Difference between daltons and democritus theory

The Greeks (aka Democritus) had this idea that if you kept dividing something to become smaller and smaller and smaller, eventually you would reach a limit as to how small something could get. Eventually, he said, you would reach a size so small that it could no longer be divided ("atomos" = indivisible.) Dalton backed that up by actually creating a scientific model for the atom through experimentation, which Democritus was never able to do because the technology was not advanced enough. Dalton agreed with Democritus' ideas, but expanded them to include: -the idea that things can be broken down into elements -the definition that elements are atoms with different masses -compounds are combinations of elements. So basically he took what Democritus intuited and turned it into an actual model based on scientific theory. One of the main differences between them, besides the fact that Dalton's model was more extensive and complete, is that Dalton backed up his work with experimentation and scientific modeling to come up with a set of axioms, while Democritus focused on defining the concept of an "atom."

For cyclohexane compounds drawn in a chair conformation:   -axial bonds are vertical  -equatorial bonds are parallel to two bonds within the ring.  thus, as i assume the chair conformation is drawn:   -the x group is in an axial position, as are the five other vertical bonds.  -three axial bonds are on the top face of the ring  -the other three axial bonds are on the bottom face  the position of the second substituent on each ring carbon is equatorial.  gauche groups must be on an adjacent carbon such as carbon 6 and carbon 2, and also gauche groups are rotated by 60 degrees relative to each other.  drawing the newman projections for c1–c2 and c1–c6 aids in visualizing the groups that are gauche to the y group on c1.  click this link and watch some academic videos that may you more understand the topic