[guest39538]

No. You can't squeeze energy.

You have a poor imagination, if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.

The cloud has opposing force right?

[Kryptid]

You have a poor imagination

You can imagine whatever you want to. That doesn't mean that what you imagine is physically possible.

if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.

The cloud has opposing force right?

If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons. That's because electrons all have a negative charge. That works for a cloud composed of electrons because the cloud is composed of negatively-charged entities. That analogy will fall apart if you try to apply it to a field by itself, since the field is not electrically-charged.

[guest39538]

If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.

Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

[Kryptid]

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.

Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:

[guest39538]

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.

Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:

Thank you for sharing the interesting video, I tried something similar using a CRT tv and placing tin foil over the screen.  The foil sucked into the screen and to my surprise the television went bang.

If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion.

You mean likewise polarity repulsion?

Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?

[Kryptid]

You mean likewise polarity repulsion?

Between electrically-charged objects specifically, yes.

Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?

You've basically described the current model of why objects are tangible: electrical repulsion between electrons prevents physical objects from phasing through each other. However, a collection of electrons alone would not make a stable physical object. For that reason, I'd say that if you started off with two collections of electrons beside each other, both of them would explode. You can't exactly call such a collection "solid". They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.

[guest39538]

They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.

Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?

[Kryptid]

Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?

As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.

[guest39538]

Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?

As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.

This is where 0³ is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0³.

Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .

But ok, I think you are understanding the notion more.

Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?

[Kryptid]

This is where 0³ is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0³.

Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .

There is no such thing as a 3-dimensional point. If it has dimensions, then it isn't a point. Points have no volume whatsoever. That automatically excludes any application of volume to point particles. I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. So no such thing can happen.

Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?

They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).

[Bored chemist]

If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.

Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

If  take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.

Do you understand why people don't think you understand science?

Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?

[Kryptid]

I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.

[guest39538]

If  take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.

Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.

[guest39538]

I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.

Who said scientists?   
 Good memory is not being smart, smart is the ability to adapt.

In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

[The Spoon]

In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.

[guest39538]

In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.

Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.   I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact. 
I also defined darkness as a visual property of matter which is also exact.
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.

[Bored chemist]

In time I will define gravity and other stuff.

You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.

If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
 or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "

and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact.  "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly.  "

Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.

[Bored chemist]

Of course nitrogen gas is a solid

It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.

[guest39538]

In time I will define gravity and other stuff.

You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.

If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
 or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "

and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact.  "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly.  "

Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.

Well obviously you understood it or you would not be able to correct it.  So why be such an ''idiot'' about it?

I notice you did not challenge the ideas but again try to focus on me.  There isn't a single ''troll'' on the planet who can upset me or make me irate, I have to pretend to get irate .

Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

[guest39538]

Of course nitrogen gas is a solid

It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.

Its about time you listened to somebody who understands more than you do. Humble pie costs nothing.