Theories and Models


Why was the Great Pyramid of Giza built? When was it constructed? Is there a purpose that it was intended to serve?

Some believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza could be over 10,000 years old, which would pre-date any Egyptian civilization that is currently known. Others believe that it is much younger than that, built as a great tomb or center of worship. Many have set forth on a journey to determine the purpose of the pyramid in order to discover its secrets.

One of those individuals was Sir John Herschel. It is he who would initially develop what would come to be known as the Draconis Theory.

Why Is the Descending Passage is So Important?

There is one primary entry point to the Great Pyramid of Giza. It reaches a crossroads where one can go to the king’s or queen’s chamber or descend into a pit below the pyramid. Herschel decided to look at the Descending Passage with a different perspective. He looked at the pyramid as if it had been built for astrological purposes.

Herschel already knew that through the work of Professor Piazzi Smyth, who spent six months exploring the Great Pyramid of Giza, that the angle of the Descending Passage was 26.302778 degrees – which translates to 28 degrees, 18 minutes, and 10 seconds. There were also scored lines within the passage to indicate that anyone there should be looking upward toward the sky to determine their purpose.

When Herschel took that angle and pointed it toward the night sky, he realized that it was pointing directly where the constellation Draconis would have been. When the scored lines were included with the calculations, it was discovered that they pointed to the Pleiades cluster and to a star called Alcyone.

Professor Smyth confirmed the calculations for Herschel. For many cultures, Alcyone was considered to be the star that all other stars rotated around. Taking this fact into account, the two explorers calculated star movements back to determine that the scored lines and Descending Passage would have been pointing to the pole and pivot stars at the same time around 2100 BC.

Euphratean Traditions and Draconis Theory

The people who lived in the Euphrates region of Egypt, sometimes referred to as Mesopotamia, identified Alcyone with ceremonies for foundation-laying. This would further cement the idea that the Draconis theory was a plausible explanation for the construction of the pyramid. The scored lines would then indicate that the Great Pyramid of Giza was given the scored lines as a cornerstone, fixing the foundation of the pyramid to a foundation star.

Draconis theory would then take another step in dating by taking a look at the ascending passages in the Great Pyramid and how they relate to the Great Flood. By expanding upon the Herschel’s ideas, author Basil Stewart suggests that each inch within the ascending passage represents a year of time. Within the passage at 200 inches of length sits a plug that is dark, which some believe is a representation of the flood. This would put Noah’s flood at a date of around 2300 BC.

Aquarius is also featured within the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is often associated with the waters of the Great Flood in the traditions and stories that relate to the event. Babylonian tablets that have been dated to about 4,000 years in age tell a similar story, which could confirm the time frames initially offered by the Draconis theory.

Is Draconis Theory a Representation of Good and Evil?

If the Draconis theory is accurate, then it means the Great Pyramid was built to shine the light from a constellation that was shaped like a dragon, a representation of Satan, directly into the pit that exists below the pyramid. This means the Descending Passage would be a symbol of evil’s influence, while the Ascending Passage would be a beautiful influence.

And this means the Bible could also support the Draconis theory. In Job 38, God tells Jon, “Can you bind the beauty of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt?”

The fact is that the ancient world holds many secrets. We may be able to unlock some of them, but ideas like the Draconis theory offer the opportunity for an educated guess at what may be occurring. There may be other explanations that are equally valid for the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza, but for Herschel, Stewart, Smyth, and many others, the Draconis theory seems to be the explanation that holds the most answers.


In the past, earthquakes were believed to occur because the ground would shake in a very strong manner. After reviewing ground surface displacements that occurred during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Henry Reid, Professor of Geology at Johns Hopkins University, determined that earthquakes had an “elastic rebound” because of previously stored stress along a fault line.

Imagine that you’re stretching out a rubber band. Suddenly that rubber band snaps. The stored elastic energy has to go somewhere because it has been suddenly released. This is the principle that Reid proposes through his elastic rebound theory of earthquakes. It is a way for the stored energy to be released through a sudden action.

What Makes an Elastic Rebound Possible During an Earthquake?

During an earthquake, the tectonic plates of the Earth are moving relative to each other. This creates a “strain energy” that builds up along the edges of the fault planes of both tectonic plates. This energy is stored in the rocks along the fault. Fault planes are rarely smooth, so the rocks can store a tremendous amount of energy that is produced by the strain of tectonic movement. This energy can be stored even when it is restricted with a fault interlock.

At some point, the shearing stress that has been produced by the movement of the tectonic plates must be released. This is because there is a finite storage potential in the rocks along the edge of the fault line or the stress builds up along the length of a fault with enough distance that it puts excess pressure on the energy storage potential that is present. When that energy is released, an earthquake is the result, and the shaking ground is the elastic rebound effect of the energy be released and the storage potential reset.

What Does This Mean for the Study of Earthquakes?

There are three factors that must be determined when looking at the elastic rebound of an earthquake.

  • You must know what the strength or energy storage potential is for the rocks that are along a tectonic plate fault.
  • You must know the exact length of the fault.
  • You must know the speed that the tectonic plates are slipping past each other.

When you have information about these three factors, it becomes possible to calculate the time it will take for the strain energy to build up along a fault. This would make it feasible to not only calculate the amount of time it takes for an earthquake to occur, but what its magnitude will likely be when it happens.

This calculation is possible because as tectonic movements occur, the edges of the crust blocks are restrained by fault friction. This causes the ground to bend and the strain energy to begin building. This build-up process will continue to occur until the strain energy storage potential has been completely used up. Then the edges will attempt to restore themselves and this is what causes a rupture and the earthquake itself.

Earthquakes Are Always Building Up Strain Energy

The severity of an earthquake is determined by the amount of strain energy that can be stored. Greater storage capacity will likely cause a more severe earthquake when the elastic rebound occurs, but earthquakes along that fault will be very few. A lower storage capacity will result in earthquakes that are generally less severe, but there will also be more overall earthquakes along that fault.

Not every earthquake is caused by this form of tectonic movement. Volcanoes can induce changes to tectonic movements by the injection or withdrawal of magma, which creates a pressure change along the rock around where the stress points and strain energy is stored. Long-period earthquakes are also a possibility around volcanoes because of consistent movements of magma throughout an earthquake system.

The earthquakes experienced in California would be considered elastic rebound quakes in most circumstances. The expected earthquake in the Seattle region that was promoted by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker would also be an elastic rebound quake, but one with a greater storage capacity. Many areas in the Ring of Fire and by volcanoes experience magma-movement related quakes that may or may not put pressure on the major faults.

This means the best solution is to be prepared for an earthquake to occur. Using Reid’s elastic rebound theory, it becomes possible to look at what could be the worst-case scenario for a region. That information allows families to plan and protect themselves in the unlikely event that such an earthquake would occur.


Endosymbiotic theory, which is often referred to as “symbiogenesis,” is an evolutionary theory that attempts to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells. It is a hypothesis which essentially postulates that prokaryotes were what gave rise to the first eukaryotic cells and, if true, would rank amongst the most important evolutionary events in our history.

Eukaryotic cell organelles include mitochondria that is found in animals or fungi and the chloroplasts that are found in plants. Mitochondria are one of several different organelles that are found in the cells of every single eukaryotic cell.

Thanks to sequencing technologies, symbiogenesis has grown in prominence as a theory over the last several decades. There are several competing theories, including non-evolutionary theories, to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells, and the science behind the theory is still in its beginning stages, but it does help to explain the symbiotic relationships that two different species are dependent upon for their mutual survival.

The Details Behind the Origins of Eukaryotic Cells

In the Endosymbiotic theory, the idea is that a eukaryotic mitochondrion evolved from an autotrophic bacterium that had been engulfed by the eukaryotic cell. This cell was able to arise when an anaerobic prokaryote lost its cell wall because it was unable to use oxygen for energy. The flexible membrane underneath began to grow and then fold in on itself, which led to the creation of a nucleus and additional internal membranes.

In other words, the eukaryote cell would eat the prokaryote, but would not actually digest it. It would instead keep the bacterium in a symbiotic relationship so that the two co-exist together. The symbiont would then begin to lose some of its genetic material as it forms into a mitochondrion.

This process would then continue because the eukaryote and mitochondria are still existing in a symbiotic relationship. The theory holds that the eukaryote and mitochondria symbiont would eat an autotrophic eukaryote cell, but again not actually digest it. As before, the new cell would also be kept as a symbiont. The secondary symbiont would also lose some of its genetic material during this process and this would be the foundation of the creation of a chloroplast.

It is believed that this process would have occurred in the earlier days of our planet’s history. It could be as much as 2.5 billion years ago. By having the prokaryote utilizing cellular respiration to convert organic molecules into energy, the cells would be too small to be digested by a eukaryotic cell, but would instead live inside the hose cell, contributing to the host’s eventual evolution.

When Was Endosymbiotic Theory First Proposed?

Endosymbiotic theory was first proposed by Konstantin Mereschkowski in 1910. He worked as a botanist and through his work, found the ideas described above to be plausible. It would be more than 50 years before the microbiological evidence discovered by Lynn Margulis in 1967 would help to substantiate the theory.

Mereschkowski primarily researched lichens and had previously published some of the initial fundamentals of symbiogenesis in a 1905 paper that explored the origins and nature of chromatophores in the plant kingdom.

Lichens were his primary point of fascination in the development of this theory because he found that there was a symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi. With over 2,000 specimens collected, it is still in the possession of Kazan University where much of his work takes place.

Evidence from biochemical and molecular sources suggests that mitochondria were developed from proteobacteria and chloroplasts came from cyanobacteria, which would eventually help to form the backbone of life on our planet as we know it.

How Endosymbiotic Theory Influences Evolution

When many discuss the theory of evolution, it is usually the theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin that is looked at. Endosymbiotic theory is more of a rebuttal of Darwinian evolution because it does not rely on the idea that natural selection can explain the full branches of biological novelty. Symbiogenesis offers an alternative where acquisition and inheritance of microbes is the primary life development factor.

The evidence to support Endosymbiotic theory is a list that is quite lengthy.

  • Mitochondria and plastids are formed through a process that is similar to binary fission, which is the form of cell division that bacteria use.
  • When mitochondria or chloroplasts are removed from a cell, then the cell loses the ability to create new ones.
  • Porins are found in the outer membranes of mitochondria, chloroplasts, and bacterial cells.
  • Certain mitochondria and plastids contain a single, circular DNA molecule that is similar to bacterial DNA is size and structure.
  • Mitochondria and plastids have small genomes when compared to bacteria. Neither organelle is capable of surviving outside the cell, which supports the idea of increased dependence as offered through Endosymbiotic theory.
  • Ribosomes found in mitochondria and plastids are more like those found in bacteria than in eukaryotes.
  • Some species of lice have multiple chromosomes in the mitochondrion. This, along with other genetic evidence, suggests that mitochondria have multiple ancestors that were acquired by symbiogenesis on several different occasions instead of just one single incident.

When looking at Endosymbiotic theory through modern science, it appears that there were extensive mergers and rearrangements of genetic material in several of the original mitochondrial chromosomes. In looking at lice at this level, it shows that the symbiotic relationships in the ancient world could have formed to work together in a way that could create the building blocks of life as we know it on our planet today.

How Endosymbiotic Theory Affects Creationism

In many circles, the idea that evolution and creationism could work together is seen as absurd. They are often treated as two conflicting theories. Yet the processes described in Endosymbiotic theory correspond with the creation processes that are described within the first chapter of the book of Genesis.

This means there must be a separation between “Old World” creationists and “New World” creationists when it comes to looking at actual creation theory. New World creationists view the book of Genesis literally, with creation taking 6 literal days. From an Old World perspective, the “days” mentioned in Genesis could be an indeterminate amount of time.

This means the process of Endosymbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells could help to explain how God created the world just as they would help to explain how the world naturally evolved on its how without supernatural influence.

Why You Need to Get to Know Angomonas Deanei

Angomonas denai is a protozoan. This parasite is found in the GI tract of insects. In a closer inspection of this parasite, it has been found that it is a hose to symbiotic bacteria. The symbiont relationship is so extensive, in fact, that the two have formed a permanent relationship. Neither can survive on its own without the other.

This relationship serves as a model for evidence of endosymbiotic theory in practice today in nature. It was first discovered in 1973 and its cell membranes exhibit unusual features that include membrane lipids that are mostly present in the symbiotic prokaryotes of eukaryotic cells.

The One Issue with the Endosymbiotic Theory

When we discuss evolutionary theories or creationism, the goal is often an attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The fact is that no one understands what the universe was like right before or right after matter was created. At some point, primordial energy, space, and time had to arise somehow. The Endosymbiotic theory does not make an attempt to explain the start of the universe.

It instead attempts to explain the start of how life as we know it was able to form.

Theories are mathematical models that allow us to be able to make a prediction about the world and how it behaves. At the quantum level, which is sub-atomic, we can make predictions about behavior in terms of distance, but not about how the universe itself formed.

This is why it is important to understand what the purpose of a theory happens to be. For some, the creation of the universe is tied to the creation of the planet. For others, these are two separate events that require two separate theories to create a plausible explanation.

It could be that life on our planet is unique because of the factors explained through Endosymbiotic theory. It could also mean that the origin of eukaryotic cells is very common throughout the universe and that life is evolving in unique ways on many different planets that have yet to be discovered.

Our universe may be entirely unique. It may just be one of many universes that exist on a scale that goes beyond anything that exists in our imagination. Some may feel that the universe was made for us, while others believe that we were made through a natural process. The bottom line is this: we exist. How we exist may be explained by the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells or some other theory.

We must keep asking questions. Only when we continue to seek with an open mind will we be able to find our answers.


Is a child affected by their environment and their social relationships as they develop? Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory offers one approach to answer this question. He believed that a child’s developed was affected by everything that was in the environment around them. There are five different levels of the environment according to this theory.

1. Microsystem.
This is the environment that is closest to the child. It is those who have direct contact. It includes family members, teachers, daycare workers, and other caregivers. The relationships in this environment are bi-directional, which means how people treat the child will affect how the child treats them in the return. This is the most influential environment in the theory.

2. Mesosystem.
This is the environment that involves the relationships between the individuals that are within the microsystem of the child. They may not be direct relationships with the child, but still influence the child on a direct level. An example of this environment would be the relationship that a parent has with a child’s teacher or daycare worker. If these relationships work against each other, it can have a negative impact on the child’s development.

3. Exosystem.
This is the environment that does not involve active participation from the child, but it still offers a setting that affects their development. It would include a decision that has an effect on the child, though the child may not have any actual input on the decision-making process. A parent who is fired from their job would be an example of this environment. Military families who have one parent deployed face this environment on a daily basis.

4. Macrosystem.
This is the environment which involves the culture in which a child lives. It is the overall set of systems that support how a child lives every day. Government systems, religious values, and economic conditions are three common types of environments that can have a positive or a negative effect on a child. When local values clash with national values, the impact on a child could be positive or negative.

5. Chronosystem.
This is the environment which includes events that transpire during a child’s life. Any life transition, crossroads, or even a historical event can affect the development of a child because these specific incidents change how a child would interact with their environments. Watching a Presidential election, the moon landing, or having a parent injured in an accident would all be examples that would fit into this category.

Why Is It Important to Recognize Each Environment?

How a child may interact socially, with their parents, or in the company of a teacher or caregiver can be influenced by one or by all of these environments. Negative influences occur when a “trigger” happens for the child without the presence of a coping skill. If the influence is not addressed, then the development of the child will receive a negative impact.

Imagine a child goes to school and is given a consequence for a behavior that they did not do. The entire class is given the consequence because a majority of students are misbehaving, but not this child. This is the trigger.

The child comes home frustrated about the event. This is a negative impact on the child’s development. At this stage, the parents can implement a coping skill to deal with that impact, creating a positive to offset the negative. Yet if the parents then confront the teacher, which affects the parent/teacher relationship, and that causes the teacher to treat the child differently, then another negative impact is created.

This means that every interaction, decision, and event that occurs in a child’s life will have a short-term impact on them. It will either be positive, negative, or neutral. The response to those impacts create additional impacts. This process continues throughout the life of the child and affects how they will make choices and respond to environmental stimuli when they are an adult.

If we can recognize the negative impacts a child receives and use the five environments in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory of Child Development to create positive impacts instead, then the social development of the child will be relatively balanced. This will allow them to develop their social and vocational skills at a pace that works best for them so they are able to freely explore the world around them.

Some events will always be outside of the control of those directly caring for a child. Yet when a positive impact can be made in one environment, the negative Chronosystem impacts can be offset so a child can have the foundation for a happy and healthy life.


How did the modern human come about? Why do we have certain features in our physiology and our anatomy? When looking at the various evolutionary theories that involve human development, one that is beginning to gain traction today is called the Aquatic Ape Theory.

The Aquatic Ape Theory suggests that at some point in the evolutionary chain for humanity, there was a period of time when there was an aquatic or a semi-aquatic stage. Through the process of convergent evolution, an aquatic environment offers an alternative hypothesis for certain features that humans have compared to other primates.

The Aquatic Ape Theory was first proposed by Max Westenhofer in 1942, then once again in 1960 through the independent research of Alister Hardy. An early proponent of the theory, Elaine Morgan, was a documentary writer and composed a series of books on the topic that helped to raise more awareness for it beginning in 1972.

Despite the proposals, the Aquatic Ape Theory is generally not accepted within the scientific community, though it does generate some interest within certain paleoanthropologist communities. There may be evidence that the Aquatic Ape Theory is closer to reality than many may realize.

What Is the Evidence for the Aquatic Ape Theory?

The primary piece of evidence that is cited for the Aquatic Ape Theory is the bipedal nature of humans. It is believed that humans developed the process of being able to stand on two legs as a way to be able to get out of the waters that covered the ancient world. Over time, the legs could then support more strength so that early humans could be able to spend time on the shore outside of the water.

There are these additional pieces of evidence that are cited by proponents of the theory as supportive for the idea that humans had an aquatic ancestor at some point in their evolutionary history.

  • Subcutaneous Fat. Humans have an extended fat layer that other primates do not have. This fat layer is seen, however, in aquatic mammals such as whales. This was one of the original ideas that spurred the Aquatic Ape Theory in the first place. The layer of fat is also believed to help humans cope with varying air temperatures, allowing for a greater distribution to various habitats.
  • Hairlessness. The relatively hairless skin of humans is believed to be an adaption that is comparable to what aquatic mammals have as well, which is clear difference from land-based mammals. What body hair that a human does have tends to follow the flow of water that occurs across the body. It is an advantage to dolphins and whales for fast swimming speeds, diving, and migration, which is a similar advantage that humans can also use to some extent.
  • Larynx. The human larynx is in the throat instead of in the nasal cavity, which is another characteristic that is shared with some aquatic mammals. Humans have a lot of control over their breathing, which is another trait that sea mammals have in common, as some aquatic animals use their descended larynx to close off their trachea while they dive.
  • Brain Size. Humans have the highest encephalization quotient known in nature. It compares the size and complexity of the brain to body size. Just behind humans are aquatic mammals, such as whales and dolphins. Apes and elephants are in the top list, but so are squid and even some birds. The idea here is that aquatic mammals developed larger brains, while land-based mammals had a more stagnant lifestyle, which restricted brain development.

There is also evidence to suggest that humans are more adaptable to water as infants than other land-based mammals. Babies come equipped with a dive reflex, increased insulation, and increased buoyancy, which allows infants to learn how to swim at very young ages when supported by adults.

Many babies can actually swim before they have developed the strength to be able to walk, which is completely unknown with other simian offspring. Even childbirth in water may be safer for the mother with no observed additional drowning risks compared to traditional common practices today.

From bathing behaviors to the wrinkling of the skin to habitat adaptation, there are several pieces of potential evidence that may show that the Aquatic Ape Theory has some merit. Though critics may point to some inconsistencies offered within the theory, it is a possibility that humans did have an aquatic or semi-aquatic stage in their evolution and that means we may have many more relatives than we first realized.


Peter Mitchell was born in 1920 in Surrey, with his father working as a civil servant. He pursued a study of the natural sciences, specializing in biochemistry, at various institutions including Queen’s College and Cambridge. At the age of 22, he was given a research post at Cambridge and would eventually earn a PhD in 1951 for his work on penicillin’s mode of action.

Through his work, Mitchell realized that the movement of ions across an electrochemical potential difference would have the ability to provide the energy that was needed to produce ADP. Living cells having a membrane potential and an interior negative to the surrounding environment was well known at the time. He also believed that the movement of these ions could be affected by thermodynamic forces.

This would become the foundation for what would eventually become the Chemiosmotic theory.

What Is the Chemismotic Theory?

In 1961, Mitchell proposed what would be called the chemiosmotic hypothesis. It is a theory which states that adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, synthesis in a respiring cell comes from the electromechanical gradient that is found across the inner membrane of mitochondria. It uses the energy of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) and the Flavin group, which is a group of organic compounds that is based on pteridine.

The energy is formed when glucose or other energy-rich molecules are broken down by the body.

When energy-rich molecules are metabolized, they produce an intermediate energy source that is equally rich. This is then coupled to the reduction of a carrier molecule within the mitochondrial matrix in order to pass electrons through the inner mitochondrial membrane and the to proteins within the electron transport chain.

This energy found within the electrons is then used to pump protons throughout the mitochondrial matric to store energy. The protons then move back across the membrane through the ATP synthase enzyme. This energy forms with inorganic phosphates to synthesize ATP. As a final step, the protons and electrons at the last stop of the electron transport chain are taken up by oxygen molecules and this forms water.

What Was the Initial Reaction to the Chemiosmotic Theory?

When Mitchell first proposed the Chemiosmotic theory, it was a fairly radical proposal. The scientific community did not accept it very well. At the time, the energy from electron transfers was believed to be stored as a stable high potential intermediate. This was a more conservative concept, but it was also a problematic belief because no one had ever been able to find high energy intermediates throughout their research.

Over the next decade after Mitchell proposed the theory, the evidence that proton pumping complexes existed in the electron transfer chain grew to the point where it could no longer be ignored by the scientific community. In 1978, Mitchell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work that was first proposed 17 years before.

How the Chemiosmotic Theory Changed Science

In the 1960s, the ideas of cell function and electron transfer were generally known, but there were no specifics or mechanisms that had been discovered or theorized about at the time. Having electron transfer coupled to ATP synthesis through oxidative phosphorylation and photophosphorylation was unknown. Several hypotheses existed, but before Mitchell, most looked at a direct chemical interaction.

Several laboratories had been performing extensive research on the subject, but no experimental evidence of the hypotheses that were generally accepted at the time could be produced. When Mitchell proposed that ATP synthesis was based on an indirect interaction between oxidizing and phosphorylating enzymes, and with ongoing research, the basic postulates from his original hypothesis turned out to be correct.

The goal of the Chemiosmotic theory is not to iron out the details of the underlying molecular mechanisms that are in play. It is simply to create the foundation to explore the mechanisms that are involved in phorylation. By understanding how biological power transmission occurs, we can understand more about the energy requirements of other cellular processes, including how nutrient uptake occurs.

This theory opened up an entire field of research that is known as “bioenergetics.” A number of technologies exist today because of this initial hypothesis. It has helped us to understand energy-transfer systems, allow us to refine the efficiency of solar and fuel-cell systems, and know the process behind motion and heat production from a biological perspective.

Peter Mitchell passed away in 1992, but not before he saw his life’s work continue to evolve and influence the scientific community. His theory continues to provide the foundation for bioenergetics research to this day.


The Bronsted-Lowry theory of acids and bases was first proposed in 1923. The fundamental concept behind this theory is the idea that an acid and a base react with each other and cause the acid to form a conjugate base, while the base forms a conjugate acid. This is done because of the exchange of a proton during the process.

This theory is considered a generalization and an expansion of the Arrhenius theory.

Defining Acids and Bases

In the Arrhenius theory, acids are a substance that disassociates a solution in order to give a hydrogen ion. Bases dissociate and give hydroxide ions. Neutralization occurs when the two meat because hydrogen and hydroxide ions react together to produce water.

Johannes Bronsted and Thomas Lowry, working independently of one another in Denmark and England respectively, both independently proposed the idea that acids and bases are defined by the way they react with one another. It is a generalized equation that supports an equilibrium because the reaction described in the Bronsted Lowry theory can move both forward and backward.

Bronsted was born in 1879 and worked as a physical chemist. He earned a degree in chemicall engineering and then a PhD in 1908 from the University of Copenhagen. He published his first paper on electron affinity in 1906.

Lowry was born in 1874 and was also a physical chemist. His family was Cornish and his father was a local reverend. He earned his degree at Central Technical Collecge and was a founding member of the Faraday Society. Lowry would be made a teacher of chemistry in a medical school at a University Professor at the University of London. Lowry also served as the Chair of Physical Chemistry at Cambridge.

Limitations on the Theory

There are certain limitations that are placed on the theory of acids and bases. Hydrocholoric acid, for example, can be neutralized by ammonia in addition to sodium hydroxide. Both reactions create a colorless solution that crystalizes into a chloride. It creates a reaction with equilibrium, but eliminates the idea that there is specificity within the theory of transfer.

This is why both Bronsted and Lowry looked at acids and bases in a different way. Acids became “donors” and bases became “acceptors.” This allowed their theory to add to the original Arrhenius theory about acids and bases.

When hydrogen chloride gas is able to dissolve in water, it produces hydrochloric acid. This causes the hydrogen chloride molecule to give a proton to the water molecule. This forms a dative covalent between one of the lone pairs on the oxygen and the hydrogen so that hydroxonium ions are then produced.

Then, when an acid in a solution reacts with a base, what is functioning in this equation as the acid is really a hydroxonium ion. When a proton is transferred during this process, it is causing a hydroxonium ion to work with a hydroxide ion and this makes water.

This eliminates the hydrogen chloride and ammonia problem that was originally in the theory of acids and bases. When you look at a reaction in a solution or within a gaseous state, ammonia becomes a base because it is able to accept a hydrogen ion. This ion becomes attached to the lone pair on the nitrogen atom within ammonia through a coordinate bond.

Amphoteric Substances and the Bronsted Lowry Theory

At the heart of the Bronsted Lowry theory of acids and basis is the idea that an acid will only exist as such in relation to a base, with a base operating the same way in relation to an acid. Water, however, is amphoteric because it acts as both an acid and a base. This is why many of the components described within the theory involve solutions that are non-aqueous in nature.

Yet the Bronsted Lowry theory is often considered to be incomplete. In the same year they proposed their theory, G.N. Lewis proposed an expansion of it. The Lewis theory is based on electronic structures instead, creating what is known as a Lewis acid and a Lewis base. In this theory expansion, a Lewis base can donate an electron pair, not a single ion, to a Lewis acid, and the reverse is also true.

This allows the Bronsted Lowry theory to have an explanation for their terms of electronic structure within the equation of equilibrium.

The Bronsted Lowry theory of acids and bases has advanced science in numerous ways and it is a theory that is still commonly used today.


Cuil theory is a theoretical form of measurement. The idea of its foundation is an almost satirical look at how terrible search engines are at creating relationships between tangential items. In this theoretical form of measurement, there are 7 different cuils that are offered and each involves asking for a hamburger.

Each Cuil is one level of abstraction that is away from the actual reality of the situation.

This information comes from Reddit’s thumbnails and discussion of Cuil theory.

Cuil #1:

You ask for a hamburger. You receive a racoon.

Cuil #2:

You ask for a hamburger. The only problem is that the person you’ve asked for a hamburger doesn’t actually exists. Instead, you look again at where the person you thought you asked for a hamburger was standing and find that a picture of a hamburger happens to be there.

Cuil #3:

You ask for a hamburger, but don’t receive one. You grow tired, so you decide to call it a night and go to bed. It’s a good night of rest. When you wake up in the morning, you realize that you’ve actually become a hamburger in your sleep. You take a look in the mirror and cannot help but scream. Special sauce flies out from between your bun lips.

You notice that the world has taken on a very sepia-like tone, probably because your eyes have become part of the sesame seed bun.

Cuil #4:

You ask for a hamburger. Except you don’t understand that you’ve asked for a hamburger because you’ve suddenly started speaking in fluent German. In the distance, you see a mime crying softly as it cradles a calf. Now your grandfather appears, doesn’t matter if he has died, and stares at you because you’ve asked for a hamburger instead of working hard for one. The calf the mime is holding begins to break apart into cooked hamburger patties.

The person you’ve asked for a hamburger now has pickles for eyes. A song escapes your lips, telling the story of the creation of the universe. You wonder where the ketchup might appear, then realize that the mime is actually crying condiments.

Cuil #5:

You ask for a hamburger. The person you ask gives you the hamburger that you want. Your stomach rumbles. Almost unconsciously, you raise the hamburger to your lips and take a large bite.

You notice your eye begin to twitch. You can’t stop making it twitch. Then you notice movement across the street from you. A father of three somehow falls down a flight of stairs. You’re still chewing the hamburger, so you decide to swallow. You look down at the hamburger in your hands. You’ve been given the hamburger that you want.

There are children at the top of the stairs. You cannot swallow. A pickle moves underneath the bun. The children are crying. You raise the hamburgers to your lips because you must take a bite. You feel hot tears streaming down your cheeks as you take a bite. You’ve been given the hamburger that you want.

The person you’ve asked is pleading with you. You feel the need to ask for another hamburger. You look down at your hands and see a hamburger. You are on your knees. You plead with the person you’ve asked for a hamburger to go across the street. The children laugh. You’ve been given the hamburger that you want.

You scream. You realize that you have fallen down the stairs. You realize that the person you’ve been asking for a hamburger is your parent. Your eyes are open, but everything seems dark. You cannot see anything. The concrete is rushing up to greet your face with a kind hug.

You wake up in your own bed, dripping heavily in sweat. Your heart is racing. Your eye twitches involuntarily. You’ve been given the hamburger that you want.

You kill the person who you’ve been asking for a hamburger. This person does not make a sound. You’ve been given the hamburger that you want.

Cuil #6:

You ask for a hamburger. The person you ask attempts to respond, but their response is cut short because they suddenly lose all electrons within their body. The dismay you feel can be felt across multiple dimensions.

You ask for a hamburger. John Lennon gives you an apple. You try to grasp it, but it slips through your fingers.

You ask for a hamburger. You realize that the person you are asking is actually an ocelot. You disapprove. Ocelots are not known for being generous with hamburgers. Then a crack appears in the universe. This is in defiance of all conventional physics. Cosmological background noise can be heard and it isn’t random. You’re pretty sure that note is an A-flat.

You ask for a hamburger. Children stop what they are doing and begin to hum in A-flat. It is with perfect pitch. Birds fall from the sky. The sun begins to engulf the planet. You hesitate. Then you realize that you are the foundation of all knowledge. You begin to pursue information. Entropy crumbles. A library ceases to exist somewhere in Phoenix. You stumble because the weight of everything feels heavy in nothing. Your mouth cries out.

You ask for a hamburger. Except you’re in the fourth dimension and this is the only place you exist. Your body has blinked out of the spatial plane. All of the knowledge you’ve collected forms a ball and begins to roll around, eventually encountering a small dog. You realize that the flavor of a hamburger is distinctly sideways. You blink.

You’re back. Corporeal existence returns. The universe has reasserted itself. You have received the hamburger that you want. Except the small dog playing with the ball of knowledge has been given a steak. It keeps eating steak. It’s good steak.

Then you die. It’s a freak accident. Your soul decides that now is the time to return your overdue library books. You disapprove. This disapproval creates separation between life and death. You hear a child cry. His father is standing at the top of a stairway.

Cuil #7:

You ask for a hamburger. The universe becomes engulfed within itself. You see a bus and it is advertising hot dogs. It is driven by a dog. The dog disapproves. Gravity becomes reverse.

You ask for a hamburger. You receive a potato. It is convulsing just a little You disapprove. This disapproval creates separation between life and death.

You ask for a hamburger. A small dog eating steak is given hamburger instead. You disapprove. This disapproval creates a silence that penetrates everything.

You ask for a hamburger. You receive the hamburger you want, but cannot grab it because your body has become a blob of nothingness. You divide into three parts. A dog barks. The universe realigns itself. The dog and the hamburger disapprove. This disapproval stops the realignment. A pig is launched and discovers it likes to fly.

You ask for a hamburger. You receive the hamburger that you want. The hamburger screams as you take a bite. Then you laugh an evil laugh as the hamburger pleads for mercy. The person you’ve asked for a hamburger disapproves. You have been condemned to an eternity with flying pigs and a universal void. The space-time continuum of the universe disapproves. A pickle refuses to be digested. Hell freezes over.

You ask for a hamburger. It is refused. You ask again. It is refused. You demand a lawyer, but are told that this is a world where lawyers do not exist. Only dogs exist. Your name is sin. You are blasphemy.

You ask for a hamburger. The pickle vanquishes your soul. The universe realigns itself.

You beg for a hamburger. Then you realize that dogs are in the hieroglyphic writings of Egypt. You begin to mumble. People worship the hieroglyphs and the obelisks they are on. You are soulless, but worship too. Hamburgers have been banned. The sun explodes. Planets cease to exist. Only Pluto now exists because it is no longer a planet. You are on vacation on Pluto.

You ask for a hamburger. It is the only way to re-establish time. Earth is formed again. You are its ruler. Hamburgers are your army. You wake up.

Clowns. There are clowns everywhere. Your dreams rush up to greet you like a new lover. That’s when you realize that you have been kidnapped. You ask what the ransom for your freedom happens to be. It’s a hamburger.

You ask for a hamburger. You are given a hot dog.

Cuil theory in relation to hamburgers is a way to consider the searching relationships between objects. These different cuils show how items may seem surreal and independent of each other, but may also have unknown relationships. It may be a relationship that seems strange to some, but could make complete sense to someone else.

In other words, the Cuil theory hamburger fits one certain standard. It is up to you to determine if that standard meets your own standards.


Born in 1743, Antoine Lavoisier is credited as being the first person to make use of the balance. He was known for his skills in experimentation and loved to separate the oxygen molecule from HgO. This led him to come up with the Law of Conservation, which states that matter is unable to be made or destroyed. It can only be rearranged and will never disappear.

This created the initial conversations on what an atom happened to be with exact definitions.

What Is the Atomic Theory?

The Atomic theory is the idea that all matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles. These are referred to as atoms. In the modern version of the theory, each elemental atom is relatively identical, but differ and unite in different patterns that form compounds in a fixed proportion. Although some of the findings of this theory are modern, it is an idea that is nearly 2,500 years old.

The first person to propose the idea of an atom is believed to be Democritus, who was thought to be born in 460 BC. He discussed the idea that an “ultimate particle” existed and used the term “atomos” to describe it. Aristotle, who was 14 years old when Democritus died, was a proponent of this proposal. He felt that there were four elements and that you would have the same matter whenever you cut something in half. This theory would hold prominence for the next 2,000 years.

The modern Atomic theory first starting developing when the Phlogiston theory was offered by Johann Becher and Georg Stahl. When something was burned, they posited, then it lost “phlogiston” to the air. This idea continued through the discovery of oxygen, which was initially called “dephlogisticated” air by Joseph Priestly, but would be changed by Antoine Lavoisier.

How a Visit from Joseph Priestly Changed Everything

In 1774, Joseph Priestly and Antoine Lavoisier had a meeting of the minds. This inspired the creative spirit within Lavoisier and caused him to begin studying the burning process very carefully. It is these observations which would bring about the Combustion Theory.

The Combustion theory was the first that would eliminate phologiston. Lavoisier proposed that combustion was a reaction of a metal or organic substance with common air and that most acids contained this air. He would call this breathable air “oxygen,” which is admittedly a lot easier to say than depholgisticated air.

Lavoisier’s work would also bring chemistry back to a stricter method of conduct. He proposed that it was necessary to distinguish fact from fiction when conducting experiments or offering a hypothesis. He used the Combustion theory as the starting point for this idea, which would eventually lead to the development of the atomic theory.

In time, this would also lead Lavoisier to finally propose the Law of Conservation, which would eventually become the foundation of modern chemistry. Many call Lavoisier the “Father of Modern Chemistry.”

How Lavoisier Completed His Work

Lavoisier was a nobleman who is recognized for changing science from being qualitative to being quantitative. He was a member of several aristocratic councils and married into a family that was involved in tax collection. His political, personal, and economic activities helped to find his scientific research. Yet as the French Revolution began to gain momentum, he found all of his activities to be at risk.

By 1793, all learned societies, which included the Academy of Sciences, were suppressed. In November of that year, the arrest of all former tax gatherers was ordered, which included Lavoisier. He was branded a traitor, accused of selling unauthorized tobacco, and condemned during the 1794 Reign of Terror because of his efforts to stop the freedom and economic stripping of all foreign-born scientists in France.

Lavoisier was executed by the guillotine late in 1794. Just 18 months later, the French government would exonerate him.

After exoneration, the French government returned his personal possessions to his widow Marie. It was commonly believed that Madame Lavoisier was just as much a scientist as her husband and it is believed that she helped to continue promoting his work, which eventually led to Joseph Proust being able to propose the Law of Constant Composition in 1799.

Antoine Lavoisier might have had his work stopped by the French Revolution, but that would not stop his legacy. His contributions to the Atomic theory are considered to be an integral component of modern science and all of the benefits and potential dangers that goes along with it.


Anton van Leeuwenhoek is often referred to as the “Father of Microbiology.” The discovery of the cell occurred in 1665 and is attributed to Robert Hooke. Hooke wrote a book called Micrographia and offer 60 observations of detailed objects that were seen under a compound microscope. Leeuwenhoek would go on to expand upon the cell theories that Hooke first offered.

How a Childhood Developed a Lens Maker

Anton van Leeuwenhoek was born in 1632 in the city of Delft, which was located in the Dutch Republic. His father was a basket maker, but died when Anton was just 5 years old. His mother, who came from a wealthy family, would then marry a painter. Anton’s stepfather died when he was 10 years old. Yet despite being a widow twice-over, his mother supported his initial education with the help of an uncle who worked as an attorney.

Leeuwenhoek would make a name for himself not by going on to receive a university education, but by becoming active in municipal politics. It was during his time as a politician that he developed a hobby that involved making lenses. He would handcraft the lenses needed for microscopes and that would eventually lead to his first descriptions of microorganisms that would become the foundation of his cell theory.

How Leeuwenhoek’s Cell Theory Came About

Leeuwenhoek observed cells at nearly the same time that Hooke first observed them. Leeuwenhoek’s microscope used improved lenses over Hooke’s, however, which allowed him to magnify objects up to 270 times. This allowed him to see motile objects, which led him to write that “motility is a quality of life.” That meant the cell structures he saw under the microscope were living organisms.

Leeuwenhoek would go on to view many different forms of microorganisms for the first time. Bacteria and protozoa were referred to as “animalcules.” He would provide the first accurate descriptions of a red blood cell. He would also be the first to observe sperm cells and identify an accurate fertilization process.

He would also go on to use measurements and samples to determine microorganism counts, similar to the process of a complete blood count today. This would lead him to discover the vacuole of a cell and even the banded patterns on muscle fibers.

Leeuwenhoek’s contemporaries thought his cell theories were implausible at best. It would be Robert Hooke who would confirm his findings. And Leeuwenhoek did all of this without receiving a formal education.

A Monopoly on Microscopic Studies and Discoveries

By the year 1700, Leeuwenhoek would wind up being responsible for almost all of the current studies and discoveries in microbiology at the time. Hooke would often comment about the fact that everything in the field was routed through Leeuwenhoek. Yet because Leeuwenhoek’s lenses were far superior to any others that were being created, the scientific world was forced to rely on Anton for discoveries.

Part of the reputation Leeuwenhoek was able to create for himself was due to his business acumen. Many nobles and dignitaries would visit him, hoping to see the microscopes and lenses that were leading to his discoveries. Instead of showing his audiences these items, he would break out the same equipment that everyone else was using, keeping his cutting-edge equipment a secret.

His microscopes were made of copper or silver. He is believed to have made more than 500 optical lenses and at least 25 single-lens microscopes. Nine of those microscopes have survived to this date, each capable of a magnification of 275 times. Leeuwenhoek may have been an “amateur,” but his scientific research met or exceeded quality standards in every regard.

By the end of his life in 1723, Anton van Leeuwenhoek had written over 550 letters to the Royal Society in London and other institutions regarding his discoveries and observations. In his final observations, he even reported on the illness that would wind up killing him, which caused uncontrolled movements in his midriff. It is even called Van Leeuwenhoek’s disease and it is so rare that only about 50 people in the world have been diagnosed with it.

Anton van Leeuwenhoek’s cell theory advancements helped to open up an entirely new realm of scientific discovery. His work helped to set the foundation of disease identification, antibiotics, and modern vaccines because he was able to see how the world worked at some of the smallest levels. Even without a formal advanced education, the title of “Father of Microbiology” is indeed fitting for this man.