Re: Democritus' sources for his atomist theory
- From: "Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:46:23 -0000
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:472b9683$0$25673$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Agamemnon wrote:
Keep in mind I have no interest in denigrating either your ideas nor the Greeks. However you can waste a lot of time and miss something important if you are going to chase after ideas which are not legitimate.
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:47278100$0$32535$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxprr wrote:OK I know some smarties might say "Leucippus." Then give me hisWhile it is usually a good bet that ideas are not original they have to start with someone.
source, ok? :) I'm wondering if this was simply a good guess by folks
who were grasping for straws, or if they got these theories from
Persia or India (it is true that reincarnation was en vogue among some
of the presocratics), or was it something else? How did Democritus
come to believe in this theory?
Let me clarify my question-I'm not asking for someone to recount
Democritus' own teachings. What I'm asking is, where did he get it
from? Was this just typical of the guesswork that was done by most of
the presocratics of his age-with him being the lucky correct guesser?
Or was he reflecting ideas that had been carried into Ionia from
farther east? Or south, from Egypt?
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Greeks.html
It comes from a line of argumentation but as you notice it does not go much further than that. Unlike a scientific theory it did not explain observation nor was it testable.
2) ...their shapes. According to Aristotle: "Democritus and Leucippus say that there are indivisible bodies, infinite both in number and in the varieties of their shapes...." (p. 110)
Democritus says of atoms: "They have all sorts of shapes and appearences and different sizes.... Some are rough, some hook-shaped, some concave, some convex and some have other innumerable variations." (p. 110-111)
Sounds like he's describing the way the shape of atomic orbitals determine chemical behaviour.
As they have no shape that is not possible. Energy levels are what are of
If you work out where the volume the electrons will be in for 95% of the time then you have a shape. This is basic A-Level Chemistry.
interest. (Again, degree in physics and I am quite familiar with atomic physics.) The idea of the atom was adamant that it was the smallest possible division so anything inside an atom was contrary to the concept.
That was not the idea the Greeks came up with. Their "atoms" were different shaped triangles. Their ideas were closer to String Theory.
3) ...their weight. Again from Aristotle: "Democritus recognized only two basic properties of the atom: size and shape. But Epicurus added weight as a third. For, according to him, the bodies move by necessity through the force of weight." (p. 111)
As you can see it is not what we think of as atoms. And it contrary to the
Actually yes it is what we think of as atoms. Democritus may have come up with the idea of chemical valency as determined by the arrangement of electrons in atomic shells and there is not reason why he could not have derived with the equations used in basic O and A-Level chemistry to describe them.
One presumes the "force of weight" means momentum. Forming bonds would be the end of independent motion. As to molecules and combining atoms that is contrary to the assumption there are an infinite number of different types of atoms. One does not need combinations when every different thing can be explained by a different atom. It is a finite number of different atoms that requires different properties to be explained by combinations of them.
Plato explains that each element (I mean elements of the periodic table) was made up of different combinations of triangles whose shape gave them different properties. The Greek's "atoms" were like elementary particles not elements.
value of the theory; that there are a limited number of different types and the way they combine are what makes different types of material objects. So it is not a useful theoretical structure upon which to build.
No it isn't.
Feel free to explain.
Read Timaeus.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Democritus' sources for his atomist theory
- Next by Date: Re: Thesis.pdf: Constantine Invented Christianity
- Previous by thread: Re: Democritus' sources for his atomist theory
- Next by thread: Re: Democritus' sources for his atomist theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
