Download Timeline, Topics, and Resources for iMovie Projects

Timeline, Topics, and Resources for iMovie Projects
Week #1
Can gravity actually effect light?: The debate of relativity v. Newtonian mechanics
Editor: Jake
Actors: Robert, Vanessa, Jake
Camera: Anna
Writer: Anna
Albert Einstein’s notion of our physical world was a shock to Newtonian physics and the
way scientists had made since of the world since the late 1400’s. It was even announced
by noted physicists at the turn of the century that there were no more discoveries to be
made. Physics was a dead and discovered discipline. Enters Albert Einstein. Einstein
argued mathematically that there was no way to tell whether the gravity we observed was
not a force at all, rather simply a bend in the space-time continuum. Einstein’s ideas
were so revolutionary that he didn’t even site a single scientist before him in his
paper—an unprecedented and arrogant practice for scientists of his day. There was major
opposition to his theory but there was a specific event that launched him into history as
one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Einstein’s calculations predicted that light from a
star would be bent by the gravity of the sun as it passed. Since Newton’s Three Laws
assumed that an object must have mass to be acted on by gravity this would ultimately
prove who was right. The world celebrated Einstein’s victory on that day in 1919 and its
reconfirmation in 1922. Out of his theory came such notions as: 1 ) objects shrink as
they approach the speed of light, 2) Objects are shifted blue as they approach and red as
they recede, 3) objects mass becomes infinite as the speed of light is achieved, 4) objects
can never achieve the speed of light because it would take infinite energy E=mC2 ,5)
time is relative to the observer (twin’s experiment), and 6) the orbits of planets, effects of
gravity, and other phenomena we attribute to physical forces are actually bends in a
space-time continuum
Websites:
http://sci.esa.int/content/doc/1b/13851_.htm
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/physics/eclipse.htm
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Albert Einstein
Week #2
What makes us sick? Sir Joseph Lister/ Louis Pasteur v. Bloodletting
Editor: Sisi
Actors: San, Lillith, Sisi,
Camera: Megan
Writer: Sam
Prior to the 18th century, medical cures included blood letting, exorcisms, and common
herbal cures that had less than 50% success rates. Even George Washington was treated
by such methods. By the middle of the nineteenth century, infection accounted for the
death of almost half of the patients undergoing major surgery. A common report by
surgeons was: operation successfully but the patient died. In 1839 the chemist Justin von
Liebig had asserted that sepsis was a kind of combustion caused by exposing moist body
tissue to oxygen. It was therefore considered that the best prevention was to keep air
away from wounds by means of plasters. Joseph Lister, a British surgeon, doubted this
explanation. For many years he had explored the inflammation of wounds, at the
Glasgow infirmary. These observations had led him to considered that infection was not
due to bad air alone. When, In 1865, Louis Pasteur suggested that decay was caused by
living organisms in the air, which on entering matter caused it to ferment, Lister made the
connection with wounds. Lister had heard that 'carbolic acid' was being used to treat
sewage in Carlise, and that fields treated with the affluent were freed of a parasite causing
disease in cattle. He chose to spray carboxylic acid (also known as Phenol) in the air
during surgery. Though he lost many nurse practitioners to respiratory problems, his
surgical success rate was increased to an unprecedented 85%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/medicine/nonint/indust/dt/indtbi5.shtml
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/Lister.html
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/Museum/lis.html
“Chance favors the prepared mind.” --Louis Pasteur
Week #3
How old is the earth? Lord Kelvin vs. Charles Darwin
Editor: Mariana
Actors: Tim, Taylor
Camera: Chris
Writer: Taylor
In 1862 Kelvin estimated the age of the Earth to be 98 million years, based on a model of
the rate of cooling. This was a minimum acceptable age consistent with geology. Later in
1897 he revised his estimate downwards to 20-40 million years. This was too short for
the geologists to swallow. Estimates of the age of the Sun were also too small to be
consistent with geology. However, Charles Darwin posed in his “Evolution of the
species” a mechanism that would require far more than this time period to account for the
diversity of species observed in the 19th century. The astonishing power of reputation
brought to light in the account of the decades-long battle between Lord Kelvin, a titan of
science in his time, and the proponents of the new field of geology over Kelvin's drastic
underestimate of the age of Earth (he proved to be billions of years off the mark) led
Darwin to question his own findings.
http://www.darwinfoundation.org/
http://www.josseybass.com/cda/product/0,,0471169803,00.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html
“I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,by the
term Natural Selection.” –Charles Darwin
"Whenever I have found out that I have blundered, or that my work has been imperfect,
and when I have been contemptuously criticized, and even when I have been overpraised,
so that I have felt mortified, it has been my greatest comfort to say hundreds of times to
myself that 'I have worked as hard and as well as I could, and no man can do more than
this'." ("Autobiography of Charles Darwin" Nora Barlow editor, W. W. Norton, 1958,
page 126)
Week #4
What’s in the atom? Ernst Rutherford confronts the Greek notion that all matter is made
of earth water fire and air.
Editor: Sofyan
Actors: Darcy, Megan
Camera: Jorge
Writer: Neil
Democratis a Greek Philosopher lived in 5th century B.C. suggested matter is composed
of small indivisible particles known as atoms. His theory was known as Atomisn.
Aristotle and another group of philosophers believed that matter was composed of a
combination of the four elements earth, wind, fire and water. In opposition to this idea,
Ernst Rutherford explored the very composition of atoms by shooting subatomic particles
at gold foil. Rutherford assumed that the same laws of reflecting objects would apply to
alpha particles. His results demonstrated that most of the particles passed directly
through the foil and he concluded that the atom is mostly space. In addition, many
bounced directly back leading him to believe that the nucleus was both very dense and
positively charged (since alpha particles are positively charged and opposites repel).
Ernest Rutherford was awarded the 1908 Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his investigations
into the disintegration of the elements, and the chemistry of radioactive substances.'' As
he delighted in telling friends, the fastest transformation he knew of was his
transformation from a physicist to a chemist.
http://www.rutherford.org.nz/awards.htm
http://www.newlisbon.k12.wi.us/physicists/ruthrfd.html
“It was as if you shot a piece of tissue paper with a cannon and it bounced back at you.” –
Ernst Rutherford
Week #5
What makes objects burn? The re-discovery of oxygen by Antione Laviosier and Joseph
Priestly versus Georg Ernst Stahl
Editor: Zack
Actors: David, Jessica, Dan
Camera: Dan, Zack
Writer: Sammy
German chemist and physician. It is considered as a main founder of the Phlogiston
theory, which supplied an explanation of the burn of substances. Although many of steel
theories were replaced in the meantime by concepts more up-to-date, its work for the
development of chemistry is undisputed. Steel was born in Ansbach (Bavaria) and
worked later than body physician of the duke of Saxonia Weimar. He held lectures on
medicine at the university of resounds and became 1716 body physician of the Prussian
king Friedrich William I. Building on the work of his teacher, the German chemist
Johann Joachim Cup, Georg Ernst Stahl suggested that a material (called Phlogiston)
forms both the basis for the burn and for the oxidation. He was thereby the first chemist,
who recognized the analogy of burn and oxidation processes. One explanation of
phlogiston was that it was a toxin release to the outside when burned and it was proved
when mice would die when wood was burned in a sealed container. Instead of supporting
Laviosier’s oxygen was robbed from the container, it was reported as confirmation that
phlogiston was a toxic substance! The Phlogiston theory was disproved later by the
French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, when he stated the role of the oxygen with the burn.
Oxygen was not quick to win support however. It is reported at least on three different
occasions to have been discovered and rejected as a possible explanation for combustion.
Burning was thought to be a property within the object instead of a combination of gases
(e.g.; oxygen) from outside. Much proof was gathered to refute Antoine Laviosier’s
discovery of oxygen but it outlasted and out-competed all other theories of the day.
Laviosier was beheaded during the French Revolution for being a nobleman, despite his
philanthropic deeds throughout the war. Joseph Lagrange, the great mathematician,
wrote of Laviosier, “It required only a moment to sever that head, and perhaps a century
will not be sufficient to produce another like it.”
http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/hccinfo/instruct/div5/sci/sci122/atomic/skepchem/phloggen.ht
ml
http://webserver.lemoyne.edu/faculty/giunta/phlogiston.html
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/Contexts/phlog.html
http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://histoirechimie.free.fr/Lien/S
TAHL.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgeorg%2Bernst%2Bstahl%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%
26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG
Week #6
What are the planets?: The debate of Greek gods v. the Orbits of Johannes Kepler
Editor: Chris S.
Actors: Andrew, Kate
Camera: Blake
Writer: Chris S.
Plato, with his belief that the world was constructed with geometric simplicity and
elegance, felt certain that the sun, moon and planets, being made of ether, would have a
natural circular motion, since that is the simplest uniform motion that repeats itself
endlessly, as their motion did. However, although the "fixed stars" did in fact move in
simple circles about the North star, the sun, moon and planets traced out much more
complicated paths across the sky. These paths had been followed closely and recorded
since early Babylonian civilization, so were very well known. Plato suggested that
perhaps these complicated paths were actually combinations of simple circular motions,
and challenged his Athenian colleagues to prove it.
The Greek philosophers of the day observed five planets - Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn and these were known to the ancients as gods. To the unaided eye, these
planets appear star like. However, the planets moved relative to the stars. For this reason
they were called wandering stars. Our word "planet" comes from the Greek word
planetes, meaning "wanderer". The Greeks thought that these heavenly bodies predicted
war, love, famine, and other earthly events. Johannes Kepler, however, knew these were
orbiting bodies like the earth around the sun and sought ways to model their paths to
predict their locations from year to year. Kepler was convinced that the motions would
be as elegant as Plato predicted, perfect spheres, but placed the sun at the center of this
motion. Kepler was so devoted to his notion that he sought the best data of the modern
world. He accepted a hireling’s position under the noted astronomer Tyco Brahe, known
for his lavish parties and extravagant living. Kepler poured over whatever data he could
get his eyes on but found that a mere 4 points did not match Mars’ orbits to make it a
perfect circle. It was his attention to so minute a detail that led him to develop his three
laws of planetary motion was based upon elliptical movements and not perfect circles.
What are the uniform and ordered movements, by the assumption of which the apparent
movements of the planets can be accounted for?
- Plato 4th Century B.C.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/greek_astro.htm
http://spiffyentertainment.8m.com/planets.html
http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Kepler.html
Week #7
What is the center of the solar system? Galileo Galile/Nicholas Copernicus v. Ptolemy
the Pope, and the observance of Mars’ retrograde motion.
Editor: Kyrstin
Actors: Yannick, Oliver, Rachel
Camera: Yannick
Writer: Rachel
Ptolemy’s main idea was that each planet (and also, of course, the sun and moon) went
around the earth in a cycle, a large circle centered at the center of the earth, but at the
same time the planets were describing smaller circles, or epicycles, about the point that
was describing the cycle. Mercury and Venus, traveled in smaller epicycles centered on
the line from the earth to the sun. Ptolemy, centuries after Aristarchus, certainly did not
think the earth rotated. His point was that the ether was lighter than any of the earthly
elements, even fire, so it would be easy for it to move rapidly, motion that would be
difficult and unnatural for earth, the heaviest material. And if the earth did rotate, Athens
would be moving at several hundred miles per hour. How could the air keep up? And
even if somehow it did, since it was light, what about heavy objects falling through the
air? If somehow the air was carrying them along, they must be very firmly attached to the
air, making it difficult to see how they could ever move relative to the air at all! Yet they
can be, since they can fall, so the whole idea must be wrong. Ptolemy did, however,
know that the earth was spherical. He pointed out that people living to the east saw the
sun rise earlier, and how much earlier was proportional to how far east they were located.
He also noted that, though all must see a lunar eclipse simultaneously, those to the east
will see it as later, e.g. at 1 a.m., say, instead of midnight, local time. He also observed
that on traveling to the north, Polaris rises in the sky, so this suggests the earth is curved
in that direction too. Finally, on approaching a hilly island from far away on a calm sea,
he noted that the island seemed to rise out of the sea. He attributed this phenomenon
(correctly) to the curvature of the earth.
Despite the difficult contradictions in Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ views, Pope Clement
VII approved of a summary of Copernicus' work in 1530, and asked for a copy of the full
work when it was available. This was not until 1543, the year Copernicus died. As
Copernicus' new picture of the universe became more widely known, misgivings arose.
The universe had after all been created for mankind, so why wasn't mankind at the
center? An intellectual revolutionary called Giordano Bruno accepted Copernicus' view,
and went further, claiming that the stars were spread through an infinite space, not just on
an outer sphere, and there were infinitely many inhabited worlds. Bruno was burned at
the stake in 1600.
The real breakthrough that ultimately led to the acceptance of Copernicus' theory was due
to Galileo, but was actually a technological rather than a conceptual breakthrough. It was
Galileo's refinement and clever use of the telescope that persuaded people that the moon
was a lot like the earth, and in some ways, so were the planets. Galileo found out about
this invention in the spring of 1609, and immediately set about improving it. He saw it as
a possible way out of his financial difficulties. Galileo was an excellent experimentalist,
and working with different lenses, he realized that the magnification was proportional to
the ratio of the power of the concave (eyepiece) lens to the convex (more distant) lens.
Of course, Galileo's belief that his discoveries with the telescope strongly favored the
Copernican world view meant he was headed for trouble with the Church. Pope Urban
VIII's anger at Galileo is well documented and their famous battle over the evidence that
Earth revolves around the Sun. In fact, his Venetian friends warned him that it might be
dangerous to leave the protection of the Venetian state. In 1611, Galileo went to Rome
and met with the Jesuit astronomers. Probably he felt that if he could win them over, he
would smooth his path in any future problems with the Church. Father Clavius, author of
Gregorian Calendar and undisputed leader of Jesuit astronomy had a hard time believing
there were mountains on the moon, but he surrendered with good grace on looking
through the telescope (Sant., pages 18, 20). One archbishop wrote (p 20): "Bellarmine
asked the Jesuits for an opinion on Galileo, and the learned fathers sent the most
favorable letter you can think of … " Bellarmine was chief theologian of the Church, and
a Jesuit himself. Bellarmine wrote in a letter to A. Foscarini, 12 April 1615:
Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of
the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the
earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great
care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do
not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe
that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me."
(Quote from Feldhay, Galileo and the Church, Cambridge, 1995, page 35)
This was far from a mindless rejection of the Copernican picture-it just demanded a more
convincing demonstration. To understand something of Galileo's early upbringing, here is
a quote from his father, Vincenzo Galileo:
"It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove
any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I
wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That
well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth."
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/greek_astro.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/etp/discovery/disc_ancient.html
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/galtel.htm
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_life.htm