Knowledge about Democritus is often limited because much of his work has survived only in fragments, and historical accounts about him are sparse. Additionally, the focus of later philosophical and scientific developments shifted towards figures like Aristotle and Plato, overshadowing Democritus's contributions to atomism. His ideas, while foundational, weren't fully appreciated or integrated into mainstream science until much later, which further contributed to the lack of widespread familiarity with his theories.
Democritus's ideas on atoms were largely ignored because they were considered speculative and lacking experimental evidence during his time. Additionally, his atomistic theory was overshadowed by the more influential philosophical and scientific ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It wasn't until much later, when experimental evidence supporting atomism emerged, that Democritus's ideas gained more recognition.
There are probably several things Mercury has very little of, but compared to the other planets is has very little size/mass and very little distance from the sun.
He could not verify his ideas experimentally because, due to the incredibly tiny size of atoms, matter behaves as if it is continuous unless you expend enough energy in the right way to probe the microscopic structure. Science in those days was limited to what you could see with the naked eye, hear with the unaided ear, smell, taste, and touch... and you certainly cannot sense atoms in that way.
his observations led him to believe that gases are made of individual particles are very similar to the idia of the atom proposedby democritus
very little
Democritus's ideas on atoms were largely ignored because they were considered speculative and lacking experimental evidence during his time. Additionally, his atomistic theory was overshadowed by the more influential philosophical and scientific ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It wasn't until much later, when experimental evidence supporting atomism emerged, that Democritus's ideas gained more recognition.
Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.Possibly, but we don't know for certain. We know very little about Boudicca and her family.
We do not know. Because exoplanets are so far away we can gain very little information about them. For the most part we only have the vaguest ideas of what surface conditions might be.
Because there is little evidence about them
very little.
one or two
It probably did not. We do not know as we know very little about it. :)
That's a big no, we know very little about space
Stiu foarte putina romana is a Romanian equivalent of 'I know very little Romanian'.
one or two
main ideas
We know very little about Calpunia because very little reference was made about her by ancient historians. We only know that she was born in 75 BC.