Re: Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- From: "guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx" <guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2007 13:08:46 -0700
On May 31, 3:40 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doctor Tom Roberts wrote:
Here's an attempt to define "move" classically: as the electron is both
charged and bound in the atom, if the electron "moves" then it must be
accelerated and thus radiate electromagnetic waves. None are observed,
so the electron does not "move".
Baloney from Tommy!
A planet or ball can remain in orbital if it's velocity is constant =
no acceleration what so ever.
Likewise for the electron, and like a ball that means even if it's
orbital is elliptical.
and that includes a CLOUDISH orbital and yes orbital cause it is
kineticaly moving.
In fact if the electron or ball WAS TO ACCELERATE it would move to a
higher orbit.
They are inter-confusing with the force of acceleration towards the
center which is 100% irrelevant, the ball and electron themselves only
need be of constant velocity ...PERIOD.
.
- References:
- Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- Prev by Date: Re: Does element mass = # of electron + neucleons??
- Next by Date: Re: Space,Time and Earth's Motion
- Previous by thread: Tom Robert's ill-conceived notion of electron acceleration.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
