this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
265 points (99.6% liked)
chapotraphouse
13866 readers
780 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meh they tell you about phlogiston when teaching the history of chemistry in highschool
Not anymore lmao.
I took chemistry in college and never heard of it
Why would college waste time explaining ancient erroneous hypothesis?
I'm just saying they didn't give a second of instructional time to it in HS or college for me
Aah, being "taught" the history of the atom theory probably did us more harm than good cuz we never got a definitive answer of how does that shit actually works if Bohr's model is bad too.
But everything was so half-assed and nobody gave a shit nor even the teachers than why bother mate
The answer is atomic orbitals by the way, although any actual explanation of the subatomic realm delves into quantum mechanics by necessity.
yum yum plum pudding
Fucking hell why the fuck are you making me learn an obviously wrong model for fuck sakes
Maybe Helps you spot modern erroneous hypotheses
My Molecular Biology professor spent a semester teaching us how shit got discovered with extemely pain-in-the-ass experiments that always used radioactive reactives and the mist imoortant take-away is that the times change and technology gets great but wetlab will always suck ass
Is that the shit where they thought they could spontaneously create life e.g. by putting straw in a cellar and miraculously rats will spring from nothing? Or was that the lumeniferous ether or something? My biology class talked about some weird shit in historical theories.
you're thinking of spontaneous generation.
phlogiston was a theorized substance related to combustion and luminiferous aether was a theorized medium for the propagation of light waves.
Phlogiston was a substance of negative oxidation. Combustibles lost their phlogiston as they burned, it was assumed, because the ash was much lighter than the original wood for instance. But this was all because the CO2 just dissipated. When measurements improved, it could be demonstrated that iron oxide weighed more than the original iron that rusted which disproved the phlogiston theory.