Wow, seems like I forgot to post my welcome
Ok, I'll say some random comments for each of your posts now because I'm bored xD
1) I see an Antoine Dodson quote in that intro... xD Also, yay for overrated beds and Fabled Grimro!
When someone comes in your room you should have a remote button that closes that portal so he can't escape, and he'll have to stay inside. That sounds creepy though, and he'll sue you as soon as he gets out xP
2) I understood most of the first part, after that there were several syntax mistakes and I couldn't really understand what you were trying to say. So I'll ask 2 questions for the first part : 1) Why wouldn't electrons be able to move if they moved around the Z axis? 2) If atoms are not solid when not in vacuum, then nothing can be solid while in the atmoshpere. Most probably you meant something else with what you said and I got it wrong due to the syntax mistakes.
About the second part, we are not pure energy. We are made of atoms, and atoms = matter. Also, what our eyes see is the interractions of light with matter. I could not undestand the rest because you did several spelling and syntax mistakes here too. However I think you were talking about quantum physics, and you're practically saying that we are not "somewhere", but "everywhere", or in other words, in more than 2 places simultaneously.
3) With this I confirmed that you're talking about quantum mechanics. However, quantum mechanics are concepts and theories, you cannot use them and combine them with classic physics, because most probably that would cause many theories of the classic physics result impossible. Therefore what you're saying is just a theory.
4) They do teach advanced physics in school, but what you're talking about is quantum physics, which is taught in the last classes or even in university.
I guess people told you many times that wikipedia is not a good source. The reasons you're angry about this may be :
1) Someone heard that somwhere and told you that but didn't understand why.
2) You misunderstood what someone told you.
Wikipedia CANNOT be counted as a valid/trusted source when writing an essay or something like that. The reason is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, making the content not absolutely true. It may be biased and/or influenced by a specific piece of people in our community which will most likely give biased information. (For example, you cannot fully trust information about Buddhism that a Christian priest gave you. I'm not saying he'll necessarily lie or distort the information he gave you, but if you're writing an important research that you want to release on an imoprtant and serious culture magazine you can't use a source that is most likely biased.)
However, for learning purposes, I believe Wikipedia will do just fine, I enjoy reading random stuff about science/culture/phsycology/etc on wikipedia. I believe it enriches someones knowledge, making more aware of pretty much anything going on in the world. People in the past were so easily maneuvered by smarter people because they couldn't learn things and increase their knowledge. Even if you're really smart, without some knowledge you can't reach your full potential.
Anyways I wrote too much. I am a big fan of science too, nice to meet ya
I'm still 14 years old so I still haven't learned all these things in school and that's why I may be wrong in some, if not many, cases. ALl I know comes from my brother (which has higher level physics in the IB program), Wikipedia and some basic things from school.