A physics scientific report  about "How did Rutherford rely on the people who were before him?"?
413419
One is the simple physics of collisions. Rutherford Back Scattering is used today to measure thin films. It is just bouncing balls so is not affected by chemistry.\nThe physics of elastic collisions was well defined by others. (billiard balls with balls of different masses) People used radioactive sources and understood the nature of alpha particles. So when the very thin film of gold didn't stop most of the particles, there was no surprise. The ones that did, were the surprise and the interesting/useful part of the experiment.\nNewtonian physics, elastic collisions, alpha particles, radioactive sources were available.\nThis should be a start.
651375
Hydrogen        : Henry Cavendish\nX-rays          : Wilhelm Rontgen\nOxygen gas      : Joseph Priestly\nRadium          : Pierre and Marie Curie\nElectricity     : The Greeks had some idea of electricity. \n\nIn the 18th century Franklin and other Europeans knew a great deal about it. Early in the century, Alessandro Volta invented the first source of continuous electric current - the battery. Later, Hans Christian Oersted discovered that an electric current produced magnetism. \n\nBut it was Michael Faraday who described the nature of the phenomena. In his electromagnetic induction theory he stated that an electric current flows in a conductor if that conductor is in a moving magnetic field and is part of a circuit. \n\n\nSmall-pox Vaccination  : Edward Jenner
449110
I don't know all the answers but the best place to ask such a question would the magazine "Scientific American".  Every month, they run a column titled something like "Science 50, 100 and 150 years ago".  A great magazine!!!
375875
Essentially, Dr Mills believes that he can create a hydrogen atom with an electron orbital that is closer to the nucleus than quantum mechanical theory allows.  Though the physics is very complex, he claims that the process of making compounds from this new type of hydrogen atom releases vast quantities of heat energy, which can be used as fuel.  The support for this comes from a number of scientists who have examined the process closely, and have had full access to the process, and have come away convinced.  The primary detraction comes from the fact that it disputes quantum theory, which itself has a great deal of scientific and experimental support.  As it stands now, quantum theory has the great preponderance of supporting data on it's side.  That isnt to say that Dr Mills may not have discovered something, or that quantum theory may have to be adjusted.
906594
why don t you check the following link.\n  http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_prehist.shtml\n\nThough it is more about the history of radio astronomy, in particular, hope it might be of some use to you as well.
798947
I suggest you look at this site, and draw your own conclusion,\nhttp://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm\nHappy reading
55186
what is science if not the discovery (and then proof in terms of repeatable and consistent evidence) and explanation of what previously was not known and proved.\n\nImagine science hundreds of years ago.  Would not they think much of today's world as magic?  Would they believe a machine weighting hundreds of thousands of pounds of metal would fly based upon speed of air over part of the machine?  Would they not think getting part of the disease to prevent the disease as superstition?\n\nMaybe one day, we will know and understand many of the elements of the metaphysical, extrasensory world, paranormal, ghosts, etc. that are a mystery  today.  Then this would be part of science, not ghosts, supernatural or magic.
938373
Rutherford and Bohr did much of the early theoretical work on the structure of the atom but the real breakthrough was in 1938 when the Austrian physicist Lise Meitner and the German chemist Otto Hahn bombarded uranium with neutrons and caused it to splinter into barium and krypton. \n\nShe coined the term "fission" for this process. borrowing a term from biology. When the Nobel Prize was awarded for this joint work over 30 years, after WW2, he was awarded it and she was omitted. Being female and Jewish had caused her career to be eclipsed by his.
20800
You may want to look into some of the things Nikola Tesla experimented with.  It will likely have you asking different questions.
251103
Well, that was a brave question. If you are asking about British chemist and physicist who developed the atomic theory of matter and hence is known as one of the fathers of modern physical science - John Dalton(b. Sept. 6, 1766, Eaglesfield, Cumberland. Eng.- d. July 27, 1844, Manchester), then \n\nI COULDN'T FIND ANY DIRECT REFERENCE TO HIS MIDDLE NAME.\n\nBut I Assume that if he ever had (used) a middle name, then it would be JOSEPH. His father was a weaver, Joseph Dalton.\n\nI am not very sure, but I'd go for JOHN JOSEPH DALTON\n\nAgain, thanks for a good question. Even if no such thing exist, this query prompted for a bit research. Keep it up.\n\nLooking forward for some better answers.
365797
reason:it was observed that when lighter atoms (usually less than 20) are bombarded with alphaparticles,atoms get radioactive in nature.practically also we can compare this to a thin man and a stout man
209817
Something I found interesting while studying Genesis. I did a Beth Moore "Patriarchs"  And I liked it but then I got J. Vernon Mcgee Commentary series and he really expands on the Bible.  Check it out it is really good, anyway on the chapter he did on God's creation of Man he states that "It is quite interesting that our bodies are made up of about  16 chemical elements. Those same chemical elements are found in the ground. The physical part of man was taken out of the dust of the ground. If we were to be boiled down  (gross huh)into the separate chemical elements of which we are made, we would be worth very little in terms of money. I used to say $2.98, but inflationhas increased that figure a little. That is the extent of our bodily worth because we were made out of dust from the ground. But man is more than dust. Physically, dust he is and to the dust he will return, but his spirit is going to God."  Just something I found interesting and wanted to share.
1179134
It would be so helpful if, when providing proof of something, there was actually a whit of truth to what you have to say.  Not only is most of what you've said untrue, it simply doesn't make sense.\n\nHowever, not being one to just say that and not back it up.\n\n1)  A planet sized comet wouldn't be generating a large magnetic field because comets are made of ice and (mostly carbonaceous) dust, two things which are most notably not magnetic.\n\n2)  No scientist worth his salt yet has indicated there's any evidence of massive "plasma scarring" on the surface of Mars, and if one did, it would be from plasma hitting the surface of Mars.  While the Sun and other stars are made out of the stuff, comets completely lack it and magnets don't create it, even if one magnetic field comes into alignment with another one, which brings us to...\n\n3)  Mars has no significant magnetic field.  It has a few magnetic patches on it where there is probably quite a bit of iron concentrated, but it's not magnetic in the least (as a whole planet, in the fashion of, say, the Earth).  It has no magnetic poles, either... and since you can't demagnetize an object with another magnetic field, it couldn't have ended up that way because another magnet "stripped off" it's magnetic field, and in any case you've said Mars absorbed all the energy... so it should be absolutely glowing on the magnetic front, and it isn't.\n\nSo, your theory is that an object which we know has no significant magnetic field (Mars) and an object which we know cannot have a magnetic field (a comet) got together and flipped magnetic poles which didn't exist when you said this event took place, in this massive magnetic tango that produced a product it could not have produced (plasma), that literally fired right through Mars like a gun and, even though it shot straight through the core from one non-existent magnetic pole through the other, didn't destroy the planet from the inside out, but left it completely in tact and just burned off the northern hemisphere, totally defying just about every one of the Laws of Physics God created the Universe to run on because, perfect being that He is, He was too incompetent to get it right the first time and needed to make a trial run which, as a compassionate and merciful God, He decided to burn to a crisp and roast alive every living thing on rather than allow to live on in peace once it had served His purposes, because He just didn't feel bothered to have them around any more.\n\nYou're right.  That's a freaking miracle.\n\n\nP.S.-- Craters naturally fill in from the center out because the edges of the crater are protected by the wall, leaving the center of the crater where dust can be most easily blown and settle, and there are dust storms on Mars.  Also, cooling cracks are very regular things, as the contracting matter pulls evenly away from the weakest point, most often causing the split to be very even and straight.  There's nothing about those features on Mars (or the shield volcanoes, for that matter) we haven't seen happen endless times on Earth-- and directly witnessed in other planetary bodies in the Solar System, which is why we know what made them.\n\nEdit:  All right, let's do this.  First, as for comets:\n\nhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/tour_def/comets/comets.html\n\nhttp://www.solarviews.com/eng/comet.htm\n\nhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets&Display=Kids\n\nEveryone from the sixth grade on but you seemed to learn in science class what comets were made of, and most of us quite a bit sooner.  They're made out of ICE and DUST.  Because of the severely black color of them and our analysis of the gases in the comet's coma (you know, that big gas cloud you see around the comet that, oddly, is made out of ice and dust), we're pretty darned sure a lot of that dust contains CARBON, so they're made
142075
Henri Becquerel. \n\nGlenn T. Seaborg. \n\nMarie and Pierre Curie\n\nEnrico Fermi\n\nIrene Joliot-Curie\n\nFrederik Joliot\n\nErnest Rutherford\n\nHarold Urey\n\nand literally thousands and thousands more.
332198
Thank you for the article- it had some interesting insights!\n\nI have long thought that there was something odd in the part of Genesis 2:1 and the phrasing Genesis 1 used. I've been looking for things that explained it and your article did just that.\n\nIt simply makes no sense that the God who sent His people to the wilderness for 40 years would have (or needed to) rush the planet in 6 days, then fake various items to make it seem much older. He does not work that way at any other time, so why then?\n\nI have said for years that when the Bible and science or reality conflict, our understanding of one or the other is flawed- and I think we've really messed up our understanding of the Bible!
300178
Rutherford shot alpha particles at a think sheet of gold foil.  Since alpha particles have a positive charge (like the soon to be discovered nucleus of an atom), when the alpha particles got close to the atom's nucleus, they were repulsed away, many however just passed through, undeflected.\nThe results of this experiment showed that the majority of the atom's mass lay in a very small, dense, positively charged core of the atom, surrounded by mostly empty space and electrons.\n\nThis lead to a new model of the atom, the Rutherford model.
899898
I'm guessing by 'the atomic model' of the atom, you mean the correct model. It was proposed by bohr, and is essentially the same as the rutherford model except that the electrons are held into shells. Note the wikipedia article below.\nas for the reactivity of different groups, you need to read about valence electrons. They're the number of electrons in the incomplete (outermost) electron shell -- group 1 has 1 valence electron, group 17 has one MISSING valence electron. Atoms are more stable when they have 'full' shells, and no incomplete ones, so the group 1 atoms will try to 'give away' their extra electron, while the group 17 atom will try and 'take away' one more electron to complete its shell.