0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the phlogiston theory?
It was an early theory put forward by chemists to explain certain things about the chemistry of air. Particularly to explain what was in the air that could or could not support burning or life.
Is copernicium a liquid?
It is supposed, from theory, that copernicium is a transition metal. Some scientists predicted that copernicium will be strange gaseous metal.
All matter in human body is made of phlogistan?
Phlogiston? No! This is a discarded assertion that there was some elementary ' thing ' in materials that caused burning.
Why did it take 2000 years for scientists to confirm some of Democritus ideas about atoms?
Democritus gave a theory, but Aristotle shut him out. Everybody forgot about this, and there was no one looking into this, no progress was being made.
Why did it take 2000 years for scientists to confirm some of Democritus's ideas about atoms?
Democritus gave a theory, but Aristotle shut him out. Everybody forgot about this, and there was no one looking into this, no progress was being made.
Did Antoine lavoisier agree with the phlogiston theory?
The Phlogiston theory was before it waslearned that matter burns by using oxygen. Most chemists looked to explain combustion as the release of an unknown substance, which they named "phlogiston". Phlogiston theory was a conceptual breakthrough that helped chemists conduct experiments and share ideas.
Is phlogiston considered a scientific knowledge?
No. Phlogiston was a theory considered to be fact and actually hindered scientific knowledge until it was discredited. The theory was used to explain certain observations about flame, oxidation, and the formation of certain compounds, most noticeably cinnabar. As with some theories, phlogiston used variable factors to explain anomalies. For instance it was assumed to have negative weight under certain circumstances. Once oxidation was properly understood phlogiston theory was no longer considered true.
What is phlogiston supposed to do?
It was noticed that when things burn, they often leave behind an ash or residue that doesn't burn. It was suggested that before it burns, a flammable object contains some substance called phlogiston, which would make it burn, and when the phlogiston is used up, what is left over would not be able to burn. This theory was later shown to be wrong, and phlogiston is no longer part of the science of chemistry.
What did scientist think phlogiston was?
Phlogiston can be defined as "a hypothetical substance once believed to be present in all combustible materials and to be released during burning." Chemistry was so underdeveloped at the time Antoine Lavoisier gained interest in it that it could hardly be called a science. The prevailing view of combustion was the Phlogiston Theory which involved a weightless or nearly weightless substance known as phlogiston. Metals and fire were considered to be rich in phlogiston and earth was considered phlogiston poor. The following were the main theories put forward for 'phlogiston': * Weight loss when combustibles are burned because they lose phlogiston * Fire burns out in an enclosed space because it saturates the air with phlogiston * Charcoal leaves very little residue when burned because it is made mostly of phlogiston * Animals die in an airtight space because the air becomes saturated with phlogiston * Some metal calxes turn to metals when heated with charcoal because the phlogiston from the charcoal restores the phlogiston in the metal
What is the phlogiston theory?
It was an early theory put forward by chemists to explain certain things about the chemistry of air. Particularly to explain what was in the air that could or could not support burning or life.
You dont get the phlogiston theory?
The phlogiston theory was discarded by chemists a long time ago. The idea was that things burn because they contain some mysterious substance called phlogiston, and when the plogiston is used up, what is left is an ash of some sort which can no longer burn. We now know that combustion involves many different chemical reactions that different flammable chemicals have, rather than being the result of one single flammable substance that is present in everything that burns. Combustion does always involve oxygen, but oxygen can react with a great many different chemicals.
What are scientific theories that proved to be wrong?
Some I know of: Phlogiston, Galileo's theory of tides, Greek proposition that all numbers are rational, Proposition that malaria is caused by airborne miasmas.
Do you think it's wise for scientists not to accept a theory immediately even if the theory has a lot of evidence to support it?
Each scientists have there own opinion. Some accept theories and some have to have facts.
Why do creation scientists disagree with darwin's evolution theory?
Because they are not scientists and have ideological commitments that occludes their view of the truth. When you have a conclusion and then go looking for facts to support you are not doing science. Creation stories are a dime a dozen. All cultures have them and none of these stories, with some of the contradicting each other, agree with reality.
Why do scientists disagree about the number of moons the outer planets have?
They don't. Some books may seem to disagree because they are outdated. More moons have been discovered since those books were published.
Who are some foreign and local scientists and their contributions?
Though it is impossible to know what scientists would be foreign or local, some well known scientists are: Aristotle :Father of biology Schwann:Modern Theory of Cell
How many people believe in the big bang theory?
It depends, because some might say 'scientists'. But not all scientists believe in this theory. Also, there are those who believe in a similar idea to the Big Bang, but it is not refered to as 'The Big Band Theory.'
