History of Modern Science please use the handout and the videos as sources and don’t forget to cite your work Create a timeline with some of the most impo

History of Modern Science please use the handout and the videos as sources and don’t forget to cite your work

Create a timeline with some of the most important events in the history of Science during modern times.

Timelines usually consist of major or important events that occurred during a specific period of time. So, for your timeline:

The period of time compressed between late 19th century and present day.
Pick 10 important events in Science that have occurred in this period of time. Your timeline can as general as you want or it can have a theme, like: Women in Science in the 20th Century, or Advances in Biology in the 20the century, etc…
For each of the events add: Date, Event, short description, names (if appropriate), photo that represents the event.

TO REVIEW:
Your assignment will be graded on the following items:

Title
Your Name
Timeline with
10 Dates of events in chronological order.
A brief description of each event.
A picture of each event.
As short project summary (1 paragraph) that describes the timeline and answers these questions:
Why you picked those events?
What is the correlation between the events? for example: all advance in medicine, or contribution of women scientist, etc…
How those events affect the development and progress of science?

The timeline can be either vertical or horizontal.

To create a timeline in word follow these instructions: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-a-timeline-9c4448a9-99c7-4b0e-8eff-0dcf535f223c (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

pppl https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=ZcWsjlGPPFQ
The Modern Scientist
In 1543, as he lay on his deathbed, Copernicus finished reading the proofs of his great work;
he died just as it was published. His De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI (“Six Books
Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs”) was the opening shot in a revolution
whose consequences were greater than those of any other intellectual event in the history of
humankind. The scientific revolution radically altered the conditions of thought and of
material existence in which the human race lives, and its effects are not yet exhausted.
Engraving of the solar system from Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium …The Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum,
Chicago, IllinoisAll this was caused by Copernicus daring to place the Sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the cosmos.
Copernicus
Copernicus (1473-1543) actually cited Hermes Trismegistos to justify this idea, and his
language was thoroughly Platonic. But he meant his work as a serious work in astronomy,
not philosophy, so he set out to justify it observationally and mathematically. The results
were impressive. At one stroke, Copernicus reduced a complexity verging on chaos to elegant
simplicity. The apparent back-and-forth movements of the planets, which required
prodigious ingenuity to accommodate within the Ptolemaic system, could be accounted for
just in terms of the Earth’s own orbital motion added to or subtracted from the motions of the
planets: Heliocentrism. Variation in planetary brightness was also explained by this
combination of motions. The fact that Mercury and Venus were never found opposite to the
Sun in the sky was explained by Copernicus by placing their orbits closer to the Sun than
that of the Earth.
Indeed, Copernicus was able to place the planets in order of their distances from the Sun by
considering their speeds and thus to construct a system of the planets, something that had
eluded Ptolemy. This system had a simplicity, coherence, and aesthetic charm that made it
irresistible to those who felt that God was the supreme artist. His was not a rigorous
argument, but aesthetic considerations are not to be ignored in the history of science.
Copernicus did not solve all of the difficulties of the Ptolemaic system. He had to keep some
of the cumbrous apparatus of epicycles and other geometrical adjustments, as well as a few
Aristotelian crystalline spheres. The result was neater, but not so striking that it commanded
immediate universal assent. Moreover, there were some implications that caused
considerable concern: Why should the crystalline orb containing the Earth circle the Sun?
And how was it possible for the Earth itself to revolve on its axis once in 24 hours without
hurling all objects, including humans, off its surface? No known physics could answer these
questions, and the provision of such answers was to be the central concern of the scientific
revolution.
More was at stake than physics and astronomy, for one of the implications of the Copernican
system struck at the very foundations of contemporary society. If the Earth revolved around
the Sun, then the apparent positions of the fixed stars should shift as the Earth moves in its
orbit. Copernicus and his contemporaries could detect no such shift (called stellar parallax),
and there were only two interpretations possible to explain this failure. Either the Earth was
at the centre, in which case no parallax was to be expected, or the stars were so far away that
the parallax was too small to be detected. Copernicus chose the latter and thereby had to
accept an enormous cosmos consisting mostly of empty space. God, it had been assumed, did
nothing in vain, so for what purposes might he have created a universe in which Earth and
humankind were lost in immense space?
To accept Copernicus was to give up the Dantean cosmos. The Aristotelian hierarchy of social
place, political position, and theological gradation would vanish, to be replaced by the flatness
and plainness of Euclidean space. It was a grim prospect and not one that recommended itself
to most 16th-century intellectuals, and so Copernicus’s grand idea remained on the periphery
of astronomical thought. All astronomers were aware of it, some measured their own views
against it, but only a small handful eagerly accepted it.
In the century and a half following Copernicus, two easily discernible scientific movements
developed. The first was critical, the second, innovative and synthetic. They worked together
to bring the old cosmos into disrepute and, ultimately, to replace it with a new one.
Although they existed side by side, their effects can more easily be seen if they are treated
separately.
TYCHO, KEPLER, AND GALILEO
The critical tradition began with Copernicus. It led directly to the work of Tycho Brahe
(1546-1606), who measured stellar and planetary positions more accurately than had anyone
before him.
But measurement alone could not decide between Copernicus and Ptolemy, and Tycho
insisted that the Earth was motionless. Copernicus did persuade Tycho to move the centre of
revolution of all other planets to the Sun. To do so, he had to abandon the Aristotelian
crystalline spheres that otherwise would collide with one another.
Engraving of Tycho Brahe at the mural quadrant, from his book Astronomiae
instauratae …Courtesy of the Joseph Regenstein Library, University of Chicago
Tycho also cast doubt upon the Aristotelian doctrine of heavenly perfection, for when, in the
1570s, a comet and a new star appeared, Tycho showed that they were both above the sphere
of the Moon.
Perhaps the most serious critical blows struck were those delivered by Galileo (15641642)after the invention of the telescope. In quick succession, he announced that there were
mountains on the Moon, satellites circling Jupiter, and spots upon the Sun. Moreover, the
Milky Way was composed of countless stars whose existence no one had suspected until
Galileo saw them. Here was criticism that struck at the very roots of Aristotle’s system of the
world.
Johannes Kepler, oil painting by an unknown artist, 1627; in the cathedral of Strasbourg, France. Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New York
At the same time Galileo was searching the heavens with his telescope, in Germany Johannes
Kepler ( 1571-1630) was searching them with his mind. Tycho’s precise observations
permitted Kepler to discover that Mars (and, by analogy, all the other planets) did not
revolve in a circle at all, but in an ellipse, with the Sun at one focus. Ellipses tied all the
planets together in grand Copernican harmony. The Keplerian cosmos was most unAristotelian, but Kepler hid his discoveries by burying them in almost impenetrable Latin
prose in a series of works that did not circulate widely.
What Galileo and Kepler could not provide, although they tried, was an alternative to
Aristotle that made equal sense. If the Earth revolves on its axis, then why do objects not fly
off it? And why do objects dropped from towers not fall to the west as the Earth rotates to
the east beneath them? And how is it possible for the Earth, suspended in empty space, to go
around the Sun—whether in circles or ellipses—without anything pushing it? The answers
were long in coming.
Frontispiece to Galileo’s Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e …Courtesy of the Joseph Regenstein Library, The
University of Chicago
Galileo attacked the problems of the Earth’s rotation and its revolution by logical analysis.
Bodies do not fly off the Earth because they are not really revolving rapidly, even though
their speed is high. In revolutions per minute, any body on the Earth is going very slowly
and, therefore, has little tendency to fly off. Bodies fall to the base of towers from which they
are dropped because they share with the tower the rotation of the Earth. Hence, bodies
already in motion preserve that motion when another motion is added. So, Galileo deduced,
a ball dropped from the top of a mast of a moving ship would fall at the base of the mast. If
the ball were allowed to move on a frictionless horizontal plane, it would continue to move
forever. Hence, Galileo concluded, the planets, once set in circular motion, continue to move
in circles forever. Therefore, Copernican orbits exist. Galileo never acknowledged Kepler’s
ellipses; to do so would have meant abandoning his solution to the Copernican problem.
dddddddddddd
Kepler realized that there was a real problem with planetary motion. He sought to solve it by
appealing to the one force that appeared to be cosmic in nature, namely magnetism. The
Earth had been shown to be a giant magnet by William Gilbert in 1600, and Kepler seized
upon this fact. A magnetic force, Kepler argued, emanated from the Sun and pushed the
planets around in their orbits, but he was never able to quantify this rather vague and
unsatisfactory idea.
Cartesian system
By the end of the first quarter of the 17th century Aristotelianism was rapidly dying, but
there was no satisfactory system to take its place. The result was a mood of skepticism and
unease, for, as one observer put it, “The new philosophy calls all in doubt.” It was this void
that accounted largely for the success of a rather crude system proposed by René Descartes (
one of the most famous rationalist and father of Phylosophy). Matter and motion were taken
by Descartes to explain everything by means of mechanical models of natural processes, even
though he warned that such models were not the way nature probably worked. They
provided merely “likely stories,” which seemed better than no explanation at all.
Armed with matter and motion, Descartes attacked the basic Copernican problems. Bodies
once in motion, Descartes (1596-1650) argued, remain in motion in a straight line unless and
until they are deflected from this line by the impact of another body. All changes of motion
are the result of such impacts. Hence, the ball falls at the foot of the mast because, unless
struck by another body, it continues to move with the ship. Planets move around the Sun
because they are swept around by whirlpools of a subtle matter filling all space.
Similar models could be constructed to account for all phenomena; the Aristotelian system
could be replaced by the Cartesian. There was one major problem, however, and it sufficed to
bring down Cartesianism. Cartesian matter and motion had no purpose, nor did Descartes’s
philosophy seem to need the active participation of a deity. The Cartesian cosmos, as Voltaire
later put it, was like a watch that had been wound up at the creation and continues ticking to
eternity.
NEWTON
Isaac Newton, portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1689.© Bettmann/Corbis
The 17th century was a time of intense religious feeling, and nowhere was that feeling more
intense than in Great Britain. There a devout young man, Isaac Newton (1643-1727), was
finally to discover the way to a new synthesis in which truth was revealed and God was
preserved.
wewe
Newton was both an experimental and a mathematical genius, a combination that enabled
him to establish both the Copernican system and a new mechanics. His method was
simplicity itself: “from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of nature, and then
from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena.” Newton’s genius guided him in the
selection of phenomena to be investigated, and his creation of a fundamental mathematical
tool—the calculus (simultaneously invented by Gottfried Leibniz)—permitted him to submit
the forces he inferred to calculation.
Title page from Isaac Newton’s De Philosophiae Naturalis Principia …Courtesy of the Joseph Regenstein Library, The University of Chicago
The result was Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy, usually called simply the Principia), which appeared in 1687. Here was a
new physics that applied equally well to terrestrial and celestial bodies. Copernicus, Kepler,
and Galileo were all justified by Newton’s analysis of forces. Descartes was utterly defeated.
(Read more about Descartes and Newton here (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.)
Newton’s three laws of motion and his principle of universal gravitation sufficed to regulate
the new cosmos, but only, Newton believed, with the help of God. Gravity, he more than
once hinted, was direct divine action, as were all forces for order and vitality. Absolute space,
for Newton, was essential, because space was the “sensorium of God,” and the divine abode
must necessarily be the ultimate coordinate system. Finally, Newton’s analysis of the mutual
perturbations of the planets caused by their individual gravitational fields predicted the
natural collapse of the solar system unless God acted to set things right again.
The diffusion of the scientific knowledge
The publication of the Principia marks the culmination of the movement begun by
Copernicus and, as such, has always stood as the symbol of the scientific revolution. Similar
attempts to criticize, systematize, and organize natural knowledge that did not lead to such
dramatic results but we as well key for the development of science as we know it today . For
example, years of work in Anatomy and Phisiology culminated in the discovery of the
circulation of the blood by William Harvey, whose work Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu
Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus (An Anatomical Exercise Concerning the Motion of the
Heart and Blood in Animals) was published in 1628. This was the Principia of physiology and
established anatomy and physiology as sciences in their own right. Harvey showed that
organic phenomena could be studied experimentally and that some organic processes could
be reduced to mechanical systems. The heart and the vascular system could be considered as
a pump and a system of pipes and could be understood without recourse to spirits or other
forces immune to analysis.
In other sciences the attempt to systematize and criticize was not so successful. In chemistry,
for example, the work of the medieval and early modern alchemists had yielded important
new substances and processes, such as the mineral acids and distillation, but had obscured
theory in almost impenetrable mystical argot. Robert Boyle, the father of modern
chemistry, in England tried to clear away some of the intellectual underbrush by insisting
upon clear descriptions, reproducibility of experiments, and mechanical conceptions of
chemical processes. Chemistry, however, was not yet ripe for revolution.
dddddd
In many areas there was little hope of reducing phenomena to comprehensibility, simply
because of the sheer number of facts to be accounted for. New instruments like the
microscope and the telescope vastly multiplied the worlds with which humans had to
reckon. The voyages of discovery brought back a flood of new botanical and zoological
specimens that overwhelmed ancient classificatory schemes. The best that could be done was
to describe new things accurately and hope that someday they could all be fitted together in
a coherent way.
The growing flood of information put heavy strains upon old institutions and practices. It
was no longer sufficient to publish scientific results in an expensive book that few could buy;
information had to be spread widely and rapidly. Nor could the isolated genius, like Newton,
comprehend a world in which new information was being produced faster than any single
person could assimilate it. Natural philosophers had to be sure of their data, and to that end
they required independent and critical confirmation of their discoveries.
New means were created to accomplish these ends. Scientific societies sprang up, beginning
in Italy in the early years of the 17th century and culminating in the two great national
scientific societies that mark the zenith of the scientific revolution: the Royal Society of
London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge, created by royal charter in 1662, and
the Académie des Sciences of Paris, formed in 1666.
In these societies and others like them all over the world, natural philosophers could gather
to examine, discuss, and criticize new discoveries and old theories. To provide a firm basis for
these discussions, societies began to publish scientific papers. The Royal
Society’s Philosophical Transactions, which began as a private venture of its secretary, was
the first such professional scientific journal. It was soon copied by the French
academy’s Mémoires, which won equal importance and prestige. The old practice of hiding
new discoveries in private jargon, obscure language, or even anagrams gradually gave way to
the ideal of universal comprehensibility. New canons of reporting were devised so that
experiments and discoveries could be reproduced by others. This required new precision in
language and a willingness to share experimental or observational methods. The failure of
others to reproduce results cast serious doubts upon the original reports. Thus were created
the tools for a massive assault on nature’s secrets.
Even with the scientific revolution accomplished, much remained to be done. Again, it was
Newton who showed the way.
Conformity of observation to prediction was taken as evidence for the essential truth of the
theory. Second, Newton’s method made possible the discovery of laws of macroscopic action
that could be accounted for by microscopic forces. Here the seminal work was not
the Principia but Newton’s masterpiece of experimental physics, the Opticks, published in
1704, in which he showed how to examine a subject experimentally and discover the laws
concealed therein. Newton showed how judicious use of hypotheses could open the way to
further experimental investigation until a coherent theory was achieved. The Opticks was to
serve as the model in the 18th and early 19th centuries for the investigation of heat, light,
electricity, magnetism, and chemical atoms.
More biographies: https://www.biography.com (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.

Mechanics & Mathematics
Just as the Principia preceded the Opticks, so too did mechanics maintain its priority among
the sciences in the 18th century, in the process becoming transformed from a branch of
physics into a branch of mathematics. Many physical problems were reduced to
mathematical ones that proved amenable to solution by increasingly sophisticated analytical
methods. The Swiss Leonhard Euler was one of the most fertile and prolific workers in
mathematics and mathematical physics. His development of the calculus of
variations provided a powerful tool for dealing with highly complex problems.

The test of Newtonian mechanics was its congruence with physical reality. At the beginning
of the 18th century it was put to a rigorous test. Cartesians (predominantly in the continent
land in Europe) insisted that the Earth, because it was squeezed at the Equator by the
etherial vortex causing gravity, should be somewhat pointed at the poles, a shape rather like
that of an American football.
From https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/getting-the-measure-of-the-earth/
Newtonians, (mostly in Britain) arguing that centrifugal force was greatest at the Equator,
calculated an oblate sphere that was flattened at the poles and bulged at the Equator. The
Newtonians were proved correct after careful measurements of a degree of the meridian
were made on expeditions to Lapland and to Peru.
The final touch to the Newtonian edifice was provided by Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace,
whose masterly Traité de mécanique céleste (1798–1827; Celestial Mechanics) systematized
everything that had been done in celestial mechanics under Newton’s inspir…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment