember is that any machine can be a smoke machine if you operate it wrong enough. 😂
The thing I find amazing about phlogiston theory is just how CLOSE it is to being correct! It was a theory based on real evidence and fit a lot of the data. It correlates very well with Carbon Dioxide and/or negative Oxygen.
I truly hope that you are a science teacher in real life. I found this video very captivating and informative. Your enthusiasm is contagious! I can't wait to see your next video
Thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed the video! I'm a daughter of a science teacher so some of that probably rubbed off on me!
I love these older or bunk theories from back in the day! Like the one about "the ether" too.
Me too! Old science was wild, but honestly given what they knew and the observations they were making, sometimes their theories make sense for the time.
@@BriannaDignard Its definitely quite fascinating to see how people's thought process progressed, even going back to early 17th century astronomers who thought the stars were painted onto a fixed "ball" surrounding the solar system. Really cool because it kind of does make sense :P given what they knew and saw. Its crazy to think how we got as far as we have today.
@@BriannaDignard like how quantum mechanics is violating like everything but we're also finding that quantum mechanics literally only applies at smaller scales and at larger scales it's literally unobservable to the point where it's impossible to explain larger scale phenomena with _just_ quantum mechanics and so classical mechanics is still a unique and correct thing at those scales. it's totally ridiculous
Ether is true. The problem is that the consequences of incorporating ether to physical systems and particular quantum mechanics will destroy the current balance of power. Just for a reminder about balance of power is the so called red mercury: officially does not exist, but Samuel Cohen (the inventor of neutron bomb) acknowledge its existence.
love your take on this! it explains this awkward name. RUB A535 (also known as Antiphlogistine) is a rubefacient introduced in 1919 and manufactured by Church & Dwight in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Auntie Phlogistine :)
I really appreciate your enthusiasm for science and the scientific method. Keep it up and know that you're doing all the right things to make it big! 😎🤘
Thank you so much!
3:24 The BALLOON WITH AIR will actually weigh more because all the extra air inside it is compressed slightly which makes the air inside denser and heavier than the air outside and the skin has the same mass. So overall the system (balloon+denser air) is heavier than the deflated balloon.
It will have a higher mass for sure, but it will still _WEIGH_ the same due to the buoyancy effect of the surrounding air.
Great video! This channel will be very big one day 🙏
I hope so!
Apologies if this was already mentioned, but if anybody wants to dig deeper into this, I would highly recommend the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas S. Kuhn.
It's the source of the term "paradigm shift", and he uses phlogiston theory, early quantum theory, and the Copernican Revolution as examples of how such paradigm shifts happen.
I read that book back in college for a class, it was definitely an interesting read and made me rethink what a real scientific revolution would be.
Nice video. It seems like they were generalizing the energy and chemical aspects of combustion and considering it to be one substance.
There's also a related hypothetical substance offered by Lavoisier (the same one who discovered oxygen) as an explanation for heat and temperature changes. When one body warms up another, it's supposedly because of this fluid called caloric flowing from the hotter one to the colder.
And it also fits the data really well. The rate at which heat flows from one material to another is the same as water flowing from higher to lower pressure. It's easy to imagine materials as being saturated with this "element of heat" like a sponge soaked in water. The equations and analogies for it just work out surprisingly well.
There's just one problem: nobody could ever isolate the substance, and it proved as elusive as the "graviton" particle for gravity...
The more profound change in the age of enlightenment is the development of the scientific method and how scientific theories had to be subservient to experimental evidence. Experiment became the gold standard. If the current theory doesn't explain the experimental results, then it needs to be amended or thrown out.
This channels is going to blow up.
Fingers crossed, I hope so!
@@BriannaDignard It definitely has enough phlogiston in order to do that! 😂
**[TF2 pyro community grows restless]**
chemist here fun fact one of the early issues with oxygen replacing phlogiston is we didn't know the mass of oxygen and because of that the ratios in the reactions were all over the place. This is visible in many old chemistry textbooks with for the formula of water from hydrogen and oxygen have the ratios sometimes really off like one which had the oxygen atom to hydrogen atom at an 9:1 ratio and many that have it as 1:1
3:20
Correction - the statements made aren't true - you can do this yourself, or there are several demonstrations on UA-cam showing that the balloon with air *is* heavier, and pulls down the arm of a balance when deflated (after previously at equilibrium with both inflated). Part of this is also likely due to the air in the balloon being partly compressed, thus being overall denser than the surrounding air.
you remind me of some very talented science-communicators
keeping an eye on this channel
always looking for something new to learn
Thank you!
"You'll never guess how people thought gravity worked!" video incoming in a couple centuries.
maybe so!
This is how science has always worked. The modern equivalent that came to mind immediately was Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It was originally something that was theorized just to make the equations balance. Now there are more and more proofs of its existence. Another one would be String Theory. It sorta explains some things, but many scientists see problems with it.
This was called the Phlogiston theory, all matter consisted of Phlogiston, the stuff was released when something burned, what was left was called the calx. I have some VERY old chemistry books, some of which date back to the late 1700's, two of them had pressed and dried flowers and plants and mosses inside, one of which was a four leaf clover (!)
That's super cool!
Fun presentation style! Educational too. Well done,
Thank you!
In other words, phlogiston was basically a primitive abstraction for "whatever it is that allows combustion to occur, we don't have the technology to analyze this any deeper"
That lighter definitely doesn't have enough phlogiston! 😂
The Algorithm seems to have struck.
I never really thought too deeply about the origin of this term as used in some whacky comics, so that was a nice bit of history.
As for spreading scientific knowledge: Always a worthy pursuit, though frequently a tedious one.
Keep your enthusiasm. :)
I know, that crazy algorithm seems to be working here at least. I'm glad you enjoyed the video!
Very well said! Keep it up with the fire theme! 😁
The theory of phlogiston became more convoluted near the birth of modern chemistry in the late 18th century. At first it was believed to be "the substance of fire" something similar to anti-oxygen or lack of oxygen, but in the end it failed, because there were too many pair of substances that can burn together.
Great video. And the bloopers were a nice bonus, lol
Glad you liked them!
Phlogiston is my favorite scientific theory that turned out to be wrong. First off, the name is fire - pun intended. Saying "phlogiston" is just great. Like, it's so fun to say I'd almost be willing to accept phlogiston as real, despite fully knowing it is not, in order to get to say phlogiston all the time. Secondly, I like how the basic idea of phlogiston makes sense, but it still turned out to be completely wrong, and it's a really easy, non-controversial example of how when properly applied, the sciences are self correcting.
Phlogiston is an incredibly fun word to say I agree! I love when science has such fun words we get to use.
Preistley explained why the products of combustion weighed more than thr original material by saying that Phlogiston was "the principal of levity", i.e it possessed negative weight. In other words, it weighed less than nothing. Priestley invented anti-gravity!
Phlogiston theory sounds an awful lot like quantum theory today. I'm convinced once our measuring devices become more sophisticated and advanced as time goes on, probability theory will just disappear or collapse, so to speak.
What the hell, how do you have so little views. annd i just looked at how many insteresting topics you cover. ill be binge watching a bunch of your videos.
watching this video gave me a similar feeling to when i found out 0 (and negative numbers) didnt exist for so much of our maths history
I'm glad you enjoyed it! Hopefully you enjoy some of my other videos!
Our current understanding of physics is not wrong. It will never be shown to be wrong, even if a new theory is presented that is more accurate than the theory we have now.
It is a misconception that Einstein proved Newton wrong. Einstein's theory of gravity was more accurate than Newton's. Even so, for most calculations dealing with gravity, you use Newton, because in most cases you don't need to be so accurate.
Imagine planning a road trip from San Francisco to Portland, Or. You don't need yto know how many milimeters are between the two. Miles is accurate enough.
I don't know that's entirely true, history certainly has shown it isn't. But you are correct in that which set of rules are best to use, is a matter of scale. At least as far as I know which may not being saying much, heh.
But then what about stuff like charcoal they would need to know about oxygen
The fun thing about phlogiston and why it worked for so long as an explanatory model is that it wasn't so much _wrong_ as it was _inverted._ Phlogiston was just negative oxygen: the amount of phlogiston inside a substance that it could release was really the amount of oxygen it could chemically bind; the maximum capacity of phlogiston that a volume of air could absorb, before it became "saturated", was really the amount of oxygen it contained; and once the experimental methods became sophisticated enough to capture and weigh _all_ the byproducts of a combustion reaction, it turned out that phlogiston had _negative_ weight. Air that had become saturated with phlogiston weighed less, and a substance that had released all its phlogiston weighed more (as long as you actually weighed _all_ of it and didn't disregard all the soot, ashes and gases that escaped and flew away on the updraft of the combustion).
To this day, electrical current is still defined as the movement of the _positive_ charge, even though we now know that it's the electrons, which carry a negative charge, that actually _move_ in the physical sense, and that the atomic nuclei, which hold the positive charge, remain in place. It's like looking at an hourglass and measuring the time by how fast the _empty space_ moves into the upper bulb - it works perfectly fine, even though the grains of sand are the parts that actually, physically move.
Incidentally, that's a cool knitting machine in the background.
You make a good point, it's fun to see how close they got without knowing every detail still. And thanks for the comment on the knitting machine. It's my hobby when I want to humble myself with a mechanical object because I'm still learning to use it haha.
Wasn't there a muscle rub that used phlogiston in their advertising?
I think so! Someone else in the comments wrote something about RUB A535 which was also called antiphlogistine.
So was the Phlogiston theory being used as making do to try to explain combustion before Lavoisier akin to the Ptolemaic system being the defacto theory trying to explain celestial mechanics before Copernicus and Kepler?
Yes! The evolution of our understanding of celestial mechanics has definitely changed over thousands of years as we gather more and more scientific observations to refine our current theories.
pretty cool video
Since when is balloon + air lighter than the empty balloon? Unless it's a hot air balloon which isn't the case here? Slightly compressed air in air does not provide lift. Helium and hydrogen do, because their density is less than the surrounding air.
Wowwwww mind blown
So in other words, in those days they didn't have the phloggiest idea how fire really works. 😄
Terminology changed ... was the chemical compound still the same?
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
The chemical compounds were still the same, but the scientific terminology changed to make the names more accurate and descriptive of what that compound was.
vSauce - madness = Brianna Dignard :)
Madness is a very fine band by the way
haha thanks, this comment made me realize that maybe I could up the madness on this channel
>the language of chemistry became based
Daddy sang base
Hey i just subbed to you. i found your thumbnail by accident on youtube. educational video content for my daughter to watch and for me too.
Majority of big educational content creators seem to be men and i wish to have more women in it.
Thank you! I'm glad you came across my channel!
Seems youtube decided to spread the reach of this video, ahn? Good luck, lady. I guess you're very talented.
Thank you!
3:40 how can air be buoyant in air...
3:13 "But people just kinda dismissed that, it was just one of the results they were like 'eeeeehhhhhhh we don't entirely know' ."
There are things like that still in science today lol.
Nice job, but did you a balloon full of air is lighter than an empty balloon? Only true if the air is hot, and that is only due to a density differential in the atmosphere. All things being equal, the air in the balloon has weight - a very demonstrable weight.
Just because phlogiston has negative mass and negative volume is no reason to dismiss a perfectly good scientific theory! What if we are wrong about iron and mercury, too, and they are also deficits of negative mass element-holes?
Is "calx" more than just another name for "oxide"?
Calx is a material formed when an ore or mineral is heated, which forms when the metal combines with oxygen and forms the oxide.
The quantum 'foam' or zero-point energy are getting to sound more like the Aether day by day. Not to mention dark energy. Phlogiston at least sounds cool.
3:00 Well obviously there's two kinds of phlogiston: heavier than air phlogiston and lighter than air phlogiston! 😅
A great question is WHY they were so wrong about phlogiston and I would say that they didn't know much about chemistry, nothing about atoms, molecules etc. and so they were in the dark pretty much. Once more discoveries were made in various disciplines, they all clicked together and phlogiston no longer made any sense.
I don't think something like a periodic table will one day come crashing down like that because all these things are very well established and consistent with observations and measurements. What can happen is that a better underlying explanation of subatomic particles will be discovered etc. but it will not affect the macroscopic properties and behaviours that the periodic table is about. It will still be a useful model, even if the underlying theory might improve or even shift completely.
I think a better example would be the Big Bang or other cosmological theories because we don't know much (if anything) about the true nature of the cosmos and our observations are very limited and so there we are in a similar situation like with the phlogiston.
Yea, it reminds me of "Dark Matter" where we attribute something we can observe, yet not easily explain, to a hypothetical from of matter that is almost defined exclusively by its observed effect on gravity. But in all honesty, I don't know how fair this comparison really is because I don't know that much about physics.
@@dirksomethingsomething7208 Yes. Maybe it's correct as it is but it's the kind of thing where in the future our understanding can change drastically.
Inquiring minds want to know just exactly what is that gadget on the shelf behind you?!? 🤔
It's a loom for weaving fabrics out of threads, or a close relative thereto such as a knitting machine.
It's a flatbed knitting machine! It can knit things like sweaters using fine yarn a lot faster than you could by hand assuming that you know how to use it correctly. I've had mine for almost a year now and it still kicks my butt a lot.
Fluh-jis-tun? I thought it was pronounced flaw-jis-Tawn.
I’ve heard it pronounced in a few ways, it stays the same word though.
@@BriannaDignard Your pronunciation is probably more correct, anyway.
Was this intended timing after Genshin? Or just a great coincidence?
Haha I had no idea what that was until you said that so definitely a great coincidence!
The parts where you cup your mouth as a sort of "hint hint, this is parenthetical" gesture was amusing but I feel like it might hint that you need to structure your explanation better so that you don't need parentheses. Interesting video, but there are other channels I think I'd rather watch. Have a like before I go, and good luck!
I would add one interesting detail. Why do you think people didnt come with these theories earlier? Because everyone who did, was burned at stake by church as a heretic. Human technology and scientific development stopped for 1800 years. People shouldnt forget what religion really is.
I read a sci-fi novel where humans figure out the aliens are actually hiding on Earth and making magic work in order to prevent us from actually figuring out science, right up until the 1800s or so. :-)
You couldn't be more correct. Religion is the antithesis of progress.
Didn’t you learn about the phlogiston theory in your chemistry classes in school? It should have been introduced as an example of the use of scientific method. Certainly was taught when I was at school.
I actually took a class dedicated to some of the great discoveries in science history which included a unit on phlogiston. I wanted to share that information I learned with anybody curious, even if they didn't study science in school.
@@BriannaDignard Doesn't everybody take basic chemistry and physics lessons in school?
@@robinharwood5044 no, they do not. The world is a big place.
@@jeric_synergy8581 With undereducated people.
The phlogistin people making up exceptions and excuses, sound a lot like astrophysists today trying to explaine dark matter and dark energy.
There are some similarities there. Scientists always try to create the best explanation for their results and observations even if it isn't always "correct". As we learn more, we change those explanations. But people are stubborn so sometimes it takes a lot of observations to finally realize they got it wrong.
@BriannaDignard there is stubborn. And there is also a willingness towards simplicity. Oxidizing exothermal chemical reactions aren't all that simple to people who think the world is flat.
Is that how its pronounced? I thought it was flog is tahn
Flow-jis-teen
Are you part Japanese? Just curious.
Nope, but I do get asked that more frequently than I would think
Literally anyone who insists that science doesn't change doesn't know jack about scientific history and sounds more like an evolution denying YEC or a flerf than anything else lol
The background music is annoying AF.
It seems like people do the same thing today. Most scientific theories today have a lot of inconsistencies (like plate techtonics, which was disproven all the way back in the 1960s), but people try to bend the theories to match their beliefs rather than scrapping failed theories and starting anew. -- I personally feel that learning should be fun. So what if something we believe turns out to be wrong? That's the fun of it: trying again, learning something new, exploring new ideas...
did you release your research about plate tectonics?
because actually, they found proof for plate tectonics in the 60s and this is nowadays the standard theory
maybe you are confusing it with Carey's hypothesis of a "growing Earth" wich was disproven around the 60s (in favor of tectonics)
Fire :
Chemical reaction, that's all folks.
You're missing the point: it took many smart people working hard to realize what combustion is.
Phlogiston: that yellow/green sh*t that splatters on your buddy when you cough too hard after a hoot off a dubbie.
are you saying after all those cavemen fires none of the them figured out that without "air" and wood (phlogiston) there was noway a fire would burn "man we stupid" hehehehehehehehe i always said that about the human animal it's the stupidest animal on the planet heheheheheheehehe
Wow, what a BEAUTIFUL girl.
Hi beautiful
You are so so beautiful
“Phlogiston” just entered my top 3 favorite words 🫠
it's a solid word