Why was Daltons theory more successful then democritus's theory?

Answer 1

Dalton's theory was more successful than Democritus's theory because of evidence. Evidence existed to support Dalton's theory. While Democritus didn't have any evidence to back up his theory.

Answer 2

Dalton's theory was more successful than democritus theory because there was evidence to support his theory. For example, In his theory included the following:Every element is made of tiny, unique particles called atoms that cannot be subdivided.Atoms of the same element have the same mass, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Atoms of different elements can join to form compounds.

Answer 3

Dalton's atomic theory agreed with Democritus that atoms were indivisible and indestructible, but added to his theory of atoms by talking about elements and stating that atoms of the same element have the same properties. He also added that atoms could form compounds and rearrange in a chemical reaction. Aristotle didn't believe atoms existed.

Answer 4

Dalton's theory was significant because it proposed that elements were characterized by their masses. He also said that elements reacted to form simple whole number ratios with their numbers and sometimes could form more than one simple whole number ratio.

Answer 5

Because Dalton had some idea what he was talking about and some evidence for his theory where Democritus basically pulled a wacky idea out of his proctos. The fact that idea turned out to not be completely untrue was more or less luck (if you get a whole bunch of crazy Greek philosophers coming up with crazy ideas, one or two of them are bound to be more or less right just by coincidence).

Answer 6

Democritus did not have a theory; he was just taking one side in a debate. Democritus did not have any experimental or observational evidence to support his point of view.

The other side of the debate had no ammunition either; the Greeks just didn't believe in soiling their hands with looking at things, still less touching them.

Dalton was no debater - he was a real scientist. He looked for evidence, found it, analysed it and presented his conclusions. Being more successful than Democritus was a one horse race.

Answer 7

Democritus thought that there were only two things in the world -- substance and void. Void was empty space. Substance was arranged in chunks which he called atom, which means "uncuttable". The differences between different sorts of material were because atoms, all made of a single substance, were different shapes. So oil was made up of round atoms that could easily slide over one another, while rocks were made up of atoms that had lots of hooks and ridges that locked them together. Acids had sharp points that made them prick the tongue, and so on.

Dalton, on the other hand, had a late 18th century view of substances, recognising about 30-40 different elements, different sorts of substance, with different sorts of simple atom, and a huge number of compounds, each of which had atoms which were made up of simple atoms or simpler compound atoms. (Dalton's 'compound atoms' were similar to what we would now call 'molecules', but they were different in important ways).

Answer 8

Dalton's theory was more successful than Democritus's because it provided a more systematic and detailed explanation of matter based on experimentation and evidence, leading to the development of modern chemistry. Dalton also proposed the concept of atomic weights and introduced the idea of chemical compounds as combinations of atoms in fixed ratios, which laid the foundation for the atomic theory. Democritus, on the other hand, did not have experimental evidence to support his ideas and his theory lacked the same level of detail and coherence.

Answer 9

Dalton's theory was more successful than Democritus's theory because of evidence. Evidence existed to support Dalton's theory. While Democritus didn't have any evidence to back up his theory.