The ATOM

[mzungu]

This is a BBC documentary on the greatest scientific discovery of all time; The discovery that everything is made up of atoms. Enjoy:

ATOM | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The BBC make some good popular science shows.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It's a shame the BBC has no clue about the actual history of atomic theory.

The atomic theory was passed down from the angels of God to the Egyptians including Moses: http://www.christianforums.com/t7500710/

It was Mochus of Sidon (aka Musaeus aka Moses) who brought the atomic theory out of Egypt and passed it to Orpheus.

From Moses and Orpheus the atomic theory was passed down to Thales and Anaximander and Pythagoras, and later Leucippus and Democritus.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Still trolling after all these years

Troll this:

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, The Geography, 7

"He [Anaximander] said ... that winds come from the separation and condensation of the subtler atoms of air ...." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

"Wherefore we have made it evident, that that very mechanical or atomical philosophy, that hath been lately restored by Cartesius and Gassendus, as to the main substance of it, was not only elder than Epicurus, but also than Plato and Aristotle, nay, than Democritus and Leucippus also, the commonly reputed fathers of it. And therefore we have no reason to discredit the report of Posidonius the Stoic, who, as Strabo tells us, affirmed this atomical philosophy to have been ancienter than the times of the Trojan war, and first to have been brought into Greece out of Phoenicia. ... And since it is certain from what we have shown, that neither Epicurus nor yet Democritus were the first inventors of this physiology, this testimony of Posidonius the Stoic ought in reason to be admitted by us. Now, what can be more probable than that this Moschus the Phoenician, that Posidonius speaks of, is the very same person with that Moschus the physiologer, that Jamblichus mentions in the Life of Pythagoras, where he affirms, that Pythagoras, living some time at Sidon in Phoenicia, conversed with the prophets that were the successors of Mochus the physiologer, and was instructed by them: ... 'He conversed with the prophets that were the successors of Mochus and other Phoenician priests.' And what can be more certain than that both Mochus and Moschus, the Phoenician and philosopher, was no other than Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, as Arverius [Johannes Arcerius] rightly guesses: ... 'It seems that it ought to be read Moschus, unless any had rather read it Mochus or Moses.' Wherefore according to the ancient tradition, Moschus or Moses the Phoenician being the first author of the atomical philosophy, it ought to be called neither Epicurean nor Democritical, but Moschical or Mosiacal." -- Ralph Cudworth, philosopher, The True Intellectual System of the Universe, Volume III, 1671

"That all matter consists of atoms was a very ancient opinion. This was the teaching of the multitude of philosophers who preceded Aristotle, namely Epicurus, Democritus, Ecphantus, Empedocles, Zenocrates, Heraclides, Asclepiades, Diodorus, Metrodorus of Chios, Pythagoras, and previous to these Moschus the Phoenician whom Strabo declares older than the Trojan war. For I think that same opinion obtained in that mystic philosophy which flowed down to the Greeks from Egypt and Phoenicia, since atoms are sometimes found designated by the mystics as monads." -- Isaac Newton, alchemist/mathematician, Portsmouth Manuscript, 1687

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

 

[mzungu]

Troll this:

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, The Geography, 7

"He [Anaximander] said ... that winds come from the separation and condensation of the subtler atoms of air ...." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

"Wherefore we have made it evident, that that very mechanical or atomical philosophy, that hath been lately restored by Cartesius and Gassendus, as to the main substance of it, was not only elder than Epicurus, but also than Plato and Aristotle, nay, than Democritus and Leucippus also, the commonly reputed fathers of it. And therefore we have no reason to discredit the report of Posidonius the Stoic, who, as Strabo tells us, affirmed this atomical philosophy to have been ancienter than the times of the Trojan war, and first to have been brought into Greece out of Phoenicia. ... And since it is certain from what we have shown, that neither Epicurus nor yet Democritus were the first inventors of this physiology, this testimony of Posidonius the Stoic ought in reason to be admitted by us. Now, what can be more probable than that this Moschus the Phoenician, that Posidonius speaks of, is the very same person with that Moschus the physiologer, that Jamblichus mentions in the Life of Pythagoras, where he affirms, that Pythagoras, living some time at Sidon in Phoenicia, conversed with the prophets that were the successors of Mochus the physiologer, and was instructed by them: ... 'He conversed with the prophets that were the successors of Mochus and other Phoenician priests.' And what can be more certain than that both Mochus and Moschus, the Phoenician and philosopher, was no other than Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, as Arverius [Johannes Arcerius] rightly guesses: ... 'It seems that it ought to be read Moschus, unless any had rather read it Mochus or Moses.' Wherefore according to the ancient tradition, Moschus or Moses the Phoenician being the first author of the atomical philosophy, it ought to be called neither Epicurean nor Democritical, but Moschical or Mosiacal." -- Ralph Cudworth, philosopher, The True Intellectual System of the Universe, Volume III, 1671

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

Your knowledge of ancient Greek history is so lacking that it is at times laughable. I posted a link to a documentary and started a thread so that I can have some serious discussion; instead I have you spoiling it all by trolling my thread. If you have any decency you will refrain from trolling my thread.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your knowledge of ancient Greek history is so lacking that it is at times laughable.

LOL.

I posted a link to a documentary and started a thread so that I can have some serious discussion

No one here can take contemporary science seriously when it deliberately ignores history and reality.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili is an absolute moron who thinks anyone who lived before Boltzmann was involved in "speculation" but Boltzmann was a genius who magically discovered atoms because he lived post-Darwin.

instead I have you spoiling it all by trolling my thread. If you have any decency you will refrain from trolling my thread.

You are spoiling truth by spreading Darwinist nonsense. Have decency.

 

[bigbadwilf]

LOL.


No one here can take contemporary science seriously when it deliberately ignores history and reality.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili is an absolute moron who thinks anyone who lived before Boltzmann was involved in "speculation" but Boltzmann was a genius who magically discovered atoms because he lived post-Darwin.


You are spoiling truth by spreading Darwinist nonsense. Have decency.

Think I must be a bit slow ot the uptake, how do you get from atomic physics to evolutionary biology again?

Of course, prior to 1661, and Robert Boyle, it was thought that all atoms were sea, earth, sky and wind, then aether, earth, air, fire and water (and later sulphur, salt and mercury as well)

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Think I must be a bit slow ot the uptake, how do you get from atomic physics to evolutionary biology again?

Of course, prior to 1661, and Robert Boyle, it was thought that all atoms were sea, earth, sky and wind, then aether, earth, air, fire and water (and later sulphur, salt and mercury as well)

You obviously didn't watch the video.

According to Professor Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey, Robert Boyle was not involved in the science of chemistry but rather in the pseudoscience of speculation. You see, Boyle had the terrible misfortune of being born before Charles Darwin and therefore he cannot possibly have been a scientist. The scientific method didn't evolve until Darwin.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
This thread will close if you keep on flaming...

Please review the rules that state

Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Do not goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian. Avoid using sarcasm to attempt any of the above.

If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. ​

Be more respectful and instead of accusing the other just answer their post. Also you have a choice to reply to their posts or not and also not in a derogatory manner per our rules.

​

Mod hat off​

 

[Supreme]

Think I must be a bit slow ot the uptake, how do you get from atomic physics to evolutionary biology again?

Of course, prior to 1661, and Robert Boyle, it was thought that all atoms were sea, earth, sky and wind, then aether, earth, air, fire and water (and later sulphur, salt and mercury as well)

They were the elements, sure, but not in the sense of 'atoms'. People has no clue that atoms made up elements, they simply though elements were the basic matter. Of course, water and salt were later found to be compounds, but fire is not an element- it's merely a visible chemical reaction.

 

[Delphiki]

You obviously didn't watch the video.

According to Professor Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey, Robert Boyle was not involved in the science of chemistry but rather in the pseudoscience of speculation. You see, Boyle had the terrible misfortune of being born before Charles Darwin and therefore he cannot possibly have been a scientist. The scientific method didn't evolve until Darwin.

What?!? What planet are you from, anyway? Darwin did not invent the scientific method nor did he change it. Scientific method has been used at least 2 centuries before Darwin was born.

Also, your ancient Greeks knew nothing about atoms... Only an idea that things might be made up of atoms... For example as one of your quotes suggest, light it actually not made of atoms.

Only a creationist can take a physical science topic and make up an excuse to use the word "Darwinist".

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What?!?

Believe it.

What planet are you from, anyway?

Earth; you?

Darwin did not invent the scientific method nor did he change it.

Don't tell that to an evolutionist: they might have a heart attack.

Scientific method has been used at least 2 centuries before Darwin was born.

At least?

So how many centuries back before Darwin do you claim scientists evolved, and why?

Also, your ancient Greeks knew nothing about atoms.

LOL.

What planet did you say you are from again?

In reality, the greatest scientist in recorded modern history believed the Greeks knew more about atoms than you do.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

Only an idea that things might be made up of atoms.

If that's true, then the same is true about you and contemporary science. Only an idea.

For example as one of your quotes suggest, light it actually not made of atoms.

A simile is not a metaphor but I wouldn't expect someone living in the 21st century to know that.

Only a creationist can take a physical science topic and make up an excuse to use the word "Darwinist".

You're welcome.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"Is the ancient atomic theory, which is attached to the names of Leucippus and Democritus (born around 460 B.C.), the true forerunner of the modern one? This question has often been asked and very different opinions about it are on record. Gomperz, Cournot, Bertrand Russell, J. Burnet say: Yes." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"The question as to the origin of ancient atomism and to its connexion with modern theory is of much more than purely historical interest." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"We are facing here one of the most fascinating cases in the history of ideas. The astonishing point is this. From the lives and writings of Gassendi and Descartes, who introduced atomism into modern science, we know as an actual historical fact that, in doing so, they were fully aware of taking up the theory of the ancient philosophers whose scripts they had diligently studied. Furthermore, and more importantly, all the basic features of the ancient theory have survived in the modern one up to this day, greatly enhanced and widely elaborated but unchanged....." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"Concerning Schrödinger's question: is Democritus or Planck the founder of quantum theory?" -- Hans-Jürgen Treder, physicist, 1989

"... Democritus, held that matter was inherently grainy and that everything was made up of large numbers of various different kinds of atoms. (The word atom means 'indivisible' in Greek.) We now know that this is true -- at least in our environment, and in the present state of our universe." -- Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician, A Briefer History of Time, 2008

 

[Delphiki]

Just like I said. They speculated that things were made up of units called "atoms" -- that was about the extent of their knowledge about atoms. They didn't even have proof of atoms at the time -- it was still just an idea. They believed atoms would be the most fundamental building block of all things - and this is actually why they were on the right track, but still wrong. We now know that these atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (all your protons, neutrons, quarks, and so on).

Since they also has no means of studying proper chemistry, even compounds were attributed to a single type of atom, for example, water was believed to be comprised of a single element (the water atom) -- we also now know this to not be true.

So I'm not sure why you rely so much on ancient philosophers for your "science" knowledge since, even though they were very intelligent for their time, would be next to clueless regarding what we've discovered since their time.

 

[mzungu]

Just like I said. They speculated that things were made up of units called "atoms" -- that was about the extent of their knowledge about atoms. They didn't even have proof of atoms at the time -- it was still just an idea. They believed atoms would be the most fundamental building block of all things - and this is actually why they were on the right track, but still wrong. We now know that these atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (all your protons, neutrons, quarks, and so on).

Since they also has no means of studying proper chemistry, even compounds were attributed to a single type of atom, for example, water was believed to be comprised of a single element (the water atom) -- we also now know this to not be true.

So I'm not sure why you rely so much on ancient philosophers for your "science" knowledge since, even though they were very intelligent for their time, would be next to clueless regarding what we've discovered since their time.

Although you are right in saying that they had no proof you are however wrong about what they meant by ATOM.

The Atom to the ancient Greeks was the smallest particle that could not be divided. Their definition applies not to the Atom as we know it today (this word was used in the 20th century before the atom was split) but to the particle that cannot be split.

This misconception is rife today. All the Greeks did was define this "Atom". We have yet to discover the particle that abides to this definition.

It is silly for anyone to think that people in ancient times knew more than we do today. Heck! even the knowledge of 20 years ago is considered obsolete in many areas of science.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Just like I said. They speculated that things were made up of units called "atoms" -- that was about the extent of their knowledge about atoms. They didn't even have proof of atoms at the time -- it was still just an idea. They believed atoms would be the most fundamental building block of all things - and this is actually why they were on the right track, but still wrong.

Actual scientists disagree with you.

"Whenever this kind of thing happens one has to envisage two possibilities. The first is that the early thinkers made a lucky guess which later proved to be correct. The second is that the thought pattern in question is not so exclusively based on the recently discovered evidence as the modern thinkers believe...." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"This record is far too good to be chalked up to lucky guesses. Such consistently successful results show that Democritus and his followers had developed a powerful new system for gaining knowledge -- they had begun to explore empirical science, and its methods, thousands of years before it rose up again...." -- Robert L. Oldershaw, cosmologist, Democritus - Scientific Wizard of the 5th Century B.C., Speculations in Science and Technology, Volume 21, Number 1, Pages 37-44, 1998

"Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.E.), considered the father of modern science, was the last of the pre-Socratics and is best known for creating mechanical explanations for all of nature that surrounded him." -- Pamela Gossin, Encyclopedia of Literature and Science, 2002

We now know that these atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (all your protons, neutrons, quarks, and so on).

"We are facing here one of the most fascinating cases in the history of ideas. The astonishing point is this. From the lives and writings of Gassendi and Descartes, who introduced atomism into modern science, we know as an actual historical fact that, in doing so, they were fully aware of taking up the theory of the ancient philosophers whose scripts they had diligently studied. Furthermore, and more importantly, all the basic features of the ancient theory have survived in the modern one up to this day, greatly enhanced and widely elaborated but unchanged....." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"Concerning Schrödinger's question: is Democritus or Planck the founder of quantum theory?" -- Hans-Jürgen Treder, physicist, 1989

"[Democritus was] the first particle physicist." -- Leon M. Lederman, physicist, The God Particle, 2006

"... Democritus, held that matter was inherently grainy and that everything was made up of large numbers of various different kinds of atoms. (The word atom means 'indivisible' in Greek.) We now know that this is true -- at least in our environment, and in the present state of our universe." -- Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician, A Briefer History of Time, 2008

Since they also has no means of studying proper chemistry, even compounds were attributed to a single type of atom, for example, water was believed to be comprised of a single element (the water atom) -- we also now know this to not be true.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Democritus didn't believe in water atoms.

So I'm not sure why you rely so much on ancient philosophers for your "science" knowledge since, even though they were very intelligent for their time, would be next to clueless regarding what we've discovered since their time.

I submit to you that it is not the ancients who are the clueless ones.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Although you are right in saying that they had no proof you are however wrong about what they meant by ATOM.

Although you are wrong in saying they had no proof you are also wrong about what they meant by atom. Atom means not cut. That's all it means. It doesn't mean atoms are geometrically indivisible, it simply means that chemical elements cannot be reduced any further.

"... Democritus, held that matter was inherently grainy and that everything was made up of large numbers of various different kinds of atoms. (The word atom means 'indivisible' in Greek.) We now know that this is true -- at least in our environment, and in the present state of our universe." -- Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician, A Briefer History of Time, 2008

The Atom to the ancient Greeks was the smallest particle that could not be divided.

You have no evidence of that.

"Concerning Schrödinger's question: is Democritus or Planck the founder of quantum theory?" -- Hans-Jürgen Treder, physicist, 1989

"[Democritus was] the first particle physicist." -- Leon M. Lederman, physicist, The God Particle, 2006

Their definition applies not to the Atom as we know it today (this word was used in the 20th century before the atom was split) but to the particle that cannot be split.

Wrong.

"Democritus's notion is compatible with our present belief." -- Leon M. Lederman, physicist, The God Particle, 2006

"... Democritus, held that matter was inherently grainy and that everything was made up of large numbers of various different kinds of atoms. (The word atom means 'indivisible' in Greek.) We now know that this is true -- at least in our environment, and in the present state of our universe." -- Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician, A Briefer History of Time, 2008

This misconception is rife today. All the Greeks did was define this "Atom". We have yet to discover the particle that abides to this definition.

It is silly for anyone to think that people in ancient times knew more than we do today. Heck! even the knowledge of 20 years ago is considered obsolete in many areas of science.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[mzungu]

Although you are wrong in saying they had no proof you are also wrong about what they meant by atom. Atom means not cut.

Your Greek is better than mine Atom comes from the Greek άτομο means uncuttable or indivisible. It is derived from the word άτμητο which means one that has not yet been cut or is uncut.


The Idea that Democritus had of the atom was basically sound. He lacked the proof that came 2 millennia later in the early 20th century.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a BBC documentary on the greatest scientific discovery of all time; The discovery that everything is made up of atoms.

That you, my friend --

One quick question: What does the word 'atom' mean?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your Greek is better than mine

I didn't say that.

Atom comes from the Greek άτομο means uncuttable or indivisible. It is derived from the word άτμητο which means one that has not yet been cut or is uncut.

Uncut has a different meaning than uncuttable. Atom means not cut.

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

The Idea that Democritus had of the atom was basically sound.

I'll say.

He lacked the proof that came 2 millennia later in the early 20th century.

What proof are you referring to?