I’m at 2:51 into this video and I LOVE that I discovered your channel. Thanks. You’re discussing so much of my favorite stuff all at once. Wish we were friends.
I am one of Jenessa Friends!!! Thanks Tom :) You got us through the first month of Ap Euro while our teacher was gone so I justed wanted to say thanks and love the accent.
+Liam Duffy he's lying i don't even know this creep... jkk guys my class and i love the shout out we're HUGE FANS! and i can always rely on your videos to keep me updated about what the heck my teacher is talking about in class LOL!
Fascinating information given very clearly. As someone else has pointed out here, in science, the term "theory" is used for beliefs regarded as having been proven, and the term hypothesis is used for beliefs which have not been proven.
germ theory of disease is a theory, gravity is a theory - a scientific theory is the very best science has to offer. BTW "string theory" is not a scientific theory - so this is a significant problem that people relly need to stop confusing.
5:22 i dont know how to react to that I wanted to though the best way to describe refracting is getting a northward twizler and bending it west so that it still faces north
You messed up the chronology a bit. Kepler's laws were not based on Galileo's observations. He developed his laws on the relative precise observations of Tycho Brahe. Galileo rejected Kepler's laws BTW.
Just as a point of order, you are using scientific 'theory' and 'fact' incorrectly. Theories are buttressed by facts. A theory represents the highest level of certainty possible in the natural sciences. Gravity, germ theory of disease, planetary motion, evolution etc are all 'theories' backed by an often astounding number of facts. I don't mean to be pedantic but this is a common misunderstanding that is often referenced by anti-science or pseudoscientific people (ie young earth creationists). These people often argue that 'theories' like evolution or climate change are essentially guesses. A scientific concept achieves the status of theory when it allows a falsifiable, predictive, explicative framework. Great videos! Keep up the good work!
Good to know! As a humanities teacher dabbling in the history of science, it's good to hear from people who offer me ways to improve my teaching on this subject.
Ben Muirhead You seem smart enough. Can you explain to me the facts that the theory of general relativity are buttressed with that give it the highest level of certainty possible in the natural sciences? I'm genuinely looking for a clear explanation. I think you may be able to help me better understand where I may be going wrong with this theory. If I could pick your brain I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Thank you for not promoting the Church vs Science revisionist narrative. The Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. They were open to Galileo's theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. Tycho Brahe, who's one of the great astronomers alongside Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, shared the same view as the Church. Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge to Cardinal Bellarmine not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. When a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo's book can plainly see. Even Galileo's supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point. The Church's view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, "While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me." Galileo had no such proofs. Finally Galileo's relationship with the Church leaders was never really hostile. Despite popular misconceptions, he wasn't tortured in the inquisition and was still treated as an honored figure. He was put under "house arrest" in a palace, again strictly for breaking contract with the people paying him more than anything else, yet allowed to leave to visit his daughters.
Man, I have no idea how you could mention Johannes Kepler without bringing up Tycho Brahe, he's just too much fun to talk about. I also think it's worth mentioning Ptolemy didn't create the geocentric model, but was the first to create a mathematical system to explain it. However, I realize talking about epicycles, deferents, and parsimony in science may be beyond the scope of this video.
Mentioning Brahe would have involved a rabbit trail since he didn't build upon the Copernican system - this video was already quite long weighing in at 20 mins. Maybe I should tackle Brahe sometime in another lecture.
Fair enough. Though I do remember a professor telling me Brahe proposed the sun, moon, and stars orbited the earth; while the other planets else orbited the sun. This may have just been a sneaky heliocentric model.
I don't know who you are, but one of my AP teachers showed me one of your videos and I subscribed. Since then every video has been quite entertaining and educational. Thanks
14:00 Galileo was given permission to publish and the Pope himself suggested that Galileo present both arguments from two characters. Galileo essentially made himself the wise scholar vs the dumb Pope. That's why the Church was pissed off. Not because he published, but HOW he presented the arguments.
hi so I am currently studying for a test on scientific revolution and Enlightenment. now what I don't exactly get are the preconditions that like triggered or caused the Scientific revolution... could you maybe make a Video on that?
Hey, Tom! love your video's. Can you do a video covering what happened during the 60's-80's? Because my teacher (Mrs. Austin) is covering it and I am V lost rn. THANK YOU!!!!!!
Okay, one correction: in science, the word "theory" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in colloquial language. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework which takes into account many facts and laws and connects them in a useful way. It's considered the highest form of proof in science. The only reason I worry about this issue is how some people conflate the two uses of the word to cast doubt on sound science with phrases like "it's only a theory." I'm thinking specifically about the big bang, evolution, and similar theories which are under attack by certain radical elements. As an educator, I assume you wouldn't want to give such people ammunition to work with.
Sounds like we should have talked before I recorded this video. While I doubt we'll see people using my video to make scientific (or pseudo scientific) arguments, this is good to know. If you had been in my situation, how would you have explained it?
I agree. It's probably not a big deal, but it's one of those common misconceptions that it's best not to perpetuate. I'm not sure I'm the sort of person you'd want to consult before making videos. I don't actually know all that much when it comes to history. I watch your channel to learn, after all! As for how to phrase the idea you were going for, I would personally have used a word like "speculation" rather than "theory." You're describing a shift away from just thinking really hard about things and speculating about how the world ought to be instead of actually going out and seeing how the world actually was. I know that's not entirely true for Ptolemy and his system, as his was actually a theoretical framework based on observation - he just happened to be wrong. Eventually his model was overturned in favor of the heliocentric models, but at least he tried to adjust his view of the cosmos to fit observations, what with his epicycles and all that.
+finalfrontier001 Did you watch the video?? He never says Galileo discovered the earth was round. It was already known. ua-cam.com/video/y-XiG8S4o_A/v-deo.htmlm37s
Informative and well presented. I'm not sure I'd equate 'Biblical Cosmology' with Christianity. True, the Roman Catholic Pope was supposedly the authority on everything and his directives were enforced by the Inquisition. Heresy was such a useful tool in keeping people in line with official doctrine. But one could argue, and Luther had by this time, that the Pope and his viperous gang of religious thugs, wasn't very Christian at all. As a matter of fact, Christ had no skin in the game of promoting either the geo- or heliocentric theory of the cosmos. The Christian religion had bigger fish to fry and that was teaching the way to achieve eternal life after one's earthly existence was done, ie: obtaining forgiveness of sins and salvation. Galileo showed how the Roman Catholic Church diminished its credibility by trying to use the Bible to fight science. As a devout Christian he knew the purpose of the Bible and it was not to prove that the sun orbited the earth. So I would be careful to distinguish between the very real political power of the Roman Catholic Church of the day and the actual teachings of Christ.
Just quoting someone in one of your other videos, because it was a comment while back, and he brings up a good point. Our ap euro test is on May 6 this year! At least for me. "Gabriel Greenbaum10 months ago Hi Tom, I want to start out by saying that I love you videos, and they are extremely helpful (as well as entertaining at times). I understand that the AP is in 5 days so it may not be possible, but it seems that you're AP Euro videos end by the interwar period, and you do not have any lectures on WWII, the Cold War, and Post-war Europe. If possible, would you be able to make a video on any of the topics? Thanks "
+Sijun Hwang This is definitely something I hope to do, but the issue is that by the time I am teaching the Postwar period, I am also getting ready for the exam and my tutoring calendar also tends to fill up. That being said, I will work harder.
I'd like to hear more about Copernicus. But I'm digging what you're putting out there... You got a Twitter handle I can follow? Thanks for the knowledge.
Mr. Richey, ... what about the WOMEN of history and their contributions to the development of modern science? where my ladies @?! Please make a video on this important topic Thanks for your help!
You dont know things for Greeks better read more Ancient Greeks .. Aristarchus of Samos(310 - 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known heliocentric model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it .heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. Aristarchus' heliocentrism attracted little attention-possibly because of the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic period.
@James Herndon wow a thoroughly worded non answer , refer to who? gravity? buoyancy? how about a simple fact that water levels prove flat surfaces and thus water self levels because its on a flat surface.....now genius I answered the question with an answer you can prove... prove gravity without density and buoyancy because without those you have no gravity thus gravity doesnt exist but density and buoyancy doe exist
Nice video, except like so many modern day Heliocentric advocators you left out some very key crucial information that gives strong support to the Geocentric model. (Which is the actually correct model) You mentioned Kepler, and of Course you mentioned Newton. You focused you're attack on the geocentric model on the Ptolemaic model.( Which is very out dated). You mentioned Galileo's empirical evidence method. That nothing is considered fact until it can be demonstrated through empirical scientific experimentation. The facts you seemingly conveniently left out, is Kepler got his observations to make his calculations and from his laws of planetary motion from Tycho Brahe! Tycho Brahe was a Geocentric advocator, in fact it was Brahe's death bed wish that his life's work (to correct the observational problems with the Ptolemaic geocentric model) be completed. Also any modern day Astronomer, or Physics major(such as George Ellis, Stephen Weinberg, L. Popov, and even Einstein in his published book "the Evolution of Physics" published in 1937) will admit and say the Observations(for both systems) match perfectly! They (The Heliocentric and the Neo-Tychonic Geocentric models) from an observational perspective are simply mirror images of each other! So what empirical scientific experimentation has ever been done to prove the Earth orbits the sun? No experiment ever conducted and done in the attempt to prove the Earth orbits the Sun has ever been successful. They have tried, and failed every time! such as the Michelson/Morley or the Airy, or so many others that all showed the Earth to be motionless in space! The empirical scientific experimental results actually show the NEO-Tychonic Geocentric model to be the most accurate and correct model of the universe and Cosmos.
I'm nearly a year removed from high school and your videos are still amazing to watch. Thank you Tom for keeping interested in history.
+ImperatorWill I appreciate your continued support even after the exam!
I like that Tom gives shout outs to people, it's nice and makes it seem like he likes his fans and students!
My fans are the most awesome people in the world!
I’m at 2:51 into this video and I LOVE that I discovered your channel. Thanks. You’re discussing so much of my favorite stuff all at once. Wish we were friends.
I am one of Jenessa Friends!!!
Thanks Tom :)
You got us through the first month of Ap Euro while our teacher was gone so I justed wanted to say thanks and love the accent.
+Liam Duffy he's lying i don't even know this creep... jkk guys my class and i love the shout out we're HUGE FANS! and i can always rely on your videos to keep me updated about what the heck my teacher is talking about in class LOL!
Glad I can help y'all! Jenessa has been great. Say hi to Nicole for me!
I’d wish I had a teacher like you Tom when I went to school. You make things come alive. Thanks 🤩
Hi Tom - great lecture. At 10:35 while you’re talking about the phases of Venus. you state Venus revolves around the earth. You meant ‘sun’.
I love the path you explained. The connecting dots is great part of your blogs. The way how you do it is great too.
At 10:30, did you mean "it revolving around the SUN just like we are"?
i love that part when he showed the look alike photo of lord Farquaad confirmed in 5:16
Your videos are great! I learn alot and you explain things in simple, everyday language. Appreciate your sense of humor too!
This guy is a great talker..kudos!!!
Fascinating information given very clearly. As someone else has pointed out here, in science, the term "theory" is used for beliefs regarded as having been proven, and the term hypothesis is used for beliefs which have not been proven.
Ive found the motivation and will to study bc of your vids, bc i know how to start studying for the AP. THANK YOU.
In science, something can be both a fact and a theory. Things like Gravity and evolution are both facts and theories for example.
😂 gravity, yes. Evilution, not so much. 🤦🏼♂️
@@shipwright6122 Oh, do Troll off.
germ theory of disease is a theory, gravity is a theory - a scientific theory is the very best science has to offer. BTW "string theory" is not a scientific theory - so this is a significant problem that people relly need to stop confusing.
I always enjoy your analyses and watch your videos often. Thank you.
Great Video. Congrats!
Great video and great content
5:22 i dont know how to react to that
I wanted to though the best way to describe refracting is getting a northward twizler and bending it west so that it still faces north
5:17 - reasons I love watching these E-lectures... also, exam in one week
You messed up the chronology a bit. Kepler's laws were not based on Galileo's observations. He developed his laws on the relative precise observations of Tycho Brahe. Galileo rejected Kepler's laws BTW.
Yes...Galileo going against both the classical and church authorities , in the late Italian renaissance, was dire indeed.
Thanks Tom Richey lovely.
Hreat Video, Tom. the Renaissance was always the most Fascinating period of European history, to me at least.
Just as a point of order, you are using scientific 'theory' and 'fact' incorrectly. Theories are buttressed by facts. A theory represents the highest level of certainty possible in the natural sciences. Gravity, germ theory of disease, planetary motion, evolution etc are all 'theories' backed by an often astounding number of facts.
I don't mean to be pedantic but this is a common misunderstanding that is often referenced by anti-science or pseudoscientific people (ie young earth creationists). These people often argue that 'theories' like evolution or climate change are essentially guesses. A scientific concept achieves the status of theory when it allows a falsifiable, predictive, explicative framework.
Great videos! Keep up the good work!
Good to know! As a humanities teacher dabbling in the history of science, it's good to hear from people who offer me ways to improve my teaching on this subject.
Its a mistake many people make. Your videos are still pretty amazing and I learned a lot from them! Greetings from Czech Republic.
Was about to write this, good thing you people did it first, stuff's kind of important.
Ben Muirhead You seem smart enough. Can you explain to me the facts that the theory of general relativity are buttressed with that give it the highest level of certainty possible in the natural sciences? I'm genuinely looking for a clear explanation. I think you may be able to help me better understand where I may be going wrong with this theory. If I could pick your brain I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Great work. Thanks for helping the laymen.
Thanks to you I got an A in Western Civilization I in college! Thank you, sir!
Thank you for not promoting the Church vs Science revisionist narrative. The Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. They were open to Galileo's theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. Tycho Brahe, who's one of the great astronomers alongside Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, shared the same view as the Church. Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge to Cardinal Bellarmine not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. When a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo's book can plainly see. Even Galileo's supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
The Church's view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, "While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me." Galileo had no such proofs.
Finally Galileo's relationship with the Church leaders was never really hostile. Despite popular misconceptions, he wasn't tortured in the inquisition and was still treated as an honored figure. He was put under "house arrest" in a palace, again strictly for breaking contract with the people paying him more than anything else, yet allowed to leave to visit his daughters.
Man, I have no idea how you could mention Johannes Kepler without bringing up Tycho Brahe, he's just too much fun to talk about.
I also think it's worth mentioning Ptolemy didn't create the geocentric model, but was the first to create a mathematical system to explain it. However, I realize talking about epicycles, deferents, and parsimony in science may be beyond the scope of this video.
Mentioning Brahe would have involved a rabbit trail since he didn't build upon the Copernican system - this video was already quite long weighing in at 20 mins. Maybe I should tackle Brahe sometime in another lecture.
Fair enough. Though I do remember a professor telling me Brahe proposed the sun, moon, and stars orbited the earth; while the other planets else orbited the sun. This may have just been a sneaky heliocentric model.
I don't know who you are, but one of my AP teachers showed me one of your videos and I subscribed. Since then every video has been quite entertaining and educational. Thanks
I appreciate it! Hopefully, I will continue to deliver.
"this is another heavenly body that revolves around the earth just like we are" @10:30
I think you meant around the sun not the earth.
14:00 Galileo was given permission to publish and the Pope himself suggested that Galileo present both arguments from two characters. Galileo essentially made himself the wise scholar vs the dumb Pope. That's why the Church was pissed off. Not because he published, but HOW he presented the arguments.
"Posthumously" actually comes from the Latin word for ground, as in after one has been buried :-)
hi so I am currently studying for a test on scientific revolution and Enlightenment. now what I don't exactly get are the preconditions that like triggered or caused the Scientific revolution... could you maybe make a Video on that?
Hey, Tom! love your video's. Can you do a video covering what happened during the 60's-80's? Because my teacher (Mrs. Austin) is covering it and I am V lost rn. THANK YOU!!!!!!
Okay, one correction: in science, the word "theory" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in colloquial language. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework which takes into account many facts and laws and connects them in a useful way. It's considered the highest form of proof in science.
The only reason I worry about this issue is how some people conflate the two uses of the word to cast doubt on sound science with phrases like "it's only a theory." I'm thinking specifically about the big bang, evolution, and similar theories which are under attack by certain radical elements. As an educator, I assume you wouldn't want to give such people ammunition to work with.
Sounds like we should have talked before I recorded this video. While I doubt we'll see people using my video to make scientific (or pseudo scientific) arguments, this is good to know. If you had been in my situation, how would you have explained it?
I agree. It's probably not a big deal, but it's one of those common misconceptions that it's best not to perpetuate.
I'm not sure I'm the sort of person you'd want to consult before making videos. I don't actually know all that much when it comes to history. I watch your channel to learn, after all!
As for how to phrase the idea you were going for, I would personally have used a word like "speculation" rather than "theory." You're describing a shift away from just thinking really hard about things and speculating about how the world ought to be instead of actually going out and seeing how the world actually was. I know that's not entirely true for Ptolemy and his system, as his was actually a theoretical framework based on observation - he just happened to be wrong. Eventually his model was overturned in favor of the heliocentric models, but at least he tried to adjust his view of the cosmos to fit observations, what with his epicycles and all that.
Thank you for making it clear here, Andrian.
I love you Daddy Richey
At 10:34, you probably meant "SUN" instead of "EARTH", right ?
Galileo was not the first to discover that the world was round, maybe in Europe but not in the middle east.
+finalfrontier001 Did you watch the video?? He never says Galileo discovered the earth was round. It was already known. ua-cam.com/video/y-XiG8S4o_A/v-deo.htmlm37s
You look a bit like Matt Damon!
you should make a video about Johannes Kepler
Great video, thank you very much, note to self(nts) watched all of it,
Top ten anime betrayals
Isaiah Hernandez wtf bro just go back to the chat😂😂
I saw you on amoeba sisters comments, whats the top betrayal??
10:40 he said that venus is revolving around the earth
19:52 Priceless!
Informative and well presented. I'm not sure I'd equate 'Biblical Cosmology' with Christianity. True, the Roman Catholic Pope was supposedly the authority on everything and his directives were enforced by the Inquisition. Heresy was such a useful tool in keeping people in line with official doctrine. But one could argue, and Luther had by this time, that the Pope and his viperous gang of religious thugs, wasn't very Christian at all. As a matter of fact, Christ had no skin in the game of promoting either the geo- or heliocentric theory of the cosmos. The Christian religion had bigger fish to fry and that was teaching the way to achieve eternal life after one's earthly existence was done, ie: obtaining forgiveness of sins and salvation. Galileo showed how the Roman Catholic Church diminished its credibility by trying to use the Bible to fight science. As a devout Christian he knew the purpose of the Bible and it was not to prove that the sun orbited the earth. So I would be careful to distinguish between the very real political power of the Roman Catholic Church of the day and the actual teachings of Christ.
You may think. Therefore I am but you think. Therefore it is.
Just quoting someone in one of your other videos,
because it was a comment while back, and he brings up a good point. Our ap euro test is on May 6 this year! At least for me.
"Gabriel Greenbaum10 months ago
Hi Tom, I want to start out by saying that I love you videos, and they are extremely helpful (as well as entertaining at times). I understand that the AP is in 5 days so it may not be possible, but it seems that you're AP Euro videos end by the interwar period, and you do not have any lectures on WWII, the Cold War, and Post-war Europe. If possible, would you be able to make a video on any of the topics? Thanks "
+Sijun Hwang This is definitely something I hope to do, but the issue is that by the time I am teaching the Postwar period, I am also getting ready for the exam and my tutoring calendar also tends to fill up. That being said, I will work harder.
I'll be looking forward to it Tom... Where'd you graduate from?
Still waiting on that shoutout for Ms.Landsea's period 5!
Could the other force be Sirius?
Love how you end it with some hard rock!
At 10:35, Tom, you said, "heavenly body that is also revolving around the EARTH just like...)
Thank you!
Holy cow you are good at speaking
I'd like to hear more about Copernicus. But I'm digging what you're putting out there... You got a Twitter handle I can follow? Thanks for the knowledge.
Mr. Richey, ... what about the WOMEN of history and their contributions to the development of modern science?
where my ladies @?! Please make a video on this important topic
Thanks for your help!
Copernicus was a priest, it's hard to hold him guilty for not publishing until death bed.
That was certainly not my intention. I certainly would not want to have been burned at the stake. He did the smart thing!
Tom Richey
I didn't think you did, but some people tend to dismiss him sometimes.
Just saw it. Following you...
Why scientific revolution lecture not found in Hindi medium??
How Galileo confirmed Heliocentric theory?
Thanks! Great clarity!
Watched all of it 19:01
He almost certainly didn't drop the items from the tower of Pisa
10:30 another heavenly body that's revolving around the Earth just like us.... No
Thanks, you just made my quick paper easier.
So sunflower oil?
Back wipes
Erm, I know it's not up to you but these GRAMMARLY commercials are really getting on my nerves. Thanks for the video, BTW.
you forgot all about Tycho Brahe, and the Dutch who invented the telescope in the first place...
You should have mentioned Aristarkus though.
May be you can do a bit more on Asian history
I want to take your class, sir.
De Revolutionibus was published just before Copernicus died, not posthumously.
major key alert!!!!!!!!!
Although attached to the cathedral all of his life Copernicus never took holy orders and was thus never a priest
those flat earthers be like
DESTROY THOSE DEMON TUBES!
That gives the very idea of constructivism...
You mean that Venus evolve around the sun , just as we do?
isn't every point in the universe the center?
where is Giordano Bruno? Univerese is infinite, stars have their own planets
HALALUYA HALALUYA Hosana Hosana Hosana Glory too Jesus thank you lord Jesus christ.
nice👏
Good
the joke about elliptical talk made me laugh but for the wrong reasons
great
Go on sun, excellent
You use the word theory incorrectly, scientific theory is basically a fact
cool
You dont know things for Greeks better read more Ancient Greeks .. Aristarchus of Samos(310 - 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known heliocentric model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it .heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. Aristarchus' heliocentrism attracted little attention-possibly because of the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic period.
Hi
why does water self level?
@James Herndon wow a thoroughly worded non answer , refer to who? gravity?
buoyancy? how about a simple fact that water levels prove flat surfaces and thus water self levels because its on a flat surface.....now genius I answered the question with an answer you can prove... prove gravity without density and buoyancy because without those you have no gravity thus gravity doesnt exist but density and buoyancy doe exist
i lost it at Farquaad
Well Newton wasn't that right about gravity either in the end, it's not even a force.
Gravity is in relation to the Earths electromagnetic force.
Navigation by the stars on a tilting, spinning, whirling planet covered 70% by water in the vacuum of space 😂
Ingore the grammer mistakes. I have fat thumbs and my autocorrect doesnt work. My bad lol
Who's here from Donovan?
Jesus says The world is flat at Trust to God Not someone else....
Source please?
Nice video, except like so many modern day Heliocentric advocators you left out some very key crucial information that gives strong support to the Geocentric model. (Which is the actually correct model) You mentioned Kepler, and of Course you mentioned Newton. You focused you're attack on the geocentric model on the Ptolemaic model.( Which is very out dated). You mentioned Galileo's empirical evidence method. That nothing is considered fact until it can be demonstrated through empirical scientific experimentation.
The facts you seemingly conveniently left out, is Kepler got his observations to make his calculations and from his laws of planetary motion from Tycho Brahe! Tycho Brahe was a Geocentric advocator, in fact it was Brahe's death bed wish that his life's work (to correct the observational problems with the Ptolemaic geocentric model) be completed. Also any modern day Astronomer, or Physics major(such as George Ellis, Stephen Weinberg, L. Popov, and even Einstein in his published book "the Evolution of Physics" published in 1937) will admit and say the Observations(for both systems) match perfectly! They (The Heliocentric and the Neo-Tychonic Geocentric models) from an observational perspective are simply mirror images of each other!
So what empirical scientific experimentation has ever been done to prove the Earth orbits the sun? No experiment ever conducted and done in the attempt to prove the Earth orbits the Sun has ever been successful. They have tried, and failed every time! such as the Michelson/Morley or the Airy, or so many others that all showed the Earth to be motionless in space!
The empirical scientific experimental results actually show the NEO-Tychonic Geocentric model to be the most accurate and correct model of the universe and Cosmos.
Thanks to the quantum theory Ptolemy has the last laugh.
someone pls tell me wth I am watching
Copernicus and Galileo: A Scientific Revolution