You don't have to take my interpretation of Feynman, listen to him state it directly here within the first 30 seconds and explain why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqTvGLVwnQ4&feature=player_detailpage#t=418s
And my question still is: I've been told by Feynman that photons are particles...
Ok, so according to your logic, an electron from outside the atom could not collide with any part of the nucleus (because it is not in an s or s-hybrid orbital). Is that because the other electrons would repel it?
What about the case of a photon?
As an aside, I've been told by Feynman that...
I don't know how to refine my concept of collision to ask the question better.
Can you sub-divide the answer to my question into the different ways you would define collision so I can understand better and have an answer to the questions I asked based on how the answer changes (and why)...
Can an electron (from outside the atom) collide with the nucleus of an atom, and does this happen at normal energy levels? What usually happens when it does?
If it doesn't happen is it because the electrons of the atom repel the incoming electron with their charge.
Finally same question, but...
I just had to add this to my above comments, perhaps this board will not think I'm so much less educated if they hear the same thing from Feynman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI&feature=player_detailpage#t=246s
That is why contempt towards jtbell's response is not rude! Because...
Ok thanks. I think often people who have physics glossary definitions for words can't understand those same words when used as a means to meaning. Answering my questions with words that simply represent those definitions (and whose definitions contain the answer to the question asked) does...
It is not rude to be annoyed by a non-answer that requires the exact knowledge I am asking for to understand.
For someone far more educated, a 4-word response says nothing to someone far less educated like me in your estimation.
And since you have more than 4 words I can actually learn...
If kinetic energy or the collisions that result from the increase in temperature, isn't a fundamental force, which of the four does it below in the category of?
The force of collisions and the resultant changes it brings about to the state of the particles involved (i.e. changes of momentum)...
I may have asked an ignorant question but not a belligerent one. Belligerent? Really? Only if when someone asks the validity of a physical concept you take it as a personal offensive attack. And what "people" reacted? I agree you reacted I suppose, with a curt "you misunderstand physics" blow...
Yeah, I was running out of ways to ask the original question so you might eventually actually respond to it and not have another non-responsive post from you.
But I did appreciate the answer once you gave it on the 3rd try.
So, forgetting whatever the EP principle says, and just speaking on the fundamental reality of physics, it is true that gravity and uniform acceleration are not really equivalent in reality, and aren't the same force or come from an identical fundamental physical process then. If something is...
But they still must exist, which makes it an artifice or convenience, and not an accurate representation of fundamental physics, my original post is asking if the statements I made originally are fair statements regarding the EP. Are they?