sci.physics.electromag

"stan" wrote in message
news:ivt4c5-s7g.ln1@invalid.net...
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
>> news:658r04F2ev0feU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Mar 29, 10:32 am, Benj wrote:
>>>> On Mar 29, 3:46 am, "FrediFizzx"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Bohr's model of an atom is obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> What is this? Am I talking into a mirror? I
>>>> believe I made that point to YOU not too
>>>> many posts ago.
>>>
>>> I don't recall you ever pointing that out to me.
>>> Got the link? The statement of yours does
>>> not make much sense. It is like word salad.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/95b90bc9c5bf29f3
>> ... looks like it.
>
> That seems to express some confusion over the term "orbital". In no
> way
> does the word imply a simple circular/elliptical path. I don't believe
> the modern concept of an orbital could be fairly described as a simple
> path of any shape; the idea is a lot less linear. Maybe it's
> terminology
> that is causing an apparent communication problem.

Hi Stan,

I guess I missed that post by Benj. Yeah, it seems perhaps I need to be
more exact in some of my statements to eliminate some confusion from
those that don't have a good understanding of quantum physics.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations.