The discussion centers around the drawbacks of Rutherford's atomic model, particularly focusing on the implications of electrons moving in orbits and the associated acceleration due to changing velocity vectors. Participants explore the nature of acceleration in circular motion and draw parallels between atomic and planetary motion, questioning the charge of planets.
Participants express differing views on the terminology used to describe the relationship between velocity changes and acceleration. There is also a lack of consensus regarding the charge of planets and its implications for their motion compared to electrons.
Participants do not fully resolve the implications of charge/mass ratios or the significance of electromagnetic radiation in the context of planetary motion versus atomic behavior.
Correct me if I am wrong.Velocity with continuous change in direction leads to acceleration.DrClaude said:The velocity vector is continuously changing direction. That corresponds to acceleration (you can see it in terms of the components of the velocity vector, which are continuously changing).
I don't like the use of "leads". It is not a causal relationship. I would use "corresponds to". You need to apply a force to change the direction, hence there is an acceleration.Docscientist said:Correct me if I am wrong.Velocity with continuous change in direction leads to acceleration.
Just one more silly question.Planets do move around the sun in an elliptical orbit just as how electron moves around an atom.But planets do not show any electromagnetic radiation as they are not charged just as how an electron does if it was to move in an orbit.The question is why aren't planets charged ?DrClaude said:I don't like the use of "leads". It is not a causal relationship. I would use "corresponds to". You need to apply a force to change the direction, hence there is an acceleration.
Docscientist said:why aren't planets charged ?