www.tomrichey.net Copernicus and Galileo were major figures in the Scientific Revolution and were instrumental in transforming scientific thought regarding the cosmos from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
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!
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.
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!!!!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-y-XiG8S4o_A.htmlm37s
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
Really inspiration love your work You One of the greatest inspiration of our generation 🙌 Try looking in reincarnation and virgin births you will find Hinduism , Islam and Christianity has a lot of key points that most us missed
