0
Some scientists disagreed with the phlogiston theory because it could not explain all the observations, such as the weight changes in substances during combustion. Additionally, the discovery of oxygen and its role in combustion provided a more accurate explanation for the phenomena previously attributed to phlogiston.
What else can I help you with?
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.
Who opposed J J Thomsons atomic theory?
Some scientists who opposed J.J. Thomson's atomic theory included William Prout, Ernst Rutherford, and Max Planck. These scientists challenged aspects of Thomson's model, such as the presence of subatomic particles within the atom.
All matter in human body is made of phlogistan?
Phlogiston was a theory in early chemistry that has been discredited. In reality, all matter in the human body is made up of elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and more, which combine to form molecules and compounds essential for life. Understanding the composition of the human body through modern chemistry and biology is crucial for advancing medical and scientific knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
Why some Scientists disagree with Charles Darwin's work?
Some scientists may disagree with Charles Darwin's work due to religious or philosophical beliefs that conflict with evolutionary theory. Others may have alternative hypotheses or interpretations of the evidence that lead them to reject certain aspects of Darwin's ideas. The nature of science is to continually question and refine knowledge, so it is not uncommon for scientists to have differing viewpoints on certain theories.
Why do people believe that the big bang is fake?
Mainstream scientists do NOT believe it is fake. It is generally accepted. Of course, you will always find people who disagree, perhaps for philosophical or religious reasons.Mainstream scientists do NOT believe it is fake. It is generally accepted. Of course, you will always find people who disagree, perhaps for philosophical or religious reasons.Mainstream scientists do NOT believe it is fake. It is generally accepted. Of course, you will always find people who disagree, perhaps for philosophical or religious reasons.Mainstream scientists do NOT believe it is fake. It is generally accepted. Of course, you will always find people who disagree, perhaps for philosophical or religious reasons.
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.
Why do many scientists disagree with the uniformitarianism theory?
Many scientists disagree with uniformitarianism due to growing recognition of catastrophic events and sudden changes in Earth's history that cannot be explained solely by gradual processes. Additionally, new scientific evidence and discoveries have led to a more dynamic understanding of Earth's past, challenging the strict uniformitarian view. Some scientists argue that a combination of gradual processes and sudden events better explains the geological record.
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.
