Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Totally Random Science Facts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 55774801" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p>Exactly, and not for scientific reasons. It was no more contestable then than evolution is now. The atomic nature of matter was known in the 1800s, and research into atoms thereafter wasn't to see <em>if</em> atoms exist, but <em>how</em> they exist. In 1909, for instance, research wasn't going into trying to disprove atomic theory, but in disproving one model of atomic physics in favour of another - specifically, Rutherford's model over the 'plum pudding' model.</p><p></p><p>Further, Einstein's paper on Brownian motion wasn't a proof of the existence of atoms, but an explanation of one phenomenon in terms of another. Atoms were known to exist at the time Brownian motion was discovered in the early 1800s; Einstein simply developed the mathematics that could adequately explain their apparently random behaviour. His triumph wasn't in the discovery of atoms, but rather an explanation of a hitherto mysterious thermodynamic response.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 55774801, member: 104966"] Exactly, and not for scientific reasons. It was no more contestable then than evolution is now. The atomic nature of matter was known in the 1800s, and research into atoms thereafter wasn't to see [I]if[/I] atoms exist, but [I]how[/I] they exist. In 1909, for instance, research wasn't going into trying to disprove atomic theory, but in disproving one model of atomic physics in favour of another - specifically, Rutherford's model over the 'plum pudding' model. Further, Einstein's paper on Brownian motion wasn't a proof of the existence of atoms, but an explanation of one phenomenon in terms of another. Atoms were known to exist at the time Brownian motion was discovered in the early 1800s; Einstein simply developed the mathematics that could adequately explain their apparently random behaviour. His triumph wasn't in the discovery of atoms, but rather an explanation of a hitherto mysterious thermodynamic response. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Totally Random Science Facts
Top
Bottom