http://www.englishforums.com/English/EslGeneralEnglishGrammar-Questions/Forum12.htmAsk your questions on grammar and get your sentence checked. We answer lots of different types of general English grammar questions here. <font color=red>DO NOT post paragraphs and compositions here. Post them in our <a href="http://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm"><b>Essay, Report and Composition Writing Forum</b></a>.</font>enXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625264Mon, 25 May 2009 18:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:625264Avangi0http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625264http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-625264.xmlThanks, CJ.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625235Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:625235CalifJim1http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625235http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-625235.xmlI did not understand what difference are there between these two scientist&#39;s theroies. That&#39;s not surprising. It&#39;s very poorly explained. Rutherford said the electrons orbited in a dense cloud around the nucleus. The implication is that the distance from the center didn&#39;t make any difference -- just any size orbit would do. Bohr said that the orbits could only occur at specific distances from the center. At certain distances from the center there could be no orbiting electrons. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625217Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:625217CalifJim2http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#625217http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-625217.xmlTo be in orbit is to travel in a more or less circular path. More &quot;less&quot; than &quot;more&quot; once you get past the first electron shell. Those orbits loop around in the most twisting ways you can imagine. (I thoroughly disapprove, of course.) CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624747Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:624747Avangi3http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624747http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-624747.xmlCareless facts and careless language. I think you were justified in your feeling.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624733Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:624733enkidu4http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624733http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-624733.xmlI like to thank to both of you first of all. This sentence from a documentary prepared for secondary school students. That is why, it is not explained as detailed. I read it repeatedly, but ı never saw &quot;radical difference&quot; between them. Therefore I had to ask here even though it has to do with physics.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624672Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:624672Avangi5http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624672http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-624672.xmlThere may be major differences between the two theories, but they&#39;re surely not described by your sentence. Both proposals here are identical as to the location of the particles. The only difference is that your description of Bohr&#39;s proposal doesn&#39;t mention a force which &quot;keeps&quot; the electrons in orbit. To be in orbit is to travel in a more or less circular path. Your description of Rutherford mentions a neucleus in the singular, which logically makes the orbits concentric. Although the two descriptions employ different words or terms, (except for the electric charges) they match point for point. And Newton had proposed many years before that an attractive force is necessary to keep a mass in orbit. (universal...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624660Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:624660Mister Micawber6http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htm#624660http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-624660.xml. This is a grammar forum, not a physics forum, but from the text you have supplied, I suppose it means that Niels Bohr located the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus, while Ernest Rutherford did not indicate where they were or what they were doing. However, I think your quote is a bit confused, since it was J.J. Thomson that held to the &#39;plum pudding&#39; model, while his student Rutherford, like Niels Bohr, posited electrons orbiting a central nucleus. I may be wrong though; I am just a grammarian. .http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htmWed, 25 Feb 2009 19:46:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:624641enkidu7http://www.englishforums.com/English/Comment/hwcgk/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-624641.xmlWhile Rutherford proposed that negatively charged electrons were held in orbit by the positively charged nucleus, he did not describe the location of the electrons. Niels Bohr proposed that electrons move in orbits around the nucleus. my question: I did not understand what difference are there between these two scientist&#39;s theroies.