May 7 - 13, 2019
Why Einstein's Photon was Really the Striker Electron of a Normal Wave
Shrinking The Universe with Slow Light Through Cold Space
Where's the Big Bang's Empty-Space Hole?
In Mueller's report against Trump, you will not find any evidence that the Russians hacked American computers. Even when it comes to the charge of "Russian interference," I have yet to read of any evidence in or out of his report. Nobody online, so far as I've read, has so far as mentioned this part of the story aside from Truthification Chronicles (starting at 4 minutes). The Russians themselves make the same case of evidence lacking.
To show the nation and the world that the deep state has no proof of these things is tantamount to absolving Trump even more, and making the Mueller team, including Rosenstein, look wildly more like criminals. To disprove the particular Russian interference as passed off my the Mueller team, or to show that it's a false-premised accusation, is the holy grail of exposing the Mueller team. It takes from them every justification for starting the Russia-collusion investigation in the first place. It leaves them looking detestable. The more that the democrats push Mueller, the more dangerous it should become for him. Mueller has made the mistake of writing that letter to Barr, because it emboldens his enemies to put out the truth.
The problem is, a poll this week claims that 57 percent of Americans think that Trump should be impeached. Assuming that the number was artificially inflated, or even if we assume that the true number should be 47 percent, that's why half the nation no longer believes in Jesus: the people are mentally incapable of reasoning; they allow their animosities to form their fact-finding, and they therefore miss the facts. They are useless teachers, and lead into errors of all kinds. Millions and billions of people walking the earth teaching false ideas rampantly. When people have false ideas to work with in their reasoning or their ponderings, they are apt to reach more error.
Where's Christopher Wray's report into the Crowdstrike's investigation into Guccifer 2.0? Why couldn't Wray investigate Crowdstrike now that its enemy is in power, now that Trump is Wray's boss? Trump could really use a revelation on Crowdstrike; so why can't Wray find it within himself to do his own president a favor and in the meantime reveal Obamaite corruption in that area too? Is Wray useless? Yes. He's one of the world-class stooges who sucks on false ideas like a baby sucks on a pacifier. Everytime he opens his mouth, we can see his lack of zeal for truth, because he always omits the things we expect in this scandal-laden story. There are red flags all over the playing field, yet Wray never mentions one of them, never tells that he's investigate one of them. His omissions speak clearly on his obstruction of justice. He's very happy protecting the criminals; he's taken it upon himself to hush any sound of criminality.
He testified this week that he knows nothing of corruption in the FBI as pertains to spying on Trump. He was careful to say, when asked in congress, that as far as concerns himself, there is no knowledge of FBI spying on Trump. What this tends to reveal to me is that other FBI people have said to him, possibly with evidence presented to him, that they believe the FBI spied on trump, but Wray didn't want us to know that part. He only told us, in effect, that he personally doesn't agree with anyone in the FBI who says Trump was spied on. There is your juvenile delinquent who wants a deep-state tit, not facts?
WHY HAS WRAY NOT LOOKED AT CROWDSTRIKE? This is where the Russian-hacking fantasy originates. Why does no one of Fox mention this? This is the holy grail of destroying Mueller's credibility and landing him some punishment, for it is inconceivable that Mueller should NOT have looked into Crowdstrike when Mueller pushed Russian interference. There is no way to avoid the logic, that Mueller needed Crowdstrike's evidence into Russian interference, and so one needs only to discover that Mueller did NOT check up with Crowdstrike, for he likely knew it would be counter-productive...because Crowdstrike was faking a Russian hacking into DNC computers. Is this a non-story so that Fox's guests should avoid it?
Hannity promised to re-visit the Seth-Rich case, but has not kept his promise. The Democrats were rattling their ghostly chains like never before when Hannity was covering this story, because there is a scarlet crime at the core, and they needed vehemently to cover it. This crime is an integral part of the Mueller report, a great way to bring the issue back to the news. Mueller stands naked if he did not try to secure Crowdstrike's claims for his own project against Trump. And if he did not, then it's his admission that he didn't respect Crowdstrike's claims, or that he knew the truth: the claims were intentionally false to cover the truth of the "hack."
Hannity knows that the hack did not take place, that it was Seth Rich who took the DNC material in order to expose that Hillary interfered into her own election with Sanders. It's not a surprise that Democrat immoralites should rig elections in multiple ways, whatever it takes to win them by cheating. This is a story worthy of the Hannity show because he's all for protecting true democracy. As Seth Rich was murdered likely due to his seeking evidence for a rigged election, is this a non-story?
Oh, I get it. The Seth-Rich grab overlaps with the bread-and-butter of Julian Assange, yet he is now off-limits for Hannity because Trump is playing like he doesn't like Assange. Is Hannity prone to being a state media rather than one of truth? Hannity is not a powerful election force, to change the hearts of voters, precisely because he's the lap dog of any sitting, Republican president. He's the reciprocal political-animal in Democrat media. Granted, he tells the truth many times more than the Democrat, but it doesn't change the fact that he is over-loyal to Republicans to the point of shunning important facts and whole stories.
The video below has Wray's hearing. In the third minute, he's asked whether the FBI looked into the spying that Barr spoke of, which is not to say whether he looked into it only after Barr mentioned it, but also before Barr was appointed. In answering, Wray deflects first to Horowitz and then to Barr's coming investigations. That is, Wray fails to say whether he personally looked into that spying. He thus incriminates himself as an obstructor, for the head of the FBI, above all, should be looking into those matters, yet he says nothing as to whether he was...because he was not. There is nothing he's ever said that has made Fox news for revealing his investigation(s) into the HUGE FBI scandal. This is Wray's criminality, make no mistake about it. Don't call it anything but criminality, for an FBI chief who supports criminals is himself one.
This is a sleepy video, not recommended for wasting your time:
The second question by Mr. Moran (Republican, I believe) is on Russian interference, where he says that it did in fact take place. This is the myth that must, above all, be pushed as Mueller stink-bombs continue to be dropped on the White House by Nadler. Moran then asks Wray about other interference other than Russian, and Wray knows darn well that Hillary interfered, but this was not a part of his answer. He deflects instead to other foreign actors, and wastes time explaining how they go about it using social media. This is a non-topic, a phantom of their imaginations, for social-media entries by foreign players had virtually zero effect on the way people voted...exactly due to the fact that any positions pushed by them were pushed already by American voters. A few extra drip-drops from foreign actors in merely social media does not rise to the level of worthiness in this Senate hearing.
A Democrat questioner comes on at 9 minutes, and Wray says to her that the FBI didn't "spy" on Trump. Bla-bla, he's lying and he knows it. In the 11th minute, he admits that he's seen "limited information" into the Trump-spy campaign, and here he needs to give appearances that he's just a by-stander in the FBI rather than the chief. He pretends to know little about it after all of this time, and moreover takes the excuse of not being able to comment openly due to Horowitz's on-going probes. At 12 minutes, Wray lies saying that "I personally don't have evidence of that sort". It's as though the FBI is squeaky-clean as per the ongoing and growing scandals. Wray is a Democrat-supporting farce.
Still in the 12th minute, the same Democrat questioner asks him whether Barr has asked him to look into the scandals. The Democrats want to know what Barr is up to, and they want to curb his investigatory powers, cut off his head if need be, but Wray does not want answer the question when he answers. He does admit, however, that he and Barr are working "together" on this, and, not to defame Barr's name, he ends with "I think that's appropriate." But Wray does not wish to admit that he's being tasked to look into the scandals because he's already committed himself to being a by-stander in the FBI, an I-know-nothing-I-see-nothing farce. The Democrats are surely going to pepper him again on exactly what Barr is asking him to look into, and Wray already knows darn well the details of what he's being asked to look into, the very things he's been covering until now.
The next two questioners once again reinforce election interference from foreigners. In the 26th minute, Leahy asks Wray whether the White House has ever asked him to initiate an "investigation of anyone," and Wray thus exposes Trump's guilt by say, no. The White House has not had the proper sense of justice to ask the FBI to conduct even one investigation into the many scandals that the president is aware of. The president tries to give appearances that he cares for justice, yet is proven here as a farce. Don't tell me that the president is afraid of appearing biased or self-interested, for that's no excuse. His voters want him to partake as a mover and shaker on their own behalf, but he has done NOTHING. SPIT!!! He first put Wray in place, and then did nothing to curb his obstruction, making Trump guilty of obstruction too. Make no mistake about it, Trump had indeed been guilty of obstruction, and he is in fact the king-pin of obstruction. Wray is emboldened by Trump's inaction.
So, we now watch how Barr will treat this disgusting excuse for an FBI director. There is a good chance, from what we've heard from Barr, that he will straighten Wray out, though even then Wray will still look too much like a pretzel. Best thing: replace him. yet Trump doesn't want to because he thinks it will make him look bad to fire this man. But Trump looks worse for not firing him, haha, I laugh in his face. I profane this president to his face.
When answering to Leahy, Wray uses "predication" multiple times, which is the term used by Barr. The latter said he wants to know whether there was predication for (grounds for justification of) the Mueller witch hunt. There is no way that Barr can fail, if he hasn't already, spot Wray's duplicity and criminality. It is a crime for an FBI director to turn a blind eye to high-level corruption the likes we have seen with the Muellerites and the Comeyites.
After a Republican questioner skirts all the scandalous issues, Mr. Reed, a Democrat (36th minute), asks Wray whether Russians have the intension of interfering in the 2020 elections. It's this same myth again, the pinnacle matter to Democrat conspirators as Nadler continues the Mueller witch hunt. This myth was never a media issue, let alone a congressional preoccupation, until Hillary needed it invented. My prediction: the deep state with "discover" (in reality created by the deep state) more election tampering by Russians in the 2020 election season.
In the 43rd minute a Republican finally appears who doesn't look like Wray's lap dog, and he asks whether Wray knows the predicate for Hillary's email scandal. Wray says, no!!! GUILTY! He's acting like an I-know-nothing-I-see-nothing farce. Or, he's saying, don't ask me about any of those scandals, because I'll pretend they don't exist. That's Wray in a nutshell, a squirrel.
Wray is then asked whether he knows of the predict into the Trump witch hunt. He doesn't answer, and his answer is insufficient...but the Republican doesn't press him to answer appropriately yes or no. Wray alludes to Mueller's predict, but doesn't specify what it was, though I know enough of this story to say that Mueller's predict is Russian interference. This is why this myth is being passed off as fact at this time, as of the utmost, Democrat concern, because Democrats, and Wray, fear that Barr is snooping around this predict for the dog crap that it is. Hopefully, Barr's going to smell it for what it is, and when he finds it on Mueller's paws, Wray will look like he's been sniffing Mueller's behind. The only "fascinating" thing about these scandals is how slow the law works...zzzz.
The next questioner (Democrat) again pushes Russian interference. I am surprised, however, that Democrats are not poking into Wray on what Barr has asked of him. Perhaps they think it's best not publicized. The Republicans appear intent on not damaging Wray's reputation, I cannot understand this. The questions expected of Republicans did not materialize, as though they would rather MOVE ON from FBI scandals. The last Democrat to question spent his entire five minutes on the monster that Russian interference is in his fantasy world. Then, the last speaker, Lindsey Graham, asks on Russian interference. This entire video played as though the session was pre-determined staging, with kid gloves on Wray. It was a waste of 1.5 hours of my time, yet I was able to make the point that interference is the game at this time, the effort to make it into such a hard fact that even Trumper Republicans won't deny it on the open stage.
Okay, let's talk about foreign interference. I was watching Bongino's show today (where he too shows disgust for Wray), and he comes to a John-Solomon article speaking on Steele's rabid desire to get his dossier into the big media a couple of weeks before the election in an effort to blow Trump out of the water. We cannot be so daft as not to realize that Steele was going to get some big money for doing this great favor for Hillary, but Comey decided, in the end, he wanted nothing to do with getting this cheap trick into the news, which is what sent Hillary ballistic into the insanity zone when she lost the election. All of that money spent to get out the dossier, and Comey cuts her down as she's about to cross the finishing line. Perfect.
Who was interfering in the election? Not Russia, but Britain. That's right. And the state department after Hillary was a player in the dossier because Steele was able to confide with its Deputy Assistant Secretary, right up at the top. This is what Solomon has revealed in the past few days, but Bongino revealed to me that Wray tried to cover up this story. What a beautiful day for Bongino to come out with this. The article above:
Steele’s client [Hillary, ultimately] “is keen to see this information [from the dossier] come to light prior to November 8,” the date of the 2016 election, Kavalec wrote in a typed summary of her meeting with Steele and Tatyana Duran, a colleague from Steele’s Orbis Security firm. The memos were unearthed a few days ago through open-records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.
This is truly a bombshell the deep state didn't expect, and the DoJ probably wouldn't have told the public this thing. It makes Barr duty-bound to arrest people in the FBI these people, all of them right up to at least John Kerry. There is no alternative way to understand that statement. Surely, it's a crime for the state department to use itself against the political opponent running for the White House. There is no conceivable reason for the state department to meet with Steele at that time. The Hillaryites still working in the state department were probably trying to hurry Steele along, for Trump was gaining ground, and she needed an insurance policy in case he took the lead. Steele then tried to get the story into the big media, but hardly dared touch it even though they wanted to for Hillary's sake.
"Kavalec’s notes do not appear to have been provided to the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe, according to former Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). "They tried to hide a lot of documents from us during our investigation, and it usually turns out there’s a reason for it," Nunes told me. Senate and House Judiciary investigators told me they did not know about them, even though they investigated Steele’s behavior in 2017-18." Thank God for John Solomon. One member of Congress transmitted the memos this week to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, fearing its investigation of FISA abuses may not have had access to them. Super, because now Horowitz MUST look into this matter further even if he had decided to hush it up.
And here's Solomon on Wray: "Nonetheless, the FBI is doing its best to keep much of Kavalec’s information secret by retroactively claiming it is classified, even though it was originally marked unclassified in 2016." He goes on to say that he wanted to know what Kavalec and Steele discussed, but that the government wasn't telling. So now the issue goes to Horowitz, and he's duty-bound to let Nunes and others in on what took place. Here's a thing that Trump the Slump can declassify today if only he'd actually start doing something.
How possibly could it be the case that Trump has no desire to see what was spoken at that meeting? If anyone should have the desire to know what crimes were committed with his own election, it's the president. Therefore, Trump will order the papers on his desk immediately, right? RIGHT? Trump the Do-Nothing Slump.
Trump in my words: "I was afraid of the Democrats before. That's why I waited this long to declassify. And I'm not telling when I'll be declassifying because I really don't care for those who vote for me. Let them beg, but I have an election to win, and will use this juice for that alone."
Solomon in the article above: "...the FBI under Director Christopher Wray classified the document as 'secret' just a few days ago. To add injury to insult, the FBI added this hopeful note: “Declassify on 12/31/2041.” That would be 25 years after the 2016 election." Okay, but we have Trump to declassify it in a few days, right? RIGHT? Trump the Do-Nothing Slump. It's very hard for the hard-working, good Republicans to win with Trump the Louse, Trump the Fake Promise Man, always causing them frustration. President Rump talks a good game, but it's just hot gas from his arse. He never does anything. Wray is hiding the goods, and Trump won't do anything against him. Will Trump offer a tweet on how despicable Wray has just been. ZZZZ.
But wait. What about Barr? How could Wray make this issue a secret unless Barr is in favor? Or, if Barr is not in favor, shouldn't he undo what Wray just did now that Barr has heard of the issue? Is Wray in trouble? We hope so.
Bongino has this story after the 20-minute mark, where he begs Trump in justified frustration to declassify already. This is proper behavior, I applaud Dan for this, but he does quote Strzok's profanity a few too-many times in his passion:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in the 55th minute, Bongino says that Strzok married a former chief of staff for Mike Pence. Hmm.
Although you've probably heard everything that Jim Jordan says below for five minutes, this may get you happy because sheer truth is being blow-horned in front of those not wanting to hear it, those trying to get Barr arrested or impeached:
Jordan has it right, that Democrats are persecuting Barr because he's shown signs that he about to investigate. This attack has nothing to do with disdain for Trump, nor is it an attack on Trump via Barr. They are afraid of Barr, and so Trump should declassify things right in the faces of these contemptible officials, and really give them something to worry about. Make them reel. Shock them to their bones. If they want to defend the Obmamites, now is the time to watch them do it, and to laugh at the laughing-stock officials who lie with straight faces. Make them lie; declassify today. Watch them condemn themselves with lies. Watch them invent excuses for their fellow Obamaites. Watch them destroy themselves. The time is here, just as soon as Trump declassifies all that is valuable for public knowledge.
Frankly, Trump cannot be trusted. He's going to have advisors who tell him what should not be declassified. His problem is that he's chosen half his team from the Republican deep state. For months, Lindsey Graham has been like a fire when on television, looking like a champion against the deep state. But when he had Wray before his senate, there was no fire. How do we explain this? Is he just making a show of things to deceive voters? Looks like. Is this a game of giving voters high hopes only to let them down again? We'll see.
Tick-tock, it's declassification time. How long with Trump run the clock? Months ago, after promising to Nunes to declassify they key part of the FISA applications, Trump changed his mind due to pressure from Britain. What? That's right, Trump listened to people across the Atlantic, and betrayed Nunes who possesses righteous passion for passing hard judgment on criminal Obamaites. Trump the Skunk. He's not to be trusted. The same British who wanted his demise he copulates with. Where is the chastisement of Steele by the British government?
A single senator such as Lindsey Graham has little power alone to declassify, to unveil truths, but Trump has exactly that. Yet after 2.5 years, he hasn't revealed anything, not even some declassified papers. Trump does not have a team to demand papers for the express purpose of keeping the people informed. He can ask for papers from the state department, from the CIA, from any other Intelligence agency, from the DoJ, from Obama's records, from Hillary's records, from Lynch's records, but he has DONE NOTHING. Shame on this fake. It was especially telling when Sessions was refusing to inform the people. If the attorney general is in the process of unveiling, then one could argue that the president might not want to interfere, or beat him to the punch, but when Sessions refused to inform the people, Trump was duty-bound to do it for him. But he DID NOTHING when justice was knocking on his door. And, finally, when he gave in to Nunes, he betrayed him the very next day. Can you not understand that this man is a sham?
Everytime Trump is asked about Mueller, by the press, he talks about himself. Everything needs to be about him, which amounts to a personality of demons. He's boastful, full of self, and has yet to do the right thing against Democrats who act impish in demonic fashion. I'm not exaggerating; the Democrats are acting as I expect demons to act. I think you will agree unless you are one of them. These demons will not stop until they torment their adversaries, if they get the opportunities. It is imperative for the Republicans to deal with these lunatics before it's too late, and Trump is letting Republicans down month after month after month.
It is not up to Barr alone to decide when and what documents should be released. I know what he will say, if he intends to indict, that he doesn't want anything released until after his indictments and court cases have run their course. That could be many years from now, which does a grave disservice to the court of public opinion, and extends the revelation to such time when the issue has burned out. The public fire is needed in order to burn the enemy in a coast-to-coast movement of the people, not merely in a closed court room that drags on passion-less, and slower than a snail. There needs to be wide public venting and discussion on these matters; the criminals must be made to hear the sentiments of the people they abused. Court justice has always been on behalf of the people.
Therefore, whatever small advantages Barr might have by keeping all things secret from the criminals needs to be weighed with the public need to vent and score while the issue is yet contemporary and relevant. The enemy includes the media, which must be held accountable first before the people to which it reports falsely. The government is expected to make revelations in order that the public domain becomes the arena for the issues at hand, but Trump's administration has been a closed box, and the media has been a demonic instrument. How can a president allow the nation to be conducted in this way? Why does he allow Barr to decide what should be done? Who elected Barr? Get on the horn, and demand that he take media bosses to court; demand that he indict all the guilty Intelligence chiefs. If you can't even do that, you are a piece of garbage, Mr. Trump. All your boasting amounts to less than zero, for a man who boasts when he's this useless is despicable.
The economy is NOT roaring. Just because three percent of the people are now working who were not working is not the definition of turning the world upside down. There is more to life than three percent of the people getting jobs. This is not the end-all, as if Mr. Trump has arrived. The country has not changed much at all. The human plague that the Democrats have been is by far the most-important issue to deal with, and here when this president has the golden opportunity to expose the Democrats, he's a do-nothing piece of junk sitting in the oval office, boasting at every opportunity in which cameras come his way, and then boasting some more, concerned only for his re-election. It's SICKENING.
Does he not understand the gravity of a situation when media and Democrats lie profusely daily, who successfully teach one half the nation that black is truth one day, and white the next day? The Democrats have long been conditioning roughly half the nation to lie unabashed, and teaching them how to do their own part in fomenting their dirty tricks. Does the president not understand that the Democrat machine needs to be tackled as a first priority? Get that machine under control (punishments to liars, law-breakers), and the border fight will cave on its part.
Things cannot be left to Barr alone. Get the voters involved, the other half of the nation who would fight for truth, for a healthy society, those who value fairness and playing by the rules. Give the voters the feed and fuel they need to burn those demonic Democrats to shreds. Let the people handle this, because the violations from the Democrats have been against them. This is not only about Mueller versus Trump; it's about destroying the Democrat machine that plays like the mob, seeking to control and exploit all the people while pretending to care for them. It doesn't even care for its own voters, believe it. It must be stamped out, but Barr alone cannot do it. He needs the backing of half the nation, whistle-blowers and tattlers of all kinds in every occupational field and government institution. It needs to be a concerted effort. Therefore, declassify in order to give feed and fuel to the warriors, to make the enemy ashamed and therefore weaker in its ability to fight.
When the people still feel passionate about punishing the Obamaites, then Barr can be moved to conducting the processes that dish out the appropriate punishments. But if too much time transpires, the people will cease to cry out. Trump has been exactly the enemy of the Republican voters, the best do-nothing the Democrats could have wished for. This is where the nation stands today, at what Trump is portraying as a crossroads, where he says he will act differently than he did in the first half of his presidency. If Barr starts the indictments, it's no credit to Trump, but he will take the credit, no doubt about it.
See the 10-minute mark of Thursday-night Hannity for John Solomon's super knock-out punch to James Comey:
It means that Barr has no choice but to indict the FBI for mishandling the FISA court, and for abusing Trump, and for withholding this information from the public, and, of less importance, from congress. Yes, the people are more important than congress. That's right.
I and everyone else with a brain couldn't figure out how Nadler could be so daft as to invite Mueller to his committee for questioning, which opened the door for Republicans to reveal further Mueller's hapless, powerless state. As it turns out, Mueller is now refusing to appear, or, possibly, he was asked not to show.
In the meantime, Jim Baker made news this week by portraying the infamous footnote in the FISA application as a flashing red light for the FISA judge to see. From this exaggeration, it seems that Baker thinks he might be in trouble with Barr, and is manufacturing his line of defence. It appears that he had a part in that cheap footnote.
When watching Bill Barr at Rosenstein's get-lost celebration this week, I became less sure that he's going to indict anyone in the higher levels. From Barr's jolly attitude, it's impossible to see that he asked Rosenstein to step down. But one thing seems certain, he didn't beg him to stay on. Let's hope that Barr is guilty only of the sin of playing nice guy to Rosenstein, but that, in reality, he wants to, and will, send him to jail. Fat chance, right? Rosenstein sought to get away with a treasonous crime. Rosenstein is a snake, this is not a cheap insult, but a descriptive statement. It seems too incredible that he would be a mole for Trump in the Mueller probe when he himself chose the Mueller probe, and allowed it to continue for so long. It smacks more as though Rosenstein was a partner with plots against Trump.
Science Has It Wrong
In the 3rd update of last month, I showed why I know more about the true nature of the atom that ALL of the kinetic-minded physicists. It sounds like a wild boast, but in fact there's nothing to boast about. The modern physicist is no dummy, but he is a fool, and that's the only reason that I'm way ahead of them. You don't need to be a genius to out-play the evolutionist fool, and that's what modern physicists are, not by accident, but because you cannot get far in the field of physics unless you learn and go by their erroneous science, all of which plays to evolutionary science. The two sciences are married along with their third spouse, chemistry. It's that simple, but I, a rebel to their folly, have figured out the correct view of the atom, it's so easy, it really is.
Atoms cannot be in constant motion, as the kineticist teaches. He's a dope when he allows atoms to break the laws of physics. Any objects which collide lose energy because they transfer energy into one another, cancelling some of one another's energy with each contact. Therefore, atoms cannot be in constant collision. It's just so simple. Is there an alternative? Of course there is: atoms tends toward stationary. Wow, I'm a genius. No, I'm just normal, and I don't express the atom as my evolution theory requires.
The science video below, featuring happy-cheeks, is not a bad one at all. They tackle the mystery of why drops of water can sit and skate on a water surface. They come up with a theory, probably wrong, that they are able to skate on water due to a small air gap between the water surface and the drop. As proof, they lower the air pressure, and note that the skating happens over less time before the drop falls into the water body. But guess what? They don't even mention the greater mystery, how the droplet forms in the first place. They don't mention this because it is impossible for a water droplet to form under their theory in which all water molecules are vibrating against one another at hundreds of miles per hour. Really, don't you need to be a complete dope to think that something so delicate as a water droplet has molecules jiggling at HUNDREDS of mph?
Air atoms press in all around the drop and help to keep it a drop in the same way as water pressure keeps a bubble in existence. But air pressure alone cannot cause the existence of a water drop in air; there needs to be some other factor at play because a water drop survives in air when it's placed on one type of material, but does not remain when placed on another type of material. It seems that the explanation is the electrical factor: negative and positive. When one type of material attracts water molecules, the drop is ruined, but when another type of material is either too weak in attraction to ruin the drop, or is repulsive toward water molecules, the drop survives. When it's ruined, the drop spreads out over the material in a thin layer.
Clearly, as a drop can survive at all, water molecules are attracting one another. If the molecules were to be set free into the air due to evaporation, they would repel one another, for all atoms repel one another when in gas form, a thing that the dopes have yet to admit. It's not that they are too dumb to realize or understand inter-repelling gas atoms, but that they are foolish enough to believe in the kinetic theory of atoms. In their theory, all gas atoms have built-in attraction for one another at a distance, i.e. before coming into contact. Bonk, wrong. And the reason they created their kinetic theory of atoms is to explain gas pressure with inter-attracting gas atoms. Air atoms in mutual attraction couldn't inflate the tires of your car, they claim, unless they are all racing around at hundreds of miles per hour. Therefore, the delicate droplet of water reportedly has air atoms bombarding it from every side at HUNDREDS of mph. DOPES! Try blowing a wind of air at that speed for just one second, and see what happens to the drop.
Clearly, as a drop can survive, it means that the inter-attraction of its water molecules is stronger toward one another than the pull of gravity upon each one. When a drop sits on water, gravity can't force the molecules into the liquid because molecules are attracting one another too strongly. All liquid atoms attract one another in spite of all gas atoms repelling one another, because liquid molecules are bonded: defined as the protonic cores of one molecule attracting the captured electrons of another. Once atoms merge, attraction sets in that is always stronger than the inter-repulsion of atoms (unless the liquid is above so-called "critical temperature," when the inter-repulsion of atoms is always greater than inter-attraction, causing instant disintegration of the liquid).
Gravity has power over a single water molecule, to bring it downward toward the top of a leaf, or to a blade of grass. But gravity does not have enough power to pull water molecules when they are bonded to one another in a drop. It can pull the entire drop downward, but it cannot pull individual molecules downward when they constitute a drop sitting on a surface.
Gravity can force inter-repelling water-vapor molecules together on a leaf so that they form visible drops eventually. Give God the praise he deserves for making things exactly like so, perfect for life. The dopes will die dopes, for God cannot be mocked. God gave them demons by which to be deceived, because they rebelled against God in the first place with their big bang. Woe to this rebellion; lying demons now, and eternal punishment later.
Go ahead and try to imagine water molecules in a drop all jigging randomly at hundreds of miles per hour. How possibly could the drop survive? The water molecules would dash out because the incoming air atoms, even if we imagine them coming in at hundreds of miles per hour, are far fewer in number. Therefore, the way kineticists explain the evaporation of water is to say that only a few of the molecules have sufficient speed to break from the water body. Otherwise, if all were fast enough, the water would disintegrate rather than evaporate slowly away. So, they invented a theory rather than to accept the truth of stationary atoms.
In the atomic world, one mile per hour (about 1.5 feet per second) is a gigantic speed. At that speed, an atom will travel an atomic diameter in such short time that the number will be a huge fraction of a second. To claim that an atom could not break the attraction force of another atom at 1.5 feet per second is to assign the atom a fantastic attraction force. In other words, atoms are not racing at an average of hundreds of miles per hour, or liquid formation would be impossible.
If atoms are stationary when attracting one another into liquid form, then the only explanation for their gas state is that the atoms inter-repel once they have been forced apart from the liquid state. Yikes, the evolutionist can't have that, or galaxies could not have come together at the big bang. Yikes, the fool needs a way to explain how exploded material, moving ever further apart in an expanding universe, could come together to form stars. Yikes, the fool needed and invented atoms that inherently attract one another, and even though every atom would have been very distant from its neighbor after a mere million years, yet he imagines that they somehow attracted one another into globs and later stars. UTTER FOOL! The very beginnings of his big-bang theory betrays him, and so should you.
And, he claims, the big bang made every proton exactly alike, and every electron alike, just as though the big bang had a brain. The big bang even knew enough to make protons attract electrons, otherwise there would be no materials. In just the way that Democrats will never compliment a Republican president, neither will evolutionists admit to you the fatal weaknesses of their claims. Evolutionism has been a massive conspiracy to deceive. It could not succeed if it did not rein in physics and chemistry. It had to control the sciences. This has been the work of the devil.
Look at how many materials can be formed with just protons and electrons. Give glory to God. How dare you pretend that He doesn't exist. How dare you rebel with finality? How dare you pretend that you're ignorant of His existence? How stupid can you be that you latch on to evolution as your excuse to live apart from what concerns Him? How dare you think that you can order the world better than Him. Are you mad? Who but God can serve mankind? Every man goes after his own gain. Every woman is useless to steer him right. God alone desires to serve us, to be our benefits, yet the fool has put Him off wanting to go it alone, without Him. Life is more than what surrounds us in the material world. Life is about forming a family with the One who always was.
If we cannot conceive of the creation of material from nothing, and if we cannot conceive of the creation of God from something, then God has always been. Although we cannot grasp how God could Just Be, that has got to be the truth. He Just Is. How lucky for us that He Is. Think of it. How lucky we are that He wants peace and love with us rather than to play with us, deceive us repeatedly, knock us down repeatedly for His own pleasure to torment us. How great is this Creation that God should want us so unworthy? He will make a way in the midst of our rebellion, and it will be glorious for those who manage to be there.
Follow the clues. Atoms are amazing. Gases to liquids to solids are amazing. Follow the clues to there-is-a-Designer. Now go after Him, until you find Him. There is no other book in all the world that addresses this Creator like that of the Jewish prophets (not at all meaning that Jews are the most holy), and finally the letters and books on the coming of Jesus. That's the way to manage this right, by learning from Jesus. It will put distance to your demons, and give you a new view of the universe, with a great Light at the end of the tunnel. There is everlasting life after all, and it is glorious, unlike the hopelessness of evolution. If this world has disappointed, that's the fruit of atheism, the fruit of the evolutionist goons, the liars, the pretenders, the conspirators against the one and only God. Trump who? He matters nothing in this picture. His desire in life has been for sluts. He can't even change the color of his hair. He can't even bring himself to confess that he sins. What do you ordinarily call a man like that?
Can't I be nicer to the evolutionists? What, in a war they started to the death of Christ if possible? You be nice, if you think being nice is more important than Jesus, but for me, I'll tell it like it is. They are wicked fools who will be killed, forever, there's no nicety in that. And they want to kill your soul forever, such wicked slimes, they will be crushed mercilessly. They not only ruin life on the planet, but they blame society's divisions on Christians, because we don't go with the flow, THEIR flow of course.
They first of all slander our God and our Brother, and when we speak out in opposition, we are the cause for division; we are worthy of persecution. They provoke us to make us fight back, and when we fight back, they wish to harm us. That's where they are going with the present world, for the world we live in is indeed their world, the world they have made over decades of painstaking efforts, a Godless world, which God has permitted in order to amass the evidence against them that they deserve cruel death. Selah. They pretend that they are progressing to better things while we Christians are stuck in the mud progressing nowhere, to be despised for opposing their progress. That's where we are. Play it cool, do them no harm; but show them that we are bigger than they, letting good defeat evil.
Here's the kinetic theory of atoms 101:
As you can see, temperature is defined as faster atoms, not as a material in itself. Therefore, as atoms cannot be colliding constantly, neither do the goons have the correct definition of heat. There is only one other alternative: heat is a material all its own. And, to what should be no surprise amongst seasoned physicists, heat is made of free electrons, electrons freed from atoms. It doesn't surprise him because he knows there are more electrons wherever there is more heat, yet he has sold his soul to kineticism, otherwise he's going nowhere in science, because the goons are harsh, intolerable dictators there.
The following video is a 5-minute waste of your time (you don't need to watch that long), but I'm offering it to give you an example of how science is wasting brains all over the world. Just look at all that math revealing the inner workings of what is, in fact, a fantasy:
Can you imagine how much money and brain power has been wasted in science seeking to understand the workings of atoms from many incorrect theories? It's obscene. This world has become a sinful wasteland, the United States especially. You can no longer be a Christian and a loyal American, for America has become an anti-Christian entity. You must not kid yourself that America is a Christian nation, or that it once was. But you can get behind Jesus to tell America, or any other wayward nation, how a society should be ordered. Christian values are easy to understand. No hard math needed. Live not only for yourself, but for the community, and stay clean from devil's work and practices. Let the concerns of others matter to you, unless those concerns are of the devil. Think on Jesus regularly because you honor Him, and love Him. Recognize and celebrate his greatness, for you will share in it.
The fool in the video above knows that a vacuum does not drop down to absolute-zero temperature. He therefore knowingly deceives you when he says that temperature is a measure of atomic kinetic energy. For even when there is near-zero energy in a container (due to a vacuum), the temperature is not nearly absolute zero. In fact, the temperature of a vacuum will become the temperature on the outside the vacuum, just as though heat is penetrating the walls of the container, both inward and outward. You see, they have knowingly lied to us all. There will be a price to pay for this conspiracy.
If temperature were proportional with atomic kinetic energy, the temperature of a contained gas would drop to half when merely half the gas is released, because the release of half the gas amounts to half the total kinetic energy in the container. Therefore, the theory is not only bogus, but part of a conspiracy to deceive. They know it, yet they still force the teaching of this theory under the authority of their dictatorship over science. It is a real dictatorship.
Put it this way, that if the measuring stuff in a thermometer expands when more atoms strike it, it should shrink plenty when half the atoms strike it. But that is not the case when a thermometer is placed in the container while half the gas is released. Instead of abandoning their theory when it fails so critically, they maintain it because the alternative, inter-repelling atoms, is death to cosmic evolution.
Yes, a gas is filled with inter-repelling atoms. When half the gas is released, its atoms become more distant, reducing their inter-repulsion forces, which defines the gas pressure against the container walls. Yes, as with magnets further apart, so atoms further apart affect one another with less force magnetically.
When atoms in a gas are forced into half the space, the atoms are not yet twice as close to one another. In order to bring them twice as close, they need to be brought twice as close; 1) in the up-down direction; 2) in the east-west direction; 3) in the north-south direction. In other words, when we cut the space in half in all three directions of 3-D space, the atoms will be twice as close in all directions. A space cut in half three times is 1/8 the original space. It's known that such compression will increase the gas pressure by eight times. Therefore, when a gas is made eight times less roomy, the atoms twice as close inter-repel with eight times the force as before compression. Is this the prediction? Yes.
We are told that a magnet will act on a piece of steel with four times the force when brought twice as close to it (it's called the "inverse square law"). Although I have no experimentation to prove it, it stands to reason that the magnetic effect will be 4 x 2 = 8 times greater if two magnets are brought twice as close. For, in the first case, the piece of steel is not itself a magnet, but if it's substituted with a magnet, then there are two entities that increase the magnetic force by four times. It seems to me that this is the explanation for eight times the force when atoms are twice as close, for ALL atoms are "magnets." To put this another way; if atoms only repel others but do not get repelled back by others, the force between them would be quadrupled when brought twice as close, but if the others repel back, the quadrupling is doubled. That's why compressing a gas to the point of cutting atomic distances in half results in eight times the pressure. It works.
In the video below, if you can't spot within the first two minutes as to why the pioneers of the evolutionist's atom were pushing a hoax, there is no hope for you to be a good physicist:
Electrons cannot orbit, morons. But the only "important" scientists were all trying to figure out how the electron orbited, as though there was a conspiracy to push that view, and only that view. It persists to this day. Is nobody is allowed to ask why the orbiting electrons of one water molecule don't crash into the orbiting electrons of neighboring molecules, since the molecules are fitted tightly together in a bond? How does the universe stick together with all of these crashing electrons? When water flows, yikes, its molecules start spinning while roving about on one another so that orbiting electrons should tend to crash into the randomly-changing positions of the huge protons. Flowing water is chaos on the atomic level, and fatal chaos if electrons orbit. How will the electrons get instantly back into orbits after they crash? Impossible. You need to be a complete non-thinker to accept orbiting electrons. How easy do you think an orbit is to establish? Imagine all of those electrons bouncing around inside the water as they crash into things. Chaos. Atoms could no longer retain their bonds without normal electrons.
Plus, the morons have the electron orbiting zillions of times per second, and you who believe this as possible are their very-big dope. Why do you let him get away with it? Is he your god? Can't you see he's lying to you and to your children? There can be no such thing as an orbit at the number of electron orbits they claim per unit time. The orbiting electron rates as one of the most-lunatic theories ever to make the textbooks.
They have got their fantasy rigged where one proton attracts one electron. Why can't a proton capture hundreds or thousands of electrons, as is fully expected since the proton is much larger than the electron? What law forbids a proton from capturing many electrons in non-orbits? There is no such law, but they will think of something, if people dare ask the right questions who won't go away. Where are normal people who will stand up and fight against these lunatics?
The faster the claim for the orbit of the electron, the vastly more remote the proton can capture it in orbit in the first place. Even if the electron is moving at 1/1,000,000th the speed of light, it's laughably too fast for an itty-bitty proton to attract it as it flies by. But one figure given online is that the electron orbits 137th the speed of light. You have got to be a monstrous fraud to push such a theory. The videos online showing orbiting electrons have them going very slow, otherwise you would be tipped off to the fraud.
Since they think they know the relative size of an electron as compared to a proton, and as they think they know the distance between the orbiting electron to the proton, one can form a to-scale picture of this. Once that's done, one needs only to envision an electron whizzing zillions of times per second round that proton to realize, this is nuts, the electron's going to fly out of orbit on the very first circle. It's just too fast, man, the physicist has lost his marbles.
Here's some dope whose asked the question: Do electrons ever "fall" into the nucleus of an atom? He seems too stupid to realize that crashings of orbiting electrons into protons would be the norm. Here's the dope's answer:
If one takes a positive nucleus and a stationary negative electron, everybody knows that the nucleus will attract the electron, electron will start moving towards the nucleus until the electron falls to the nucleus. According to [the classical Bohr atom], this cannot be a model for an atom. So the electrons cannot just be hanging above the nucleus. They must be moving.
What? The electrons cannot be stationary on a proton just because Bohr says that electrons are orbiting? What kind of scientific thinking is that? The question is whether Bohr was correct in his thinking, wherefore we can't use his view as an argument against the alternative view. In short, the dope did not answer the question, but opened the door to another one: why should electrons be always in motion, and why can't they be slowed to a crawl even if they did have high velocities at some points?
Isn't it true that particles in collision slow down? Yes, it is, and that's why the inventors of the orbiting electron were nuts. Nothing in the atom can be traveling fast due to the expected, never-ceasing collisions. In your atomic model, go with motionless electrons unless something sets them into motion. Two things that set them into motion are light waves and the swing of a hammer to the head of a nail. Otherwise, electrons tend toward motionlessness. The problem of the goons is, they want the big bang's energy alive in all electrons to this day. Morons! In their scheme, the energy of the big bang survives to this day in spite of never-ceasing atomic collisions and constant atomic attraction forces. You know that a magnet can slow and stop a rolling ball bearing. Ditto for atoms: when they are in electrical bondage to one another in a liquid or solid, atomic motions are ceased.
The electron doesn't have eyes or a radar system. The proton doesn't have a remote-control unit for adjusting the curve and the speed of the in-coming electron. How will that zipping thing ever end up in a perfect orbit? MORONS! Rutherford the moron. Bohr the moron.
Surely, people today can come up with a better atomic model. Motionless electrons. They were captured at the Creation by protons, when God created over 100 different kinds of protons. There is no such thing as multiple protons at one atomic core. Only a law breaker would make that claim, and you can expect a sinister motive because the alternative, one proton per atom, is the easy expectation that they did not want. They won't even mention the idea lest we get the idea to dump their atomic model for the better one. When the proton attracts electrons, that's what makes them tend to motionless. Is this too hard to grasp for the goons? No, but they rejected it because they wanted speed from the big bang, and speed for their kinetic theory of atoms. Microcosm Speed is their god. Motionless electrons are profane in their eyes.
How many electrons will a proton capture? It will continue to capture until the outgoing repulsion force in any direction is equal to the outgoing protonic force in the same direction. At that point, any free electron in the neighborhood will be both attracted and repelled with the same force, and therefore act roughly as though there were no force at all upon it. The outgoing repulsion comes from the captured electrons, of course.
When the proton can no longer capture additional electrons because the number of captured electrons sends out a negative charge equal to the outgoing positive charge, the atom is fully loaded. If nothing touches it, and no light radiates toward it, the atom will be at complete rest. Sweet motionless. Peace. But the moron wants to rock the boat in warfare against the Creator, and for this he has chosen the big bang as father, speed as the unholy spirit, and deception in school textbooks as the daily bread.
Einstein's Photon Versus My Longitudinal Wave: I Win
The evolutionists chose the speedy photon as their light particle, but to explain the double-slit experiment that proved light to be a wave, they retained the photon even though it can never be a wave, and they invented a wave-particle equally as nutty as the orbiting electron. They fool young people especially, which can explain why most videos on these topics feature young people. In the video below, we find that not only a beam from light, but a beam of light from an emitted electron, causes the proof of waves through a slit, which should tip the goons off that light waves are caused by electrons. Hello? When this young guy gets to "quantum", he's referring to an impossibility where the photon is also a wave. The young man merely repeats what the leading, respected fools assure him as the truth; he's pushing their wares rather than thinking for himself:
What this young guy is showing people is that the photon (doesn't exist) and the electron can cause waves as they are emitted. And he pretends that the emitted particles move all the way from one side of the slits to the wall on which the light shines. To give an inkling of what he's perceiving or inventing, he has the waves being formed while the particle moves along, but this is unnecessary for light-wave formation. Once the emitted light particle contacts the light medium (what's that?), the wave is formed and moves along without the emitted particle (always an electron, never a photon). It's exactly like a rock thrown into water where the wave happens and moves along without the rock following it. But the video above is intent on showing waves only as the rock moves along. Why?
What does he suppose is the light medium through which waves move? Hello? He doesn't say. He ignores the light-wave medium because he wants you to believe that the particle is the wave. Is there any brains up there in that-thar skull of his? How possibly could the stupids of evolutionary science retain the photon when what they should have done was to claim the existence of a light-wave medium? It's so simple, and that claim was made, but the evolutionists rejected it. Why why why?
All they had to do to discover what this medium consisted of was to ask what sort of material particle comes forth from stars? Wow, this is so easy, yet, a hundred years after Einstein, the stupids refuse to tell the truth even though they know it: electrons are emitted from the sun, stream forth from it, and this creates the light-wave medium. Wow, it's so easy, so logical, yet the deceivers do not want this as part of science. Why why why? What you can learn from the video above is that electrons emitted into the sea-of-electron ether produce waves in the ether. But you can also learn that the young man is a deceiver who won't let you in on that fact. He's bent on the "particle-wave duality."
It's not that I'm brilliant; it's that their monopoly on science won't allow this normal view of light to prosper, or it would have been the norm today. This amounts to a conspiratorial dictatorship that needs to be quashed. The guy in the video above wants to marry the wave to the particle because he's a fellow goon. He's joined the goons in the conspiracy. Instead of calling them out for their impossibility, and their rebellion against all that is logical, he's trying to explain their impossibility with computer animations, cartoons.
In the third minute, you find this guy telling that the wave-particle theory was viewed originally as a particle oscillating, and thus creating a wave as it went, but without a wave medium. IDIOT. It is inconceivable to form a wave without a medium. If anything is emitting from the oscillating particle, it can't be a wave without a wave medium. Forget the oscillating particle; it was invented solely to form a cartoon wave that does not truly exist.
Photons were in reality the electrons of the solar wind, yet they refused to give up the photon when solar-wind electrons were discovered. The solar-wind electron is not the photon as they envisioned it, but fairly close to it. The solar-wind electron does emit from the sun, and does reach the earth, but does not travel at the speed of light; only the light wave "travels" (acts) that fast, and this wave always "moves" (acts) straight forward through the electrons situated between the sun and our eyes.
The light wave is not shaped round like the computer animation he offers; the light wave always moves forward and only forward, in the direction of electrons emitted from the sun, or from the filament of a light bulb, or from an electron-emission tool. Light waves striking atoms are flung out in all direction when the wave caused the captured electrons of atoms to oscillate. The captured electrons are asleep in motionlessness, until the light wave wake them up in "excitement." As the electrons jiggle around in all directions randomly, they send out STRAIGHT light waves randomly in all directions through the light-wave electrons everywhere in the room. The free electrons in the room are the "water" through which light waves travel. Is this too easy to grasp, too boring for the goons?
No orbiting electrons needed to send out light, just jiggling captured electrons jiggling and therefore jolting into the sea of electrons. This sea wraps itself around every material thing. It encroaches upon all captured electrons; the two are connected. Jiggle an electron captured in an atom, and a wave through the sea forms. It's so easy, so logical, yet after more than 50 years after the discovery of solar-wind electrons, we hear not a peep from these animals who would rather lie to the human race with fantasies they cannot explain. The best they do is show cartoons and drawings of waves as wiggly lines, hoping that we will fall for their duality.
There are two things taking place as the sun shines on your shirt: 1) the solar-wind electrons are being shot into your shirt to create what you feel as heat; 2) the wave through the sea of solar-wind electrons are creating light bouncing in all directions off the shirt's atoms. No matter where a second person is standing, the light from your shirt enters their eyes. Every atom struck by light is sending light out in all directions, not because electrons are knocking in-coming photons out in all directions with their tennis rackets, thou ninny, but because electrons in the atoms are jiggling chaotically, striking outward against the wave medium.
Electrons repel electrons, and this is what causes the wave, give glory to God. When an electron strikes outward from an atom, is pushes an electron in its path by their mutual inter-repulsion. No physical contact between electrons is necessary in the wave. Although electrons in the sea don't physically touch one another, they do "touch" via their inter-repulsion. This is not hard to understand: push one magnet toward another magnet, and the second one can be repelled away. The goons know that this is true of electrons, so what is their problem? Fire one electron into a batch of stationary electrons, and the stationary ones are moved even if not one electron contacts another. This movement is the wave.
If there is a row of 1000 magnets, and if there was no such thing as friction, you could push the entire row of 1000 magnets forward by pushing one magnet against the first one in the row, That's how a light wave works, obviously. There is no other alternative explanation. Electrons are under no friction for two reasons, one being that they are not attracted by gravity. Gravity repels them (don't give up on me here), and electrons therefore have no weight. Without weight, they produce no friction, as does every atom. Gravity causes friction. Sliding a magnet along ice causes friction as gravity pulls the magnet against the ice. But electrons in the sea are not sliding against anything, and this is the second reason that ordinary friction is not applicable to them: they do not contact one another.
There is a small bit of resistance to the light wave as it starts from the sun and reaches the earth. The crashing of solar-wind electrons into the earth is expected to do something to all electrons between the two bodies. There is a slow-down in the incoming electrons. In any row of solar-wind electrons that passes the earth into open space, the light wave does not become slowed from hitting a 'wall."
Part of the proof that gravity repels electrons is in the solar wind itself, for if electrons were attracted to gravity, they would fall back into the sun. We might get the distinct impression that the gravity source is nothing but the free electrons at the sun, wow, this is so easy to grasp, electrons repelling electrons, explaining why gravity repels electrons. How did the quantum lunatics fail to see it? They didn't fail to see it, but they covered it over with their conspiratorial dictatorship.
Think of how blockheaded they would now appear if, after over a century since murdering the light-wave medium, they were to confess that it does exist as the solar wind. Look at how slow these liars are to correct their own mistakes, for they need your respect in order to form their dictatorship in educational channels. Once the people start to realize that they have been dopes duping us, out the window goes their monopoly on scientific thinking and teaching.
They invent all that they need. To explain why solar-wind electrons do not fall back to the sun, they talk about a break-away point in speed. They argue that the electrons are moving too fast for gravity to bring them back down. Yet solar flares on the sun are explosions sending matter outward a lot faster than the solar-wind electrons, yet all the materials in solar flares comes back down to the sun. Bonk, problem.
They are called flares because they have light, yet when these flares fall back to the sun, they can appear black in spots because the electrons emitting from (and jiggling upon) the atoms of the falling material are not striking out toward earth as speedily as the speed of material falling to the sun, in which case no light wave can be formed toward earth. Yes, although a train moves forward 60 miles per hour into the wind, it ceases to move into the wind if someone starts to move the train track at 70 miles per hour in the opposite direction. With the train no longer going into the wind, no forward wave can be formed. It's just so easy to understand, yet the dopes who dupe us tell us that sunspots are black due to being "cold." Ahahah. They are nothing but toilet paper, use once but flush down the toilet to where they belong.
Wikipedia: "A solar flare is a sudden flash of increased brightness on the Sun, usually observed near its surface and in close proximity to a sunspot group." What goes up in a flash goes back down in black.
Now witness (from the same article) how the dictators are relentlessly at war with the electrons of the solar wind, hiding them from us as much as possible, "If the [flare's] ejection is in the direction of the Earth, particles [why not electrons?] associated with this disturbance can penetrate into the upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) and cause bright auroras, and may even disrupt long range radio communication. It usually takes days for the solar plasma [why not call them electrons?] ejecta to reach Earth...The plasma medium is heated to tens of millions of kelvins, while electrons, protons, and heavier ions are accelerated to near the speed of light." There you go; they distinguish between plasma and electrons. The writer does not give credit to the electrons when special effects occur on earth a few days after flares, and these people are absolutely nuts to suggest that electrons can move at nearly the speed of light.
It seems insane to claim that plasma material from the sun reaches the earth. Nor do I believe for a second that protons are a part of the solar wind. These protons are needed in their picture to cover for their abuse upon us, for if they admitted that electrons are the only constituent of the solar wind, we might get the idea that electrons are repelled by gravity. But if they include protons in with the solar wind, you can be deceived into believing that solar particles achieve break-free-from-gravity speeds.
The only protons that can be in the solar wind are destroyed protons, or pieces of protons, having lost their captured electrons. This is needed to form the solar wind in the first place. That is, there must be something happening in the sun that causes a release of the solar-wind electrons from atoms, and the best explanation is that protons are losing their ability to hold their electrons, and therefore that protons are being partially crippled or wholly destroyed. Once that happens, protons become dust, not attracted any longer to gravity, and this stuff can be pushed along in the solar wind, yes, yet the cosmic gurus tell us that normal protons are part of the solar wind; they dare not tell us that it's pieces of dead protons because they teach that even the big bang could not destroy protons nor cut them to pieces.
Why must it be true that, if a particle can be ripped in half, it therefore requires that it itself is made of smaller particles? Why can't the smallest particle be ripped in half without being made of smaller building blocks? Chances are high that their claims of solar heat by their concept of solar fusion is a mere invention for allowing all protons to survive intact.
Ahh, if they admitted that the solar wind is nothing but free electrons, the latter thus makes for the perfect wave medium...which Einstein and others rejected because they could not find a wave medium when checking for its weight or drag (friction). Sure, they realized that the wave-medium particles could be unattracted to gravity, but they ignored that option because they wanted the photon. They wanted this badly because they rejected the wave medium hastily without proper justification. They were not acting as scientists, but as fiends inventing lies to heap upon us in the name of their up-coming, cosmic-evolutionary theories.
If there are protons in the solar wind, someone could catch them in a jar, allowing them to re-load with solar-wind electrons so as to revert them back into hydrogen atoms. Has anyone ever heard that this thing was done? There should be such hydrogen protons entering our air space if indeed they are in the solar wind. Where are they? Imagine, free hydrogen atoms coming to earth in the solar wind. Alas, they do not exist; they are a lie. Besides, if protons and electrons are flowing freely in space, why don't they join there? In their big-bang theory, they have no problem with protons joining electrons as they flow through space. But, guess what? The solar wind is not made up of hydrogen atoms. Just electrons. They lie.
Yes, if solar protons have achieved escape velocity, they should be penetrating our atmosphere along with the electrons, and crashing into planetary surfaces. Where are these protons? "The solar wind streams off of the Sun in all directions at speeds of about 400 km/s (about 1 million miles per hour)." That's 278 miles per second, meaning that it should take less than a quarter second for these protons to penetrate the 50-mile depth of the atmosphere. Where are they, hum? They exist only in the brains of anti-Christ corruption. Make no mistake about it, this conspiracy in science is anti-Christ at its big-bang core.
The stupids might try to convince us that the protons become hydrogen atoms when they enter the atmosphere, and that this keeps the atoms from reaching to the ground, for hydrogen atoms rise in air. But the stupids cannot explain why hydrogen atoms rise in air because they haven't got the correct view of how things work. They do not have a mechanism, in their kinetic theory of atoms, to explain why a few species of gas atoms rise higher and faster than others in air, or in a vacuum. Sorry, they are bankrupt on that topic, and they hide that failure from us. It should be front-page news in science journals because it wrecks the kinetic theory with a wrecking ball. Picture one hydrogen atom racing around in air. Why should it go up more than it goes down? They have no answer. They are dumb and stupid, yet they teach kineticism as a fact while ignoring the obvious reality.
That reality is that something gives lift to hydrogen, helium and carbon atoms, when they are in air. What do we suppose gives them lift? Aha, I know. The earth's gravity repels the solar electrons back into space, pushing atoms upward as they go. Yes, that's why the air on a hot day expands upward, to a higher ceiling, with less density throughout, and why the ceiling comes back down each night, and each winter. Gravity pulls the atoms down, but rising electrons give them lift, it's just so simple, yet the clowns reject a gravity source formed by electrons at the center of planetary bodies. They reject weightless particles as much as they reject a light-wave medium from those particles.
You might like to explain a higher atmospheric ceiling from the kinetic theory. You would ape them, saying that the air atoms rush around faster with increased heat, and thus they reach higher heights. But while that works in theory, it can't explain why hydrogen and helium rise in air. Therefore, since the kinetic theory of atoms fails us with hydrogen and helium, we need a better theory than kineticism that cannot be mocked.
The goons fail to admit that solar heat is in the physical solar-wind electrons. It's sheer simplicity to argue in this way, but they want the kinetic theory of heat instead, which can be jeered where heat exists in a vacuum. Bonk, wrong, kineticism cannot be true. The vacuum stares them in the face and mocks. Try something else, wicked morons. What about those solar-wind electrons? Could they explain heat? If they enter a material, could they explain the expansion of materials with increased temperatures? Why yes of course.
If we have a heat source in the air like the flame of a torch, the electrons from the flame become heavily concentrated in the air near the flame, and as the electrons inter-repel one another away from that area, they push the air atoms away too, and this causes air atoms to move further apart...which is the definition of air expansion, wow, it works, just lookie at that, another way to explain air expansion.
If we force electrons into a piece of steel with the same flame, and they all inter-repel one another while trapped inside that steel, could they expand the steel too? Awwwe, another score, we have found another way to explain expansion by heat. Correction, the goons had discovered this method decades ago, but they didn't want us to know about it.
As long ago as "caloric," before the electron was discovered, the investigators decided that heat cannot be a substance because everything heated does not increase in weight. But the electron has no weight. The electron fooled the dopes when they didn't know better, but ever since the discovery of the solar wind, the same anti-Christian dopes have had no excuse, for they could witness with their own instruments that solar gravity repels electrons all the way to the earth. Anything repelled by gravity has zero weight, how-about that, it's so simple even a 10-year old can grasp it, but not the conspiratorial dictators.
In their view: what causes heat in the earth from the sun? They confess that the solar wind has electrons, yet reject electrons as the source of solar heat even though their labs expose electrons in every single instance of a heat source. Are they really blind, or are they demonically oppressed?
Okay, we are down to two possibilities: 1) the electron is the heat particle that invades all substances, expanding them, or; 2) solar electrons crash into air atoms and speed them up, ultimately causing the atoms of substances on earth to jiggle harder, thus expanding the substances. Their problem is, they don't like to talk about electrons crashing into air atoms, because you might get the impression that orbiting electrons are crashing everywhere with atoms so as to make the entire universe susceptible to instant break-down. So, they hardly ever state that electrons crash into air atoms, but say more simply that solar energy is transferred to the earth. Yeah, but we'd like to know how you view this transfer.
If electrons are crashing into air atoms, then electrons must be passing both near and far from air atoms, and wherever there are electrons, the goons think they enter orbits as naturally as flies lick a piece of bull crap. How, then, are the air atoms on the sun side of the atmosphere any different than air atoms on the dark side? I've never read that air atoms at noon are any different than air atoms at midnight.
I've never read from anyone that air atoms at noon are crashed into continuously by incoming electrons, yet if this is their way of solar-energy transfer to earth, isn't is worthy of some extra-large emphasis? It seems the goons are hiding this electron-air collision. The goons would rather talk about the solar heat source as from the earth surface. Here's a goon whose name and work is unworthy: "Hence [after saying almost nothing], incoming solar radiation passes through the atmosphere quite freely, whereas terrestrial radiation emitted from the Earth's surface is absorbed and re-emitted in its upward passage through the atmosphere." Translation: I'm lying to you about the ease of solar energy coming into the air, and I definitely don't want to talk about solar-wind interaction with the air; I only want you to know about heat coming off the ground. Let's start with that."
Let's not let them off the hook. This guy's trying to suggest that the air gets heated after solar radiation passes the air to the ground, but he's wholly ignoring the solar-wind electrons. He's suggesting that the main source of solar heat is in the light. While it's true that light waves pump electrons into the ground, there is also the physical stream of solar-wind electrons that push them into the ground.
Now these idiots speak on the naturality of teensy-weeny photons regularly striking electrons, but they don't want to talk about the greater likelihood of electrons striking the relatively humongous air atoms. Besides, there are so many air atoms that no photon can "see" the ground from the top of the atmosphere. That is, there is no way for a photon to pierce the air without crashing into an atom in the upper atmosphere, and if they say that this is done with ease, they are clowns, not scientists. "Hence, incoming solar radiation passes through the atmosphere quite freely..." World, there is your clown.
Air atoms are only a few of their diameters apart from one another. Therefore, it doesn't take many layers of air atoms (20 or 30 should do it) before one is unable to "see" through the atomic forest, if air were not transparent to light. You can glean here that light cannot be the photon, for photons cannot penetrate protons. It's as simple as that, and the clown knows it, yet he has devised a way to convince us that photons do get through the air. He cannot argue that photons take a random zig-zag path to the ground, as they bounce off of atoms, or we would not see stars as dots (in a single spot). If the many light rays from one star all zig-zagged to earth in random paths, yikes, the stars would be unseen; no more dots.
Stars are your evidence that light passes in a straight line through air atoms. But how can this take place unless light is a wave that travels around the captured electrons of every air atom, then continues in a straight line after coming off of each atom? This is the definition of a transparent material: the light wave travels around the perimeter of the atoms, riding the outskirts of the captured electrons. Light waves always need an electron medium to pass across, and all atoms have one. Light penetrates to different depths in different materials.
Solar-wind electrons are forced to flow past atoms while colliding with them. There can be no doubt about it, solar-wind electrons invade the air, and contribute to its make-up. These electrons are not all forced to the sides of the earth, in order to be deflected past the earth on all sides. Many of them need to enter the air because they are the only viable explanation for the earth's heat. But if they did not exit into space at the same rate that they enter daily, the earth would either increase or decrease steadily in temperature. The earth has set up a naturality in which the incoming heat equals the out-going, but in order to accomplish this, it is necessary for gravity to repel the heat away. If gravity attracted electrons, heat could not escape. Give glory to God for His heat machine.
I'm not going to sacrifice my God-given mind to the concept of a photon's wave length, because it invites me to become insane. A photon has no wave length; it's insane to think it does. Physicists are insane in their knowledge. They truly are laughable. They have reinvented the frequency of a light wave; it does not mean how much time goes by between waves, but is now defined as the number of crests, per unit time, of a wave length. There is no such thing as a wave length. The latter is not the full wave in their eyes, but a small piece of a wave that exists merely as a drawing on paper from the pen of a lunatic who thinks that he has captured the shape of a light wave. Why muddy the waters with garbage? Because, pigs like to rummage through garbage, it's as simple as that. These are detestable people who have no fear of God; they lie lie lie and make it sound exciting at the same time. You are their victim, their sucker, their joy if they can mislead you far into stupidity. Demons relish playing this game. They love the challenge of seeing how far they can trick you. They live for this game, abiding in the hearts of anti-Christ evolutionists.
If you cannot grasp instantly that these goons don't know what they are talking about, there is no hope for you. If you watch their presentations, asking how possibly their light-wave scheme works, you are playing the idiot of lunatics bent on an unusual lust for the ridiculous. When you understand a wave properly, you can see right through these cards. A wave does not go up-and-down like a snake as it moves forward. You are a science idiot if you do not immediately reject a presentation that shows a wave drawn in that fashion. Across what sort of medium does this snake wind up and down? If there is no medium, how can it be called a wave? They are asking you to imagine that which cannot be true, and they may as well enjoy laughing at you because you truly are a laughable science idiot if you say that you have grasped what they are taking about.
It is sometimes better for them if they devise a system you cannot grasp, otherwise you will recognize it more easily as bogus. But if they can play over your head, you may think that they are smarter than you, and that they really do have something of the truth that you are too lowly to grasp. Their quantum-mechanics game appears to be this sort of game. They pretend to be over your head with all sorts of tricks you cannot follow, and the one who tries to follow is the biggest idiot. Once such an idiot has invested much time in trying to understand, he's bound to achieve a eureka moment where he catches a small glimpse of what they might be talking about, and this idiot then says, "by gosh, I have got it." FOOL! STAY AWAY. The historical heroes of quantum-mechanics buffs are those who brought to the science fore the most-ludicrous ideas. These men had desperate eureka moments where they thought they saw glimpses of realities, but were merely seeing mirages.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the concept of light "packets," as quantum-mechanics buffs call them. But quantum mechanics has gone way beyond this idea. For one, their packets are, if I understand this correctly, their wave lengths. Rather than being a smooth outflow, light comes in packets, they say, one after the other. I can grasp this where one light wave is a packet, followed by another light wave, this is logical, what's the problem? But the lunatics who wanted the bizarre, who insisted on violating the normal, decided that a single wave came in packets. Suddenly, we've entered the Twilight Zone. How can a single wave have packets? What's wrong with one wave = one packet? Is that too simple, too boring?
Goons tell us that the wave length of a photon changes when it strikes an electron. They have built a systematic jungle of garbage. There can be no such thing as a wave length to a single particle, let alone a change in wave length due to a collision. Who can understand this garbage? Only one who has entered the lunatic zone. Planck was a lunatic who had a false eureka moment(s). If you can't grasp what he grasped, it's probably because you are still sane. You have not yet stretched your mind in trying to understand the bizarre. If you try long enough, you will become a Planck.
It is wrong to claim that waves are smooth, non-quantified. Smooth is like water out of a hose; quantified is like bullets out of a machine gun. True, a single wave can be considered smooth, but a single wave is not all there is. Back-to-back waves are the norm from any light source, and thus waves come in packets. They are wrongly extrapolating the smoothness of a single wave to multiple waves to prove that light is made of bullets, but one can also say that a single bullet is smooth. It's impossible to say that a single bullet has packets, for we expect packets to be made of bullets. Each bullet is one packet, this we can understand. But neither one wave nor one bullet can have packets. Let's keep it real. A bullet has no wave length unless we are somehow talking about its effect on the air it rushes through. But effect on a medium through which their photon rifles through is not what they mean by a wave length.
The goon tries to play down the classical wave when he calls it smooth, and thus tries to prop up the Planck view of quanta / packets as a better alternative. The goons go against the classical wave, the proponents of which lived before the discovery of electrons, and even after their discovery, the electrons were not properly described, thus throwing wave proponents for a loop. They probably died not understanding the true role that electrons play in forming a light wave. In the meantime, quantum adherents played on the ignorance of the wave proponents to prop Planck up as closer to the truth, whose partners went on to invent a wave that was no longer a wave.
But, now, more than a century later, we can describe the light wave properly. One light wave is a jolt from one emitted electron, it's just so easy to grasp; your mind stays normal when grasping it. You don't suffer trauma to the brain. It doesn't take years and years of twisting your brain to get it. You can grasp right away that a light wave is an electron stone thrown into a sea of electrons. Wow, how nice to be able to grasp one of God's greatest creations.
The force of a jolt starts a wave moving through the medium. The wave is just a domino effect from one electron jolting the next one to its front, and so on in a straight train to an atom at the end of the row. Once a wave has run its course, its gone forever. Any future wave must come from another emitted electron, and every such emission has its distinct force or power. No one wave can have a frequency; that is the thinking of lunatics. The wave ends with the last electron in a row, the one that jabs into the captured electrons of an atom. The frequency of light can be defined, for example, in how many waves land upon an atom per second.
The solar wind is moving, its electrons are ever-shifting slightly, we may assume, wherefore no two waves are likely going to take the same route, through the same electrons, between the sun and earth. There is bound to be more than one row of electrons feeding one atom simultaneously (or roughly simultaneously). One can view each row (or row-wave) as a spear that plunges into an atom's captured electrons. The stronger the wave, the deeper goeth the spear into the atom, and the higher that captured electrons bounce / jiggle about.
It seems that for electrons emitted fast enough to form visible light, they push all electrons to their front so fast that electrons to their sides experience no or little effect electromagnetically (no / little repulsion force goes sideways). This is one way to explain why the domino effect of a wave does not go sideways. Generally, only the electrons to the front of the jolts get pushed along. That's because the total force of electromagnetism can be described as the level of magnetic force combined with the time that the force is applied to an item. If the force is applied for a very short time when passing an item, the total force upon it can be almost nil. My reasoning is that, if forward electron jolts cause a sideways effect in the wave medium, then light would curve around objects, to some degree, as it passes by their edges, as do sound waves.
One can also argue that, if the electrons are spread far enough apart, a forward-jolting electron in one row does not approach much nearer to an electron in an adjacent row than the distances between them prior to the jolt. This minimizes a sideways veering of the wave direction. But even if there is some sideways repulsion as a forward-going wave progresses, one can argue that electron rows to all sides of the wave serve to keep the wave trained straight ahead. Every other row should be viewed as experiencing a wave of its own. If one wave has some left-directed repulsion effect in any moment of time, another wave over to the left should have a roughly equal right-directed repulsion force to "correct" the left-directed repulsion. That's the gist: all sideways forces from one row are corrected by rows all around it, keeping the wave straight ahead.
When finally a wave reaches an object on earth, such as a mountain peak, there will no longer be rows of waves, to the shade-side of the peak, to do the correcting, to keep the waves moving straight ahead. We would expect the light waves to bend toward the shade, right? Yes, I think this is right, but the wave is moving so fast that there isn't time for repulsion effects to bend waves merely around the peak i.e. by the time the light hits the mountain side at some point below the peak. Visible effects from repulsion takes time, more than a tiny fraction of a second, and that's all the time there is from the light's passing of a peak to the striking of the land below. I can see no other factor to bend a light wave but the repulsion of the wave medium's particles.
Hey Nutso! Light Changes Speed
Einstein's "famous" equation, energy = mc2, in nonsensical. It's rubbish. Yet it's respected by the goons who propped him up, who prop him up to this day. It's a wicked conspiracy. In the equation, 'c' refers to the speed of light. Energy has nothing to do with the speed of light even when it involves light energy, though not all energy involves light. If you try to understand the equation because you have faith in it, you will become a lunatic when finally you grasp it. You'll be happily in lalaland, just as Einstein was when listening to the wrong people. Energy from light is the force from jolts times the frequency of jolts landing upon an atom. Is that too easy or too boring? The speed of light transmission through the medium plays no part in the energy level transferred to the atom.
When it comes to a car wreck, the energy transferred is the mass of a car times the velocity. So why did Einstein square the velocity of his photon? His energy equation for light should have been the mass of the photon times the speed of the photon, yet he squared the speed, which to me seems unjustified, or more like his fellow goons were seeking to wildly expand energy levels, through merely their mathematics (i.e. only on paper), for some sinister purpose only they knew about. Einstein was a partner with Planck. Need more be said? It was, and still is, a demonic conspiracy into the bizarre.
Einstein did befall the discovery that light towards the blue end of the spectrum was more powerful in knocking captured electrons off of metal than light toward the red end (these lights were initially white light but passed through blue versus red glass, which can be determined as light reflected from the pigments in the glass). It gave the impression that blue and violet light were stronger; I have no problem with this assessment, and can assume that it's correct.
It was noticed that raising the quantity of red light (through some red glass) made no difference; the threshold for releasing electrons was not overcome. In my view, increasing the quantity of light on an object is giving it more jolts per second, meaning that I ought to be defining increased quantity as increased frequency, which is the opposite of how the goons view it. They say that frequency is higher in blue light versus red light. I think that I ought to be defining blue as STRONGER than red, not more frequent. For years I've been trying to decide which positions to take, and think I am ready to take the two positions here: 1) quantity is frequency; 2) color is force.
It's tempting to think that a stronger jolt in forming a wave will result in a faster wave. But, I've read, that a water wave has the same speed whether one tosses in a small stone versus a large rock; the wave only gets larger with the rock. All "stones" in the light wave are equal in size, however. The electrons can only be faster-jolting or slower-jolting, which may not alter the speed of the wave in any way to speak of. However, the density of the wave medium DOES have the means to change the wave speed. How much? Ahh, on this one point alone, the light wave cripples the long-age / big-universe premise of evolution, doesn't it? It's not a wonder they chose the reliable, speedy photon. You can punch the daylights out of a photon, but it gets back up on its feet and continues to zip along at 186,000 mps (in a vacuum). Awe, it's just so reliable to evolutionists, exactly what they wanted.
I feel ready to claim that the specific force by which an emitted electron starts a wave is what determines that wave's color. If a 120-volt bulb receives 24 volts, it shines with a dim red/orange light, which we can determine to be weak in force. Electrons are coming off the filament more slowly, more weakly, producing weaker waves. As the voltage is increased to the bulb, the light tends to the yellow, and finally to a bright yellow or even white. Stronger waves, right? But what is a stronger wave? It's the harder jab of a spear. We can say that a stronger wave is a thicker spear at the same speed. That is, a stronger jolt spreads more energy to adjacent rows. The forward-moving wave gets fatter when stronger.
If you like, you might entertain this varying thickness as the "wave length," only rename is as the wave thickness, and don't view it as snaking up and down. Now you have got something very close to the truth, but you need another adjustment: the violet end of the spectrum gets the thicker wave thickness, but they have it with the smallest wave length. It figures that they would come out upside-down. But their butts are still within reach of your boot, if you care to do the right thing.
Until now, I've been suggesting that one electron emission causes a wave in one row, but this is for keeping the topic uncomplicated. It's the gist. But flowing energy tends to want to spread out wider, to neighboring rows. So, a single wave is expected to get thicker as it progresses, but may likely have a maximum thickness. It's a guess as to whether or not the color-visible wave is thicker than the diameter of an atom. Never mind that for this discussion.
If we shine two bulbs on the same wall, we have definitely doubled the frequency of the waves, because there are two times as many waves striking the wall per unit time. But using two bulbs is exactly the definition of doubling the light quantity, yet the goons differentiate between frequency and quantity...because they have invented a mutated form of frequency that cannot exist.
However I wish to view white light, I've got to assume that red glass has a pigment that weakens the wave force as light penetrates through. It's not necessarily true that the pigment reflects only red light, but that the reflection of the full combination of various colors ends up red to our eyes. There could be some yellow in there, as well as some deep red. The enigma is that we never see green or blue light as we turn the voltage up to a light bulb; it goes only from red to yellow to white. Yet, white light from that same bulb can be turned to green or blue when passed through green or blue glass. Where did those colors come from if all we see from the bulb is shades on the red side?
One suggestion is that there is an invisible light above white having a color our eyes know not. Then, when this unknown color passes through green glass, it is just one of the constituents of the final green light that our eye sees. So, there may be some yellow in there, and some white, and some of the invisible color that, when all combined, looks green. Or, it looks blue when passed though what we call blue glass. Perhaps the unknown color is a violet shade, just guessing.
Einstein misinterpreted the photo-electric effect so that it catered to his photon particle. But my longitudinal wave has a particle too, even more capable of emitting captured electrons from metals than the photon (said to be massless, the stupids strike out again). Incoming light can never be viewed as a single event, or a single photon. There are numerous splash-downs of incoming light waves, or those spears mentioned above. They either have the force to knock out electrons, or not. The longitudinal wave I've described acts just like the splash-down of a particle because it is in fact that. The last electron in a row, within the wave medium, is the splash-down or spear-tip particle. But it's only a small part of the wave. Einstein didn't realize, or refused to realize, that his photon was the last electron in the wave. He refused to believe in a light-wave medium. Who deceived him? Or, was he self-deceived?
If we want to redefine Einstein's photon as my end-of-the-line electron, then we cannot say that the particle is the wave, or that this particle carries a wave, or that it forms the wave, or any such ridiculous fantasy. Instead, it's the last piece of the wave. It doesn't mean that light is a flying particle, as Einstein envisioned it, for that is contradictory to a wave. But when we view light as energy training through many particles, then we have come home to normalcy, to something we can grasp. It is virtually identical, in mechanics, to a sound wave. Why would any clown wish to argue against that? Because, clowns like to entertain you with nonsense. People pay to be so entertained.
Again, you will find goons propping up the photon by belting the century-old view of the light wave as a smooth or continuous stream. That's not the true view of a light wave, and so the goons need to stop using it. The goons know full well that a sound wave has a starting particle, and an ending particle. The wave starts at one, and ends at another. Why then are they so daft as to ignore that particular view for a light wave?
I have no idea how deep light can penetrate atoms of a target material, but I think I can say that a black object is the closest thing to transparent glass amongst all the colors. Amongst opaque materials, it seems that light penetrates the deepest in a black surface. It seems that light energy gets more-deeply lost into a black surface, where the jiggling of electrons can form no outward/reflected light due to the jiggling occurring more largely in deeply-buried atoms. I'm wondering whether glass, when it's thick enough to prevent light penetration, turns black to the eye. Deep, clear water looks black, doesn't it, if we disregard the reflection of the sky off of surface waters?
Evolutionists and physicists are not all stupid, but their most-intelligent kind pass off stupid theories. How can that be? They are not all stupid, but all are fools because they latch onto fools, but do not permit Creationists to climb their ladders. The reason for their war against the light wave is obvious to me: they need the photon traveling at 186,000 mph in order to age the universe in the billions of years. This is what forces them to push stupid, ridiculous, unbelievably-impossible theories. The photon is needed to serve the purposes of pushing evolution, and this was much-more important (to them) in Einstein's time, when the theory was not yet popular, nor yet forced upon the students from the textbooks.
Moreover, I do not think they have evidence to prove that galaxies are in fact galaxies as opposed to exploded stars in our own galaxy. You can see right away that anyone so much as making this suggestion will be ridiculed and likely demoted (will never reach influential levels in the brotherhood of fools). In any case, a wave allows light to travel at other speeds rather than 186,000 mph, and there is no reason to believe that cosmologists aren't abusing triangulation just as they invent and abuse rock-dating methods in order to achieve their billions of years. They have first dibs, or the monopoly, on deciding how to interpret red and blue shifts. Go ahead and disagree publicly, but you won't get anywhere with a jackass that refuses to budge for you.
To understand how the speed of light works, let's go back to a single row of electrons through which a single wave passes. There just can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement, for a wave must have a medium of particles through which to transmit, and all scientific data tells that light waves go straight forward. Each wave is started by the ejection of one electron so that a wave seems best described as the pushing of one electron against another one to its front.
Let's assume that the electrons in our solar system are 50 electron-diameters apart (it should be a different number for other stars). Reminder: every row in the solar wind has all of its electrons flowing forward, and each row has a continual supply of new electrons from what I'll call starter electrons (the ones that emit). As the forward flow is blocked by the surface of the earth, there is a slow-down in the flow, and therefore a crunch in the entire row; all electrons are forced to come closer to one another...than the 50 diameters apart which is the case for the electrons in rows that miss all of the planets and all of the stars.
In the latter scenario, rows are free flowing into space. The electrons in any such row, because they repel one another, are traveling faster than the starter electron. The longer they exist in space, the longer they have to repel one another, and the inter-repulsion in each row will push forward / outward into space, making the electrons deeper in space move faster than the ones closer to the sun. Yes, for as the inter-repulsion is a CONSTANT force, there will be acceleration of the electrons, with the oldest, deepest-space ones accelerating faster than the newer ones. In short, the further the distance from the sun, the more distant (or more sparse) are the solar-wind electrons. We cannot therefore say that the electrons are ALL 50 diameters apart. What we can say is: whatever the distance between electrons flying past the earth, the ones between the earth and sun are crunched to closer distances. This crunching is necessary to form a light wave. I see no waves going through rows that miss all planetary bodies. Can you dig it? Most of the universe has no light waves passing through, wow.
It seems to me that no wave can form through the row if the first electron is moving as fast or faster than the starter electron. In such a case, we simply have a flow of electrons, but no wave, just as there will be no wave if you toss a rock against a body of water moving as fast or faster than the rock. The wave forms only if the rock pushes the water. The water needs to resist the entry of the rock.
Therefore, in order for a wave to form, something (atomic material) needs to be acting as a wall to slow the flow of rows. A wave's continued existence needs resistance of the forward motion of the first electron toward the second electron, etc. The starter electron must be moving faster than the first electron in the row, and faster also than all electrons in the row, or the wave will not reach the wall. In this picture, there are no light waves going out into deep space unless a row strikes another star or piece of exploded star, AND, if a row does strike a star, the crunch effect will be a lot less that the crunch effect for a row between the sun and earth...and MUCH-MUCH-MUCH LESS than the crunch effect between a light bulb and the goon's light-speed equipment/speedometer. Yup, that's right, the speed of light in his lab will be much faster than in outer space.
But wait. Am I sure I have that figured right? I'm suggesting that, the closer the electrons of the wave medium, the faster the speed of the wave? This could get tricky if all we had was our imaginations, or mental experiments, to go by, and I have in the past gotten this guess wrongly. The facts surrounding the changing speed of sound suggest that, the closer the ether electrons in the air, the faster the sound wave. You can see at the webpage below that air density has no effect on the speed of sound, while temperature increase allows the speed of sound to increase, suggesting strongly that sound waves travel through the electron ether as they go atom-to-atom. That makes sense, for there is no way to avoid the ether surrounding all atoms.
Okay, so, as temperature is, in truth, defined as the density of solar-wind electrons (the solar wind is identical to the ether), and as it's very cold in deep space, the density of the cosmic ether is far less than in a science lab. Therefore, the speed of light in outer space is predicted to be slower judging by how sound waves behave through various temperatures. The page says: "A temperature of 819.45°C will double the speed of sound to 662.6 m/s." It adds, "Since sound is transferred easily through densely packed molecules, it is faster in denser substances. Thus the speed of sound increases with the stiffness of the material."
Apparently, the more tightly packed the wave medium, the faster the wave (I am not at all convinced with the claim that light bends through glass due to a slow-down in light speed; I have my own theory on why light bends in solids). I've got to assume that the speed of light in the cosmos is very, very slow as compared to room temperature. The evolutionist could exploit this by first claiming a distance for a certain star, and then claiming that it can be much older than the minimum age arrived to by using 186,000 mps as the measuring stick. But this works only for nearby stars, and only under the condition that astronomers are not abusing (falsifying) their triangulation method of measuring star distances.
I've not known until today that the speed of sound is faster in higher temperatures. Or, if I did read of it, I forgot about it or mainly neglected it.
There is the question of whether astronomers have correctly interpreted red and blue shifts, or whether they can, as they claim, determine the distance to stars and galaxies using these red-versus-blue colors. I should probably assume that they are the same sort of dinks as the ones aging the earth's rocks, but maybe not.
Let's work with a certain galaxy pegged at 1 billion light years away. We should have had the smarts, as soon as he uttered that number, to realize that he's probably way wrong. His light year is about 6 trillion miles long, but if light travels much slower than his speed-of-light figure, then his light year becomes much shorter than 6 T, and his star at a billion light years away becomes much closer. Both the size and the age of his universe shrinks drastically because he pegs the age in reflection of the size. It's all smoke and mirrors, to be sure, because he wants an old universe to better make Creationists look wrong while allowing more time for the impossible theory of evolution to take place. He argues that time is the ticket to making the improbable possible.
He has no choice but to view the big bang as occurring from a sphere, because he imagines the material exploding in all directions. His first problem is that particles going out from a sphere become progressively more distant from one another, in the sideways direction. How possibly will those particles, miles apart eventually, attract one another to form stars?
We can apply this same principle to solar-wind electrons: the further a row of electrons flows into space, the more the electrons of the row spread out sideways to become the electrons of other rows. In short, the electrons are not only becoming more distant in the forward direction because they all inter-repel in that direction, but they are entering more space with distance from the sun, allowing them to spread sideways too. It's known that the volume of a spherical shape is eight times greater for merely every doubling of the sphere's diameter. That's a lot of extra space for the solar wind to enter and fill.
Wow, that means that there is eight times as much space at a distance of two AUs (2 x distance from sun to earth) as there is at one AU. This means that the solar wind, not long after passing mars (1.5 AUs), and long before it gets to jupiter (5.2 AUs), is eight times more roomy than when it has arrived to earth. Imagine how much less dense the electrons are already, and we're not even to Pluto yet. How slow is a light wave beyond pluto, that is the big question? And why did the anti-Christs name the planets after satanic paganism?
There is always the possibility that the 186,000 number was a falsified part of a conspiracy amongst goonish partners. That is, it's not possible to determine such a speed using human-made equipment, but that the only ones who actually conducted "successful" experiments were the partners in crime (from generation to generation) who had beforehand decided to get similar figures as a scheme to fabricate the absolute proof of their number. At the time, the distance to stars were not known by triangulation methods, and thus they would have wanted a very fast speed to give the impression that stars are very far away i.e. the universe is bigger and older than people once imagined.
Do we so easily believe that a piece of equipment could repeatedly measure so accurately a speed that travels around the earth seven times in one second? I frankly have a huge problem with that claim, and I think the evolutionists are certainly capable of using tricks in the textbooks to make their case.
I think I have explained the reason that evolutionists do not wish for there to be a wave medium, for as it gets progressively less dense with distance from the sun, they realize that the speed of light will be affected by it, and that the speed will not be constant. They therefore desired a photon that always travels at the same / constant speed, which, of course, is a ridiculous tale. If you really believe that a photon always travels at the same speed after collisions, there is no hope for you in physics. Yet it's the leaders of physics who make this claim. Are you not shocked? Do you sit idly by, even praising them, as they ruin true science?
Does the photon have a gas engine? How does it speed back up to 186,000 mps after it crashes hard into a proton? Is it on cruise control? Are you nuts? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Are you unable to say, self, shake out of it, a photon cannot be moving that fast, and especially not all the time. There is nothing that could propel a tiny particle to such a speed, and there is no way the particle could handle the force needed to propel it to such a speed without being squished to absolute destruction. Wake thyself up.
There are satanist clubs that capable of adding to their tricks generation after generation. This is how I see the workings of evolutionists, by their securing one of their own to produce fake and trick experiments to "prove" certain false things. They would want you to think that the experiments were done independent of one another. We are well familiar with the first-degree tricks of evolutionists in the game of finding missing fossil links. Why would we not expect tricks in physics intended solely to support evolution? If their science is over your head so that you cannot follow it, nor grasp it, suspect a trick. They expect you, lowly, to trust what they shape as their super-intelligence. Spit!
What a bunch of stupids in stupid clubs. Even after they found electrons in the solar wind, and even after they realized that these electrons filled our atmosphere, they continued to portray vacuums as empty space, not telling the people that vacuums are filled with electrons. Go ahead, find me one person who speaks on vacuums and marvels over those electrons within it. We are not supposed to know about those, are we? So, when the stupids tell us that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 mps, they are suggesting that this is the speed in the near-vacuum of space. But precisely due to their rejecting these electrons as the light-wave medium, they have misunderstood the speed of light. STUPIDS!!!
They are intelligent stupids. Demons are intelligent, yet stupid. They use their intelligence to be stupids. They lie and destroy, and, most of all, they hate God. Being invisible and of spirit, they can enter the bodies and minds of evolutionists without their realizing, and they can move them to feel and think in certain stupid ways just as they wish for rebellion against God.
Science can mimic the electron density of cold outer space by getting temperatures in a vacuum to nearly absolute zero. Does light go slow at that temperature? I predict yes
The speed of light is constant when it is in a vacuum. It travels an astounding 186,000 miles per second...
...Lene Hau is a world-renowned physicist at Harvard University, and she has figured out a way to stop light in its path. One of the tricks to slowing light to a halt is creating a cloud of nearly motionless atoms at near absolute zero (-460 degrees Fahrenheit). This is called a Bose-Einstein condensate.
From another article on the same experiment:
One of the most desirable features of the apparatus that the researchers built for their work is that it does not transfer heat energy from the laser light it uses to the ultracold medium on which the light shines...
The medium Dr. Hau and her colleagues used in slowing light by a factor of 20 million was a cluster of atoms called a "Bose-Einstein condensate" chilled to a temperature of only fifty-billionths of a degree above absolute zero.
This is a sham. They do NOT cool the material to anything let alone absolute zero. I don't know what they are up to, but this is a deception. Instead of cooling the material, they heat it. Then they shoot the material with lasers and claim to slow or stop the atoms, and because they wrongly define motionless atoms as absolute-zero temperature, they claim they achieved it with lasers. This is a perfect example of how a set of false beliefs can lead to false beliefs that become huge red flags with INSANITY written upon them in bold text. Here's a video on this issue:
I kid you not, that before you reach the 2-minute mark in the video above, you will see with your own eyes, or hear with your own ears, that the scientists think they have achieved near-absolute-zero just because they stopped a cluster of atoms from moving. AHAHAHAH! They showed no evidence that they stopped the atoms from moving, of course. Learn to ignore their computer animations (intended to deceive you better) like you would ignore Popeye the sailer man as a real person. Trust your intuition: you cannot bring a region to zero temperature just because you shoot laser lights at it. Keep smart, stay away from these demoniacian tools.
If you would like another laugh, watch this clown tell you how he knows what happens to particles at near zero. He's taking you for his fool. They must be up to something with this new theory. Everyone who speaks on this topic merely apes what he's heard. Someone ejects the theory from the starting gate like a race horse, and if the physics community allows the horse to run round the track, beware. If you want the truth, look for the horses forbidden to run around the track.
Never mind the Bose-Einstein sham. We can be sure that the goons tried speed-of-light experiments in a real, very-cold vacuum. What were the results? I can't find them at google. Someone at reddit asks: "...But if I were to have light shine through something that is at absolute zero would it slow down or continue on at the same speed like nothing happened?" Nobody answers the question. There are only four people responding, as of today, and the first two say that, if you stick some light through a system at absolute zero, it ceases to be at absolute zero because the light raises the energy/temperature some. Um, that's called evasion. Evading the question, smoke and mirrors.
The third person to respond asks only this question: "What about a true vacuum?" Okay, good question, which is to ask: does light change speed through a vacuum? A person answers, not by saying yes, not by saying no. Instead: "A true vacuum has no temperature. Temperature is based on the kinetic energy of particles, so without particles, there is no temperature." He's an idiot of the goons, but even the goons know that a vacuum has temperature.
So, what is our take-away from those four respondents? We learn that it's not common knowledge as to what light speed might be at absolute zero. The additional question is, why isn't it common knowledge? If people are interested in this question ever since the Bose-Einstein issue more than 20 years ago, why haven't the chief goons given them the answer to this question?
If the goons were to admit that they tried to bring a vacuum to absolute-zero temperature, they would be stabbing themselves. In their books, a vacuum is supposed to already be at absolute-zero. Therefore, they can deceive us by saying, "yes, light continues normally at absolute-zero because it travels at 186,000 mph through a vacuum." Don't be their idiot.
The goons define for their idiots that absolute zero is the ceasing of all atomic motion. The atoms cease to race around, they are all in a solid state without vibrations. The reality is, the atoms of a solid are not vibrating even at room temperature.
At physics.stackexchange.com, someone asks: "What would happen to light at absolute zero? Any change of a property? Or to say it in different words, what would happen to photons at absolute zero?" On the same day, a moderator jumps in before anyone attempts an answer, and cuts off any responses. The moderator says: "This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question." Oops, it looks like the good question was off-limits. What are thy trying to hide?
When one clicks the link where the question was supposedly answered at an earlier time, there is no such answer. It figures. I am now edging closer to believing that it's known, in the physics community, that light will not penetrate a heatless container. Where are the heroes of truth? Whistle blowers, get on your horns.
There are so many things to pick apart in modern-days cosmology and physics, one could have a lot of fun doing it, though the down-side is that these people mean war against the Creator. Surely, they laugh at you if you believe them when they say that all of matter in the universe, including the space itself, was in a tiny capsule to begin with. Surely you cannot be so stupid as to believe that. Alas, I am surrounded by stupids everywhere I go, and they want to direct (lead) the future. They want to direct the human race. I'm aghast if I think about this. Surely, God cannot cease to have this on His mind as he watches his Clock, and waits for it. Surely, we are learning a lesson in these years on how utterly ridiculous men of "intelligence" can become when they follow demonic impulses. I'm frightened now, because there is no telling what these lunatics will do to us. They have the red carpet in all the major media. Our messages are being largely suppressed.
They cheat, and this is why they will win. The hate us, and this is why we are suppressed, and why they will win. They want their world without us, and God has decided to give it to them to our dismay. They affect us whether we want them to or not, and so God will call us out of their midst. This is what I believe, that the 666 is our salvation from them. As soon as they decide to break out in all-out war with the 666, it will be their greatest achievement against us, but that number's system will be our cue to retreat from them, because we then get to win when they attack us. In the midst of their great win over us, even while they are gloating, we end up the winners. Yet I cannot find it in my heart to welcome their winning over us in order to speed up our winning over them. I do not want to see them winning and gloating over our ruin, over our severe persecution.
Back in about 2000, I thought the world's direction and the speed of things was going to a cashless society by about 2010-12. It hit a bump between 2005-10 when the people rejected skin chips for humans. We Christians were on the ball; the Internet was not yet geared to suppress us hard, and we convinced the people that the skinchip is a bad thing, a demonic thing. But they will come back to try it again. They have not ceased to bring the world to a cashless system, to one in which every transaction is recorded by corporations who undoubtedly must share that information with governments if government agents ask for it. We are much closer now to a cashless system. At my Home Depot now, the do-it-yourself check-out machines do not accept cash. That's how easy it will be to go cashless; the cashiers will simply refuse it when about-everyone has a debit card. And if anyone doesn't yet have one, they will force them to get one.
The question is, when does the cashless system become the 666 system? This is why it's important that Revelation 13 reveals the number in the skin. Surely, unless there is a number in the skin, the payment method cannot be considered forbidden by God. So, although I carry cash at all times, topping up with hundreds of dollars at a time, I do use my debit card when the cash runs too low to make a larger payment. I don't think it's forbidden. I use cash hoping that everyone else will in order to stave off the cashless society. You see, I really don't want it to arrive, yet the other side of me wants it to arrive so that we get rid of this society, and get to our winning part sooner. It's not a nice situation to be in, but at my age, I'm now wondering whether it's going to be my children, instead of me, who need to face the 666. It's a hard call because I could have 20 years left in this body, and a lot can happen in that time, judging by the wickedness we see today.
Stupidity and wickedness go together. You really need to be stupid to be wicked. I see stupidity everywhere. Stupidity is the open door to wickedness. Lack of correct understanding is a premise for further incorrect decision making. People are so stupid today they have a hatred for Christians. What for? We are called to be good people, how could anyone hate us? We take seriously the call to be helpful, friendly, safe to be with, trustworthy. But if they still hate us, then they are thinking mutatively. The anti-Christ will convince them to hate us more, and judging by what Revelation says, he will succeed. People will party the world over when God's chief representatives are murdered. Go figure.
It is far better that we go to war with the stupids than to find peace with them. Is there a middle ground? Or is that like asking God if he would like some of our luke-warm water? If we love our spiritual enemies too much, or in certain ways, might we be guilty of wanting peace with them? Or, does God want us to have peace with them? No, for if they hate us, we should not be comfortable with them. Isn't being at peace with them the same as being comfortable with them? They are not comfortable with us, and the thing they crave most is to watch our sinning, especially if they can lead us into it. That is pure demonism. I make a distinction between the lost who do not hate us, and those who do hate us. The lost are likely lost amongst those who hate us. It could be our good job to dislodge them from such goons, to expose to them the goonery of those they follow or retain as friends.
If they consider it fun to war against us without a qualm for God's displeasure or anger, are we then going to be comfortable with them? Should we rather not tell them that God hates them back?
I've Realized Their Central Hole They've Ignored
The stupids in cosmology think that empty space is a thing. They say that the big bang produced space. They don't see the big bang taking place in space, because space was not yet. Rather, space was inside the big-bang capsule. If this is your cup of tea, you should not teach physics. It's fine if you want to have fun with twisted thinking, just for fun, but you should not be a teacher, and yet there are all sorts of teachers just like this going forth as armies against stable thinking.
If I say that nothingness is empty space, that is absolutely correct, but it's not good enough for the leaders of modern science. They think they have jumped BEYOND my level to a higher one. They have escaped from my low-level thinking to something better, they think. They're nuts. It's their reward for teaching that the ordinary view of good and evil is not necessarily the right standard. And my generation introduced other standards of good and evil until being bad was more popular than being good. It wasn't an accident.
If you take away all material there is nothing left but space. There is NOTHING in the space, and therefore space is nothingness. It's just so easy, so true, but no, there's got to be more to it, says the nut-job. Bigger nut-jobs are talking multi-dimensional universes and time travel as though they were truly possible. Help, I live in a globalist danger zone. It's not safe to go out. On the other hand, I find myself relishing their punishment, which is partly their going nuts. I'm siding with God in His delight over their going nuts as their reward for rejecting Truth. Is that allowed? I'll try not to get too carried away, but, yes, this is a fact: they are going to go crazy as their reward, and this will be for our glory who remain latched to Truth. It's the same as saying, "Woe to those who laugh now."
Let's go back to the big bang, just for fun, and why not laugh at the clowns who pack the stuff of a zillion stars into a tiny capsule. After this stuff exploded, it flew off in all directions. It's very important to ask how long the explosion took. Can we imagine an explosion taking even 100 years? It seems too bizarre that material should continually come out of nowhere for as long as 100 years, but even that span is only a blip as compared to 15 billion years. What do you think the shape of the universe should look like if the explosion lasted 100 years, but spread out for 15 billion? Go ahead, draw your picture in your head.
There is going to be an empty, black sphere of space in the middle of it all. It should be pretty gigantic by now. The exploded, stellar-rife material must by now be, by comparison to the black sphere's diameter, very thin, and very far from the center spot. The stellar-rife portion of this universe should look like the thin crust on a ping-pong ball, only with a ball much larger i.e. with a very large central space of nothingness. But I've never seen the universe drawn in that way. They must not want to talk about this big, central nothingness that their own theory predicts and requires. And I instantly know why they don't want to talk about it: they can't see it in the stars. I've never heard astronomers tell that they have seen a big, empty hole in the center of the universe. They will undoubtedly say that the hole is too far for their telescopes to see.
If we can't see the hole, then neither can we see galaxies, on the opposite side of the hole, moving away from us. Yet astronomers have reported that the greater bulk of galaxies are moving away from us in all directions. Is that a problem?
If the bang-explosion lasted for 100 years, then it's not what we normally think of as an explosion. It's more like the vent of a volcano spewing over a long haul. If the bang roared continuously for 100 years while spewing material in all directions at the speed of light, that would make the universe look like a crustal ball only 100 light years thick (not to be mistaken for the ball's diameter). In such a case, telescopes would easily be able to see inside the central nothingness. Oops, evolutionists have a big problem here.
In the 1920's, Edwin Hubble and others observed that most galaxies appear to be rushing away from us, which led to the discovery that the Universe is expanding.
I don't know enough about Hubble and his partners to feel out whether their report above was sincerely true to the best of their ability, or part of a plot to begin the brainwashing of the masses toward the big-bang expansion of the universe. It seems that Hubble has the earth situated in the center of the universe (he saw no giant empty hole), but the goons would argue that the big-bang causes every galaxy, no matter where one is situated, to be moving further apart at all times from all other galaxies, even if they are moving in the same direction, or nearly parallel with one another.
Okay, in a spherical shape, all outgoing objects move further apart in the sideways direction, but if the objects attract one another, they will NOT move further apart when moving in the same direction. This is a problem for the goon, for he insists that both big-bang particles and galaxies attract one another.
I have never heard of anyone speak on this empty-space hole. It dawned on me only tonight, Sunday, that this should exist. Yes, in their scheme, it must exist, unless the big bang never stopped spewing material. I don't think they are prepared to say that the big-bang is still taking place today. Apparently, no one has raised the issue of this hole, at least not loudly or forcefully enough. It seems the attitude of the goons has been to let the topic lie dormant so long as no one asks hard enough for an explanation. As could be expected, these demons won't admit their errors. Commanding the respect of the world is their utmost priority along with lying to the world. The two are married.
I say that stars repel one another because they all spew a negative charge (from their gravity) toward one another. Moreover, when their mutual solar winds collide, they will push one another further apart by this second force. No big bang needed to cause the expansion of the solar system.
If you didn't understand me, let me say it again. After the big bang had run its course, material flies away from the central spot of the explosion, progressively further with time, producing empty space all around the spot of explosion. It's that simple. It seems to me that this center space should be much wider than the thickness of the region having stellar material. It seems to me that the center space should be so large, after billions of years, that there should be no possibility of seeing galaxies on its opposite side. In other words, telescopes should be able to see the blackness of this center hole, yet they do not. Plus, the stupids have maps of the universe, and they DO NOT draw in this center hole!!! We've got them trapped on this score if anyone has clout enough to expose it to the public and, even better, to the people who oversee the goons.
In the video below, see the map of the universe as some goons have drawn it; have the wisdom to know that this is bogus, but note that they have the earth closer to the outer edge than to the center, probably done that way originally to provide the excuse as to why the center hole is not visible in telescopes (the hole is too far). Perhaps, seeing that no one made a stink big enough about the expected existence of the center hole, they just neglected to add it to their bogus maps. I have seen the map of the universe as presented by NASA, WITHOUT the center space! Lookie here at this monster:
Why are there hairs on the map? Why doesn't it look like the expectation from a central big bang? Is this map the result of false astronomy claims over the decades, where various plots enforced one deception after another to make the visible evidence fit the big-bang scenario, yet resulting in disagreements with better men so as to force the abandonment of some bad claims for some fixer-uppers...until the universe's shape was a hairy monster that was something midway between the truth and the desired big-bang scenario?
Have the wisdom to know that astronomers are guessing at the directions and positions of galaxies, and, moreover, keep in mind that galaxies could be mere stars. Every real photo of a galaxy is one in which the camera shutter is left open for long periods of time until the invisible becomes visible. It's not a true picture, and, to top off the problems, the goons may have abandoned showing us true photos for computerized animations exclusively. It should be against the law to show computerized images without informing the viewer. This distorts reality in the mind of the viewer, and allows the cons to con more brazenly. We are getting more and more computerized animations on everything in science. It's not to be trusted.
The bigger or heavier-in-galaxies they make their universe seem, the harder I shake my head at their big-bang stupidity. The shorter the duration of the explosion, the bigger the empty hole, and the thinner the surrounding crust of stellar material. But even if the bang roared for a million years non-stop while spewing material at the speed of light (we are giving them too much charity here, but let's play anyway), that would make the universe a million light years thick. Yet, telescopes, they say, can see further than that distance, yet the people who operate them have never reported seeing the central space-hole. Big problem there.
A second, big empty hole is clearly in their brains. The very astronomers who wish to come off respectably in our eyes are the same who are this stupid: the universe was all packed into a dime. I frankly cannot grasp how grown, learned men can support an idea this utterly ridiculous. I'm sure they want us to laugh at them; I'm sure they enjoy being our clowns. Let us stick our fingers in their eyes and have more fun. Let's pick them up by the ears, boot them in their arses, and kick them out of science. Don't you wish you could? Hurry Jesus, come with your big, heavy boots.
The things they call "black holes" are the result of the faulty idea that gravity attracts light. And gravity is itself a faulty idea in which all atoms have gravitons. Thus, in their view, the atoms of the entire earth are viewed as the gravity source of earth. I don't want to know how these gravitons attract photons, and neither should you, because it's an invented idea. Where in the atoms are the gravitons? That's a joke. I laugh at merely asking the question. I don't know. I guess they are squished between the protons. No, wait, hydrogen is just one proton, wherefore the gravitons must be something like warts on the proton. How do these warts attract the warts of other atoms as well as attracting electrons and photons? Do electrons and photons have warts too?
Is this not witchcraft, to claim the existence of particles that have never been found? These gravitons attract both positive protons and negative electrons, wow, just as though it were the perfect, Heaven particle for the formation of the universe from the big-bang explosion. Wow, we should have guessed: their graviton was invented to explain the evolutionary fantasy. But of course. All of that big-bang material flying further and further apart, such a waste, unless the graviton-to-the-rescue. It brought protons and electrons together from vast distances (not to worry, this is a cartoon, where anything can happen), and, voila, the galaxy was born. It's so very easy when you have cartoons to help things along.
How did the big-bang know to put graviton bumps on the protons? Are the gravitons inseparable from protons? Do protons attract gravitons, or are they attached with super glue? These are good, justified questions. So why do I never read answers to them? Why does NO ONE speak on gravitons? Doesn't anyone believe in them? Are they that problematic that it's better to not mention them? Without gravitons, atoms are only protons attracting electrons, and, let's face it, the protons do not attract the electrons into perfect orbits, only an idiot believes that. So, there you see atoms flying out into space from the big bang, forever moving further apart, unable to form galaxies because the atoms, at best, do not attract one another. Oh boy, this is big trouble. But, wait, the graviton to the rescue. The Heaven particle, the Savior. There is no limit of distance over which the graviton can act. It's truly a miracle particle.
For my explanation of the true gravity force, see the 3rd update of last month (click link at top-left of this page).
How can a particle attract both the electron and the proton? We know nothing like this? It could be viewed atrociously as cheating. Blow the whistle. Stop play, hand out a penalty, because this is cheating science. One should not be able to invent a particle that has never been discovered. Although the goons invented all sorts of experiments / arguments to "prove" their theories, they apparently could not dream up an experiment to prove the graviton. How many gravitons shall we imagine on every proton? If only one, the earth's gravity will always point the graviton toward the ground. If two or three, then gravity will have a schizoid fit trying to decide which graviton to pull hardest, and atoms will always be tottering from side to side, ever off-balance.
Boy, I've got to tell you, that big-bang explosion sure was a genius. It knew how to do everything just right for evolution. Does the graviton roll about on the proton (God forbid), or is it stuck fast in one spot? Can it never be knocked off? As gravitons attract one another, won't two or more of them per proton seek to come together as a lump on one side? Somehow, the big-bang was able to get this feature of creation just right so that the universe can stick together. Yet, bad evolutionists, they profane their own big bang by never talking about the graviton. We should start talking about it more.
If gravitons attract electrons, since the evolutionist says that electrons are attracted by gravity, how do gravitons affect orbiting electrons? I've never read anyone even mentioning this scenario. It seems that physicists totally disregard the graviton, as if they know it doesn't exist, or as though they don't want it to exist due to the complications. Like, do they really need bigger headaches than their theories have already given them? What a waste of money and manpower these theories are. Such a crying shame. The buffoons have spoken. Now it's time for better people to speak back. They should be sued for trying to make lunatics of our children, and the government should toss them into prison. Yet the government and its judges have together been fornicating with them. That's my speak.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God. Also, you might like this related video:
If you are stuck with dial-up service, using the Opera browser can help.
It has an Opera Turbo program (free with the free browser) that speeds download time.
Go into Opera's Settings, then click on "Browser"; you'll find the on/off Turbo button in there.
Table of Contents