Previous Update

Updates Index



MIDDLE EAST UPDATES
(if there are any to speak of)
July 12 - 18, 2016

Ken Ham Debates Bill Nye
or
How to Find the Distance to the Sun My Way
or
Why Evolutionists Hold to Theories of Lunatics


The following is very suspicious, Americans bombing the Kurds after friction between the two occurred in the last couple of weeks or so. "According to Qarar daily the [American] jets have mistakenly bombed the positions of the YPG in the latest bombing within the anti-IS coalition bombing against the positions of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in the city. Two warplanes have separately bombed the positions of the YPG. No report has been released about the number of casualties" (kurdpress.com). Possibly, the Kurds were about to strike something dear to the Americans in Manbij. Or, the Americans are just venting because ISIS has pretty much been eradicated from the city.


Ham Versus Nye Debate

The scientists of course say that Bill Nye won the debate with Ken Ham. Nye was lamenting that Creationism is like a sickness to humanity (typical humanist stance), as if he with his pea-brain knows whether a Creator does or does not exist. By his own arguments, science cannot prove that a Creator doesn't exist. If a house were made fully of plastic, one could argue well that no wood carpenter built it, but, in the case of belief in a Creator for this astounding world, the evidence is everywhere before Nye's eyes. Therefore, it's not so-much that he has a pea brain, but, rather, a rebellious spirit. The atheist evolutionist does not like the Biblical Creator.

People have a right to believe in a Creator, but Nye thinks this is backward. Ham's focus is that belief in a Creator is a fundamental logic supported by all sorts of evidence in the physical world, most of which can touch upon scientific assessments, but the Nye's of the world rule it out from the start, never giving it a chance. If they liked the Creator, and if they hoped that He does exist, they would have a different attitude. If they think they will be judged by the Creator for the things they are unwilling to abandon, they might choose to war with Him, and one line of attack is to believe that He doesn't exist. Here is the transcript of the debate, from which I'll quote and comment:
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/archives/rmcf-articles/item/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

Ham argues: "Creation is the only viable model of historical science, confirmed by observational science, in today's modern scientific era." While one cannot place the Creator in a test tube, yet the question on whether life forms were created versus not created is a thing that can be tested. People have a right to form opinions on whether God exists, and to use scientific knowledge to address the issue. Evolutionists are very jealous of this because they feel they own the science, and they get very sensitive when we use the particular science they invented or emphasize for shooting God down. We try to use their own science to turn the tables on them. It's fair ball, isn't it? If they can try to use the science to discredit a Creator, we have the right for rebuttal. And so he debates the Creationist, pretending that he has a good attitude, but in reality his heart aches, and he's angry, and is willing to do a debate only for to destroy the concept of Creationism. He's on a war path, shooting arrows at God, not intelligent enough to cease from this sin. It's a good thing for him that God, who feels like ending their lives, relents.

Ham's opening remarks well outshine Nye's in form and substance, though Ham does not stress scientific arguments for God's existence. Nye's speech stresses arguments that shoot down Creationism, and he comes quickly to attacking Noah's Flood with this:

You hear a lot about the Grand Canyon I imagine, which is a remarkable place, and it has fossils, and the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers. There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there's a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did, not a single one. If you could find evidence of that my friends, you could change the world.

To put it kindly, the argument is retarded. Does he expect creatures near the bottom to swim near the top even while they are trying to cope with drowning for the first time ever in their lives? Mammals have but a minute in water before they give up motion; they don't have time nor ability to swim anywhere. And, besides, the upper layers of strata were not there yet when they were drowning at the start of the Flood. Hello? The upper levels were laid last; by then, sedimentation had worked heavily to cover drowned animals. Nye needs first of all to understand the Flood model before he opens his mouth in an international debate. He seemingly ignores the heavy sediments in the water that serve to force all creatures, dead or alive, further down. Maybe he won some points with the kids and fellow ignoramuses. I thought the latter had gone extinct, but I guess not.

I have a fundamental problem with the way he phrases his argument: "There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another." It sounds like he's saying that, for example, there is no layer where fish exist along with mammals, and he makes this look as though it's completely unexpected, like someone arguing a vain argument but trying to make it sound profound. No one expects mammals and fish to occupy the same layers in a Flood situation, unless it's from mammals living near the sea shore. There is nothing odd or wrong about mammals occupying higher layers than fish. Yet, when he argues, in the next breath, that mammals are expected to swim up, away from the fish lower down, he gives the opposite impression, that fish and mammals are not separated in the Grand-Canyon system. His very first argument, therefore, is confusing, and like smoke-and-mirrors.

What Nye and his type argue is that mammals are not buried in the same strata as trilobites, for example, and that trilobites are buried lower than mammals. They think that this is a convincing argument for the evolution of life from trilobites (sea-floor dwellers) to more advanced creatures later on. This is why they interpret rock layers in the millions of years, so that they can argue that trilobites lived millions of years before large fish, reptiles and mammals in the higher layers. But the only reason that trilobites are in lower strata is because mammals live much higher. Mammals are expected in higher levels than the sea floor. It's not as though Nye has never realized this, and so when he points an accusing finger at the fossil record, as though the Flood cannot explain it, he shows his willingness to deceive, or to deny the Flood model the logical interpretation that it is. Besides, evolutionists lie concerning the fossil record, making it appear to perfectly reflect their model while opposing the Flood model.

Ham takes up most of his session showing that evolutionists haven't got a monopoly on science, that their world view consists of things not supported by the facts, and that the modern world has bigotry toward destroying the Biblical worldview. Not much of it gets into the Flood, though he finally comes around and says: "If there was a global flood, you'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the Earth. (I have to say that, because our supporters would want me to.) And what do you find? Billions of dead things buried In rock layers, laid down by water all over the Earth." It's a great point, even if it does seem simplistic. He argues that the very existence of fossils is proof of a Flood, and I agree with him. I do not think that fossils form in ordinary times. How does a mammal get buried in dirt, in the first place, for to form a fossil? In the ordinary world, mammals rot in the open. The dead mice I leave outdoors are gone by morning, taken away and eaten. The bones will get covered in leaves, and will start to rot in the underlying humidity. It will take more than 100 years to produce enough new soil to cover the bones of a larger mammal. In fact, some places do not produce one inch of soil per century. But the Flood had the ability to cover animals almost instantly.

Chances are, if there were no global flood, the Grand Canyon would not be filled with fossils. Does this argument rate as a scientific entry? Yes, it does, and the details of the fossil record can therefore be put on the table for to test whether they best describe a global flood over one year, or a single sea over millions of years of sedimentation. As activist evolutionists are unwilling to test both models, we can point the finger at them, charging them with anti-science attitudes. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, even if you don't like what it's telling you. Ham would argue that the one-sided science of evolutionists needs to be removed from school textbooks, replaced with, in the least, a two-sided approach.

How long would it take to bury the bones of a dinosaur under the water of a normal sea? Centuries. Wouldn't the bones dissolve and rot before then? Shouldn't we see fossils with half-rotten bones as per the evolutionary model? Evolutionists would appeal to sea currents to cover bones with sediments already on the sea floor, which is a fine argument so long as they can prove that currents are strong enough. But wait. What are slews of land mammals doing dead in the ocean in the first place? The Flood explains it, but the evolutionary model has the obvious problem. How do we imagine mammals ending up in the sea?

An ocean current is a continuous, directed movement of seawater generated by forces acting upon this mean flow, such as breaking waves, wind, the Coriolis effect, cabbeling, temperature and salinity differences...Deep ocean currents are driven by density and temperature gradients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current

When I argue that there are no currents in the sea, I'm not referring to the upper level where climate affects water. I'm referring to the sea floor, where the evolutionary model needs to satisfy the scientific evidence. Although I realize that water does move down there, I do not view this virtual stillness as a current. Evolutionists use "current" to give the impression that ocean waters are spreading sediments about, but this is not true. The last chapter showed that they have invented turbidity currents in a desperate effort to explain the wide-spread sedimentation caused by the Flood.

You just read above that sea-floor "currents" are caused by two possible things: the difference in salt content of the water (more salt makes for heavier water), and temperature differences. The difference in salt content between two adjacent regions is expected to be so low that this looks like another desperate argument to conjure up currents. As for temperature differences, this too is minimal. I'm not denying that there are moving waters above the odd hot spot in the crust. What the evolutionist needs to do, without conducting a hoax, is to show how these currents are in the process of lifting any mud at all. You can believe that, if this were taking place, it would be a well-disseminated fact on nature shows, because evolutionists need it engrained in everyone's' heads that this is their sediment-spreading and fossil-making holy cow. The article tells that evolutionists even use the word, "river": "These currents, called submarine rivers, flow under the surface of the ocean and are hidden from immediate detection." Please, tell us the velocity of such rivers, we are aching to know. What do they mean, "hidden from detection"? Later in the article, we discover a velocity figure of the so-called currents, but first, see here what looks to be desperation:

Ripple marks in sediments, scour lines, and the erosion of rocky outcrops on deep-ocean floors are evidence that relatively strong, localized [not wide-spread] bottom currents exist. Some of these currents may move as rapidly as 60 centimeters (24 inches) per second.

Look at the way that's phrased, as though the ripples are merely evidence of currents while no one has actually witnessed them. The velocity figures given can then be viewed, not as anything measured by anyone, but as the estimated velocity for to form the ripples. I say the "ripples" are likely gigantic, formed in the Flood by vast currents. The fact that the ripples and scours are said to be localized begs the question on why they aren't everywhere. There are photos of sea bed ripples online, but these are likely in shallow waters where wave action creates currents. The following sounds as though deep-sea ripples are a surprising thing: "Although deep-sea currents generally have a smaller velocity, they must not be underestimated, as has been shown by the occurrence of deep- sea ripples (Heezen and Hollister 1964) and direct measurements (Wust 1957)." In other words, wow, deep sea currents can be so mighty, as compared to how they are generally viewed, that they form ripples. Wow, is that ever fast. But, please tell, might these ripples be due to rare situations where volcanic / extremely hot areas perk up only once in a while?

If you heat dirty water on a stove yet transparent, you can watch the currents move, shifting the silt around during the heating stage, when hotter waters mix with colder. But if you put a few sand grains on the bottom, the heat differentials can't lift or move them. The wide heat differentials in that pot of water don't occur at the sea bottom. Can you imagine how soft the motion of water would be due to temperature differences there? This is all the experiment you need in order to know the sea bed truth. While I've read that the abysmal plain is mainly made of sand, others say clay and silt. If the deep-sea ripples are made of sand grains, then something extraordinary was happening there, perhaps a nearby volcano (erupts once every 200 / 400 / 800 years?).

It is important that you always make light of the evolutionist's animosity toward Jesus, because that is their starting point, their basis, their reason for arguing in the first place. They would place the Son of God in the fable category as much as they would Noah. Yes, there are evolutionists claiming to respect Jesus, but these are the sidewinder snakes, making ripples on behalf of evolutionists, and unable or unwilling to see the hoaxes of his like-minded. Jesus spoke about Noah. Which Jesus do evolutionists espouse who simultaneously reject Noah's flood?

Ham repeats the same arguments told by Creationists for decades previous. When his session is done, it's Nye's turn. He starts off with this:

We are here in Kentucky on layer upon layer of limestone. I stopped at the side of the road today and just picked up a piece of limestone that has a fossil, right there. Now in these many, many layers, in this the vicinity of Kentucky, there are coral animals...we're standing on millions of layers of ancient life. How could those animals have lived their entire lives and formed these layers in just 4000 years? There isn't enough time since Mr. Ham's flood for this limestone that we are standing on to have come into existence.

He uses limestone in his argument because it is defined as rock material mixed with a high percentage of organic material. If I recall correctly, it can't be classified as limestone unless it's on the order of 50 percent organic. I had read that years ago. It made me ask where all of that organic material came from that makes up all the limestone in the world. There isn't enough organic material in the world; the evolutionists must be lying to us. Limestone must be made of some other materials from within the crust, spewed out by volcanic activity in the flood, that has been deliberately mistaken for organic material.

Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Most limestone is composed of skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral, forams and molluscs.

Oh really? Where did the calcium carbonate really come from? The idea that ten percent of the world's sedimentary rocks should be made of shelled creatures does not ring true to me. But I can see how evolutionists would be quick to identify this type of rock with organic material, as it instantly disproves Noah's Flood. Yes, it does, if it were true. That's why I object. Looking into it: "Calcite is a common constituent of sedimentary rocks, limestone in particular, MUCH OF WHICH [caps mine] is formed from the shells of dead marine organisms. Approximately 10% of sedimentary rock is limestone." While the writer perhaps didn't wish to say so, the statement enters the fact that calcite exists outside of organisms. This allows the evolutionists to be wrong. Evolutionists have lied about greater things than this. Look: "Calcite may also be found in volcanic or mantle-derived rocks..." There you have it, origin of limestone from the earth's body of magma, no creatures needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite

What percentage of sea mud is now made of crusty things derived in calcite? Do the constituents of any significant amount of sea mud reflect the expectation for the development of limestone? Can't Creationists ask such questions to test the reliability of evolutionists? Can't such questions be included in school books, and from the lips of teachers? What is the evolutionist afraid of? If there is any area where crusty things of calcite are rampant, yet no limestone exists beneath them, isn't that a fact contrary to the evolutionist's claim? Shouldn't students be taught such a thing; let them make up their own mind? If there is limestone rock under the sea-floor sands, I wouldn't be surprised, but that in itself doesn't prove that it was created from crusty creatures. It could have been laid in the Flood from some other calcium source.

What I think we should need to see, in the least, is limestone rock as the first layer(s) beneath a calcite-thick mud. If all there is are limestone-thick muds from crusty creatures, that in itself doesn't prove their long-term formation into hard limestone. Evolutionists need to prove that hard limestone always occurs under areas where crusty-creature calcite calls home. It's not enough to say, aha, limestone = crusty creatures. If there is limestone only under part of the area where crusty creatures live, shouldn't the student be given the option of considering the presence of limestone under crusty creatures a mere coincidence?

Let's go to Wikipedia's article on sea beds, where there is a list of causes for sedimentation: "Where sedimenting is avoided, such as in the Atlantic ocean especially in the northern and eastern Atlantic, the original tectonic activity [volcanic rocks and their details] can be clearly seen as straight line 'cracks' or 'vents' thousands of kilometers long." It remains foggy in my mind as to what a "vent" is as seen by the eye, but it sounds as though Flood waters could have retreated through them. Perhaps these vents are another name for the scarring in mid-ocean ridges. The curiosity is why there are no sediments on this Atlantic part of the ocean floor. In the so-called Canadian Shield, ditto, there are no sediments upon the volcanic rock, just thin layers of clays or sands topped with soils, the latter mere inches on average that can be dated roughly to Noah's Flood. I live in a rocky area with a maximum depth of one r two feet of dark soil. No evolutionist in his right mind should claim that this shallow soil is the product of millions of years.

What do we suppose happened to the sediments in the northern Atlantic? Wild, undersea hurricanes blew it away? It gets worse. Why is the sedimentation from river mouths in the northern Atlantic not being carried by normal sea currents to the deeper sea in order to prevent the bare-rock situation mentioned above? Isn't it because there are no sea currents (strong enough to be called such)? Wikipedia's Ocean Current article: "The deep-water masses are not capable of moving water at speeds comparable to that of wind-driven surface currents. Water in some of these currents may move only 1 to 2 meters per day." That explains the bare rocks, but is "current" the right term for such a virtual stillness?

The Canadian Shield is huge, and adjacent to the northern Atlantic. The evolutionists might explain the absence of deep soils by the Ice Age, as ice sheets scraped the surface clean of the soils, pushing them away. Oh, really? Then where are the heaps of soil pushed over hundreds of miles? Can you imagine how deep such heaps would be if the soil over the land had originally been, say 50 feet deep, before the Ice Age? Forget it, the evolutionists are dishonest with the world, interested only in pushing a geologic view that counters Noah's Flood. That was their bottom line, and they are constantly seeking to use scientific discovery to heap garbage upon garbage. When they cry the blues about Ken Ham receiving some tax breaks for his Kentucky ark project, think about the colossal tax dollars forked over to evolutionism over many decades. That is what people should be crying about, money to prove a fantasy, and to set mankind in rebellion against its Creator. And they will weep, be assured, for this great sin.

The next argument posed by Nye has more deception:

My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits...And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. And these are made of snow and ice. It's called snow ice. Snow ice forms over the winter, and snow flakes fall, and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together, and are entrapping little bubbles. The bubbles must needs be {from} ancient atmospheres; there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. And we find certain of the cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow winter/summer cycles. How could it be that just 4000 years ago, all of this ice formed?

This is an easy one for rebuttal. You simply ignore their claim of ability to decipher winters and summers in the ice. You see, the shallow depth of Greenland's ice plays heavily to a Flood scenario, for the estimated depth of ice is roughly what one expects if ice started to build about 2350 BC. And so the demons needed to find ways to "prove" that the ice is much older than Noah's flood. They got tricky, devised a fine-sounding way to interpret the age of the ice, and, possibly, they were able to abuse air bubbles for the purpose. Nye makes it sound as though the air bubbles are able to time the ice. He uses "ancient atmospheres," as though the evolutionists can read modern air versus air 100,000 years old. The phrase gives the impression that the "experts" have discovered ancient air in the bubbles, and all of the earth's naive would believe them, anyway.

Once you know how diabolical the evolutionists are, you learn the opposite, never to trust them. The Creationist should be going for the jugular, to make the world understand brazen liars evolutionists are, not merely self-deceived. Ken Ham doesn't speak this way, however, but gives evolutionists the benefit of the doubt, that they are sincere while wrong. It's the gentlemanly way about it, but then this is a mortal war, isn't it? We are not called by God to get along with evolutionists trying to murder Jesus over and over again. You need to be offended by evolutionists, and to have deep-seated anger in what they are trying to accomplish, the very thing demons would seek. Nye makes himself an instrument of the devil, let's not mince words.

Nye on this third line of attack: "If we go to California, we find the enormous stands of Bristlecone pines. Some of them are over 6000 years old. 6800 years old. There is a famous tree in Sweden is 9550 years old." Hmm, this is such a great argument against the Flood model that it begs the question on why I've not heard of it in the past? How reliable are these dates, and is this a new line of attack from the attack dogs?? Wikipedia on bristlecone pines: "The oldest Pinus longaeva is more than 5,000 years old, making it the oldest known individual of any species...A specimen of Pinus longaeva located in the White Mountains of California is 5,065 years old according to measurements by Tom Harlan [who's he?] This is the oldest known individual tree in the world." So much for the reliability on the vast age of the Swedish tree. And this "more than 5,000 years old" claim could easily have been exaggeration purposefully to combat the Flood model. Mr. Nye appears dishonest when using this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine


The Origin of Sand???

After scoring no points on his first Grand-Canyon argument, Nye returns to the Grand Canyon with this:

Now when we go to the Grand Canyon...You find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. And if there was this enormous flood, that you speak of, wouldn't there have been churning, bubbling and roiling. How would these things have settled out? Your claim that they settle out in an extraordinary short amount of time is for me not satisfactory. You can look at these rocks, and you can look at rocks that are younger, and you can look at seashores where there is sand, which is what geologists on the outside do: study the rate at which soil is deposited at the ends of rivers and deltas, and we can see that it takes a long, long time for the sediments to turn to stone.

By "settled out," I assume he means the modification from soft and wet to hardened rock. I'm not sure why he introduces churning, bubbling and roiling to deny the Flood model the ability to harden rock. He's claiming there has not yet been enough time for newly-laid sediments in the Flood to harden into rock. Is that a good argument? Or is he appealing to the naive? Wikipedia says that typical sedimentary rocks are cemented together with "silicate minerals." No explanation is given, and so we need to hunt it down. At one time, hunting for things like this was very difficult, and we were unable to combat evolution as the Internet now permits.

Silicate minerals that weld sand particles should not be silica = sand itself, yet I've seen the silicate called both silica and "dissolved silica." I absolutely do not understand dissolved sand, and am suspicious of that phrase as one hiding something. Silicate minerals do dissolve in water, though I do not know if they dissolve alone, without some facilitation. I'm thinking that the dissolved material is some type of sand-related product but not pure sand, and I'm also thinking that we're not being told something. The following statement speaks not solely to the cementing agent of rocks, but to the materials that make up the rock, calling them "silicate minerals" in a blanket statement: "The silicate minerals are rock-forming minerals, constituting approximately 90 percent of the crust of the Earth. They are classified based on the structure of their silicate group which contain different ratios of silicon and oxygen." Silica = sand consists of silicon and oxygen too, but sand particles on a beach don't stick together whether wet or dry or pressed together. What is the difference between sands as silicate minerals, and cementing agents as silicate minerals? I would like to know. Surely, sand does not dissolve in water.

One can glean from the quote above that magma, expected to be similar in composition to the crust, consists of silicate minerals. It becomes clear from this that the Flood event spewed silicates onto the earth, or that the vast percentage of cementing agents of all rocks derive from the planetary interior. In Wikipedia's sedimentary-rock article: "Clastic sedimentary rocks are composed of other rock fragments that were cemented by silicate minerals." No explanation as to how these minerals act as the bonding agent. Is it a well-guarded secret? Would the exposure of this material give Creationists ammunition to shoot evolution down all-the-more? The evolutionist should be thankful that we can only shoot down his theory, for God will shoot down their souls onto a bed of Hell. Is Hell going out of fashion today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

Here is the honest scoop (not easy to find) from a dishonest writer: "Dissolved minerals in the ground water precipitate (crystallize) from water in the pore spaces forming mineral crusts on the sedimentary grains, GRADUALLY [caps mine] cementing the sediments, thus forming a rock. Calcite (calcium carbonate), silica, and hematite (red iron oxide) are the most common cementing agents." How long is "gradual"? He means a process over millions of years, doesn't he? Yes, he does. He teaches that sediments take millions of years to harden. But, at least, he shares how cementation works, and I think I can elaborate correctly on this method.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/sed_rx.htm

I'm assuming that his "silica" is identical to "silicate mineral" cement used by Wikipedia. The cementing agent first needs to be dissolved in water before rock can be formed. No problem, there was lots of water in the Flood, and it was originally between every grain of sand on the planet. The definition of a dissolved material is one made up of molecular-sized particles in liquid suspension, all molecules equally spaced (by their inter-repulsion, in my opinion). Materials dissolved in water are great at getting between things such as sand particles. Somehow, for a reason, the dissolved silicate material comes out of solution as a "cement," or, by the sounds of it, as a hard scale that forms all around sand grains, locking them in place.

What causes the silicate to come out of solution? How long does it take for it to do so and finally to harden, or whatever it does to bind sand particles to rock hardness? Mr. Nye needs to know the answer. The only way I know of, for a dissolved mineral to come out of solution, in an ordinary situation not treated with a catalyst, is through evaporation of water. You can read up on solutes and find for yourself that dissolved materials come out of solution as the liquid evaporates. If we speak about water evaporating from the pores of wet sediments, we call it, drying out. We all understand that. The sediments are drying out. Okay, we get it; it's not rocket science. When there is no longer any water in the pores in the rock, the maximum amount of dissolved material has come out of the water. Therefore, if it only takes rock days or weeks to dry out, why are evolutionists attacking the Flood model? The Flood model claims that underwater sediments were soon in the sun and atmosphere.

Or, why does the evolutionist above believe that it takes millions of years for rock to harden even though silicate can exit water solution in days or weeks...or months in the case of deeper rock? The answer is very plain now, and its exciting for the Creationist. It takes millions of years because the evolutionary model has the rock under water for that long, never able to dry out. Ha hah, I now understand his madness better than before. The fact must be that the silicate NEVER hardens rock so long as its under water. He then came to believe that the rock hardened only when uplifted into the air, millions of years later, and dried out. Stooges like Bill Nye and many others before him read over and over again that it takes millions of years to harden rock, but they did not understand, or bother to read up on, the mechanism behind hardening. Many writers didn't realize that it requires dry air upon the rock, and so they repeated to their readers only part of the claim, that rock takes millions of years to harden. They then pointed fingers at Noah's Flood for a very-fast hardening process, not realizing that the rock is expected to harden just as soon as Flood waters receded.

I've been on the look-out to discover whether vast layers of sub-ocean sediments are rock hard today, or still soft. I haven't found a statement one way or the other, but, perhaps, they are still soft. Feasibly, they never harden under water, though evolutionists may have needed to claim that, eventually, they do. However, there may be another explanation for their view of rock hardening, and there may be different evolutionary schools with different views. If the sub-ocean sediments are hard today, they might then argue that it takes millions of years to harden in order to have recourse for explaining the shaping out of mountain peaks while sediments are still soft under the ancient seas. I can see them developing a line of "reasoning" such as that.

The deep sea is not expected to have sedimentary rocks the likes which exist all over the land. The deep sea is expected to have volcanic crust. That leaves the continental slopes and shelves for where hard rock may be abiding, if it exists there at all. "Oceanographers study sediment by taking long cylindrical cores, which individually can be as long as 18 to 30 meters (60 to 98 feet)." The article assures that these are soft sediments, no hard rock. Later, it says: "Terrigenous sediment [from the land], whether it be delivered by rivers or wind, is not altered significantly on the seafloor and thus is well-preserved. During very deep burial (e.g., 5 kilometers, or 3 miles, below the seafloor), the terrigenous grains can be altered into different minerals..." It doesn't sound as though there are hard rocks under the shallow oceans, suggesting that the Flood sediments never did harden.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ocean-Floor-Sediments.html

It says, by the way: "Sediment can accumulate as slowly as 0.1 millimeter (0.04 inch) per 1,000 years (in the middle of the ocean where only wind-blown material is deposited) to as fast as 1 meter (3.25 feet) per year along continental margins [as per river mouths, no doubt]. More typical deep-sea rates are on the order of several centimeters per 1,000 years." Well, there you go, there's no material transported to the deep sea by currents. Why didn't the other articles just say so? You can bet their "several centimeters per 1,000 years" is exaggerated. Also, "(The larger grains of coarse sand, gravel, and boulders are too large to be transported to the deep sea and therefore are not discussed here.)" There you go, no currents strong enough to pick up a piece of sand, but the article does mention the turbidity currents for those who like fantasia.

The evolutionists are going to have a very big problem momentarily. Actually, they know about this problem, but aren't telling anyone if they can help it. The silicate cementing agents in the hard rocks on land can't be re-used. They need to figure out another way for the sediments, once eroded from land and back into the sea, to bond into rock again. But if they can't re-use the silicate, how, in their model, can there be rocks on land filled with silicate cement? How did the eroded material pick up the silicate cement? I have never read anything on this as yet. Plus, all the articles mentioning sea sediments do not speak on re-rock formation, and certainly don't mention the cement agent...because, I am starting to realize, it isn't in the sea. I have a feeling that this is what evolutionists don't want us to know about silicate cement: 1) it's not available in a normal sea; 2) it can't be re-used after it has cemented sand grains once. Wow, this is a great argument for the Flood, with unique silica-cement formation.

Evolutionists tell us that an alternative cementing agent to silicate is limestone. Granted. But limestone makes up only 10 percent of the sedimentary rocks on land. It doesn't have enough cementing agent for re-use for all the rock material coming back to the sea. It's starting to appear, as expected, that the re-formation of sedimentary rock, in the seas, is a complete hoax, and that they know it. "According to Rachael James (2005), only between one and ten percent of skeletal debris becomes sediment." Some skeletal material is silicate, but I have yet to read that it forms cement for re-rock. In any case, there is not sufficient calcite if only 1-10 percent of sediment is from crusty organisms and bones of other creatures. Where do sediments get their new glue to become rocks again?

Limestone is not from an organic material; the evolutionists are lying to us. This is probably why the figures above are said to be between one and ten percent (why such a wide differential?), because, while someone is being truthful with the one figure, evolutionists need the 10 figure (they are stretching the reality) for the fact that ten percent of all land rocks are limestone. Therefore, the reality is that calcium in organisms makes up more like one percent of all sediments. It's turning out that the evolutionist doesn't have the glue needed to re-form rock.

Alright, so, what we see is the Flood coming to an end, and all the rocks sitting in the air, sun shining on them, drying them out. As the water between sand grains and similar particles evaporate, the minerals come out of solution, sticking themselves to the particles, and that's where the minerals stay to weld or glue the particles. Physics would teach correctly that this material comes out of solution before the rock is fully dry. I can see a lot of rock depth drying out within a year, how about you? We would like to know whether the cementing agent is soft at first, for millions of years, or hard immediately within days or weeks. Somebody go get Bill Nye.

Where can we get some of this silicate mineral so that we can do a test for ourselves? We can go buy a bag of sand at Home Depot, and then mix the mineral with the sand and some water, and we can see for ourselves how long it takes to harden the mixture into rock. I've done this many times with Portland (limestone product) and masonry cements (limestone product); it only takes a day or two to become hard, even if its still damp. I think Mr. Nye has a real problem, as I think he has just proven to be a falsifier. But he's just echoing his fellow evolutionists. He is a very good stooge.

Calcite is another word for lime. Calcite is what forms in your hot-water kettle. The water has calcite suspended within it, and it comes out on metal when water is heated; it won't come out (much, anyway) of solution if you just leave water sitting in a cold kettle. Can we imagine a lot of calcite formation in the hot space between magma and the earth's crust? I think you get the point. The Flood's volcanic activity issued a lot of lime, didn't it? As calcite can be dissolved in water, that's why it makes a cementing agent between sand particles when it dries out in the pores. That crusty material gets trapped between sand particles, and locks them together. The smaller the particles, I suppose, the harder the rock (it should explain why rock is harder than concrete, for the latter is made of sand, a relatively large particle).

Let's look at the choice of words by Nye once again: "...you can look at seashores where there is sand, which is what geologists on the outside do: study the rate at which soil is deposited at the ends of rivers and deltas, and we can see that it takes a long, long time for the sediments to turn to stone." I have no easy conception of what he's talking about from these words alone. Is he insinuating that sands / clays in river deltas and continental shelves to turn to rock? There is not much shortage of calcium in creatures on continental shelves, where most of the sediments sit, but they are not forming any rocks. The sea floor is mud. Therefore, when he claims that the rocks are in the process of forming rocks, over millions of years, he's dreaming and lying.

Dissolved calcite can be coaxed out of its water entrapment by a chemical process intended for the purpose. "The Greeks essentially 'invented' the first hydraulic cement (hardens under water) by mixing lime and volcanic ash." Or, "Portland cement hardens due to a chemical reaction, not from simply drying out, so it will set underwater." Have you ever read that river deltas grow rocks? If that can't happen, and apparently Nye is telling us that it can't, it means that rivers don't have the chemicals necessary to cause calcite to set rocks under water. That explains why sea beds are not rock surfaces. In that case, how do rocks form in seas???????????????????????? That is a very big question. I don't think rocks form in seas, do you? I think evolutionists are guilty of not informing us of this, and I think they need punishment for this trick. Evolutionists are in a real fix -- bankrupt -- between a rock and hard place.

Here is Wikipedia's cementation article, a lie:

Cementation occurs primarily below the water table regardless of sedimentary grain sizes present. Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallize and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process. Common mineral cements include calcite, quartz or silica phases like cristobalite, iron oxides, and clay minerals, but other mineral cements also occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation_%28geology%29

I am very suspicious of that statement, for it can be seen vividly that an evolutionist is behind it, as one who is banking on our acceptance of the statement with his fingers crossed. Cementation occurs primarily under water??? Didn't we just read that evaporation is required, unless there is some chemical catalyst? What possibly is he talking about where he says, "Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallize and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process"? That flies in the face of one-day concrete.

So, here is what he may be arguing, that, since there are no catalysts in river and sea waters to make mineral cements crystallize under water, it takes a long time to cement the particles. But he's dreaming, because the long time is forever if the conditions are simply not there to create crystallization. He can dream up a lot of different scenarios, given millions of years, but you need to be wise to this sort of trick. I suppose what he may believe is that, given enough water flowing through the pores, some catalyst will eventually come along. But from where? And what catalyst might it be? If you can't get the theory to work in a lab, just appeal to millions of years.

Millions of years have already gone by, in his model, and so there must be hardened rock at some depth within the continental shelves. Yet, I have yet to read, while investigating these things, that there is hard, sedimentary rock under the sea mud. If there isn't, the evolutionist comes out looking like a wicked buffoon, trying to fool all of mankind with an empty suit.

When he says, "Cementation occurs primarily below the water table," he must mean that most rocks now in the atmosphere hardened under water rather than in a dry(er) environment. Why would evolutionists take this position? How could they possibly know, anyway, when and where the rocks hardened? Do they take this position to deny Noah's flood? Do they insist that there's proof for rocks hardening under water merely to have recourse for claiming that Noah's flood could not possibly be responsible for hard rocks?

We read above that volcanic ash causes cement to harden under water. However, there is generally no volcanic activity in relation to rivers. The Flood model has no problem explaining some hard rock under water, because the Flood was caused by volcanic activity. Likely, silicate cement is from volcanic-ash material. Certainly, the vast supplies of sand, the earth's most-common material, are from volcanic material exploding under water. You neither believe that sand originates after billions of years of erosion on land, or that it's from volcanic explosions under sea. If sands exists without silicates at its pores, it's virgin sand from volcanic activity. Evolutionists would be loath to tell us that such sand exists, on beaches, for example. We read that ocean currents can't lift sand particles, yet the abysmal plains, next to volcanic ranges, are filled with much sand. Where did it come from? As massive beaches exist far from river mouths, I view it as non-eroded sand. There is an abundance of virgin sand that never got cementing agent, isn't there? I would like to know why some did, but some didn't.

Perhaps calcite = limestone can be dissolved out of rock, especially limestone, and re-used as a cementing agent to a small degree for the re-rock formation envisioned by the evolutionist and his geologist stooges. How long does it take to get the cement agent out of limestone? Has anyone ever seen limestone vanish due to continual rainwater? It doesn't dissolve like table salt, that's for sure.

The all-important question is whether the silicate cementing agent can be taken out of pores in rocks, and dissolved again in water for re-use as a cementing agent. That way, eroded sands forced down rivers could have pound-per-pound every bit of their cementing agents cruising with them. To test this question, one would merely leave a piece of rock soaking in water until the cementing agent dissolved. But we all know that rocks sit in water continually without changing shape. Apparently, zero cementing agent comes out of most rocks. If it did come out, the rock would fall apart into a heap of sand. It appears that once the silicate is taken out of solution for the first time (in cementing sand particles), it is not re-usable. It means that evolutionists indeed need to find another source of cementing agents for every cycle of mass rock formation that they might envision.

Silica cement, also called quartz cement, creates the strongest and most durable type of sandstone used for building. The cement is a result of the quartz grains overgrowing and expanding the crystallized forms until it runs into another quartz crystal [I haven't a clear picture of what's meant here]...

Calcite cement is the most common type of cement found in sandstone. The calcite cement typically forms in patches and does not fill all the gaps within the stone. This makes calcite cement sandstone very porous. Calcite is also soluble in water, which can erode away the cement making the stone even more porous.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8343964_three-common-cementing-agents-sandstones.html

If you know calcite in your hot-water kettle, you also know that it doesn't dissolve like salt or sugar. Calcite is not exactly fast in dissolving, in other words; it sticks around even when the kettle is filled with water repeatedly, and so we might ask whether it dissolves at all once it has formed rock. Perhaps the person above merely assumes that it dissolves out of rock.

To possibly explain why the silicate agent won't come out of rock: it changes chemically into something else that will not dissolve. Usually, as with table salt, minerals can be made to dissolve and crystallize over and over again. But the situation is different, apparently, with silicate cement. In theory, if there were even two rock grains cemented together, and kept in a bowl of water for months, the cementing agent would refuse to come back into the water. It may no longer be what it once was, therefore. In this way, evolutionists cannot appeal to this material over and over again. It begs the question on where the original / virgin silicate cement came from. It could not have come from the rocks on land. It must have come from the magma, therefore. What other choice is there? Silicate is a rock material.

The planetary heat and/or pressure is what must have turned some of the silica material into silicate cement. It acted as the glue for the planetary crust, for example. It turns out that, when rock is melted, it will harden again when cooled. The cement remains with the rock. If you submerge the molten rock in water (in an effort to get the cement to dissolve), so-called pillow lava is the result, but the rock still sticks together, in other words. One cannot, apparently, remove the silicate cement by heating rock.

Evolutionists may not be able to answer the question of where silicate cementing agent originated, and they might be calling it silica and dissolved silica to give the false impression that it's amply available from sand. I'm having a hard time finding what silicate is when its a cementing agent. Wikipedia's silicate article: "Sand, Portland cement, and thousands of minerals are examples of silicates." Yes, but sand is not a cementing agent, while Portland is. It then says: "Silicates [generally, not the cement] are well characterized as solids, but are less commonly observed in solution...Silica, or silicon dioxide, SiO2 [= sand], is sometimes considered a silicate, although it is the special case with no negative charge..." I think the implication there is that silicate cement has a negative charge, which suggests to me that it exists only under certain conditions, and may be rather rare too in normal nature.

What follows is an erroneous statement tending to show that even some fans of evolutionists don't understand the cementing process. This may be due to the lack of explanations concerning it, the lack being deliberate because they are trying to hide something: "Compaction is the pressing down of layers...Over millions of years this [compaction] process can squeeze fragments tightly together. During the process of compaction the minerals in the rock are dissolving. These dissolved minerals fill in the spaces between sediment particles." The writer has it backward. To cement the particles, the cement needs to come out of the water, not dissolve into the water. When this is properly understood, evolutions are in a pickle because it doesn't take millions of years for the cement agent to come out of the water. It takes only as long as water dries up in the rock. Therefore, the idea that the cement agent dissolves in the water may be deliberate disinformation to keep science-minded individuals from realizing this truth.

As you can glean in the statement, some evolutionists see the dissolving of the cement agent over millions of years. Who ever heard of such a thing? Materials that dissolve in water tend to do so quickly. It seems obvious enough that if a material can be said to take millions of years to dissolve, it does not dissolve at all. I am therefore starting to get the impression that these goons view normal sand as dissolving in water (if left in water for millions of years). That figures, if there is an insufficient source for silicate cement by other means. In other words, their claim seems to be that normal sand is the origin of virgin silicate cement. The very sand in the sediments acts as its own glue. If it sounds preposterous, it probably is.

As water evaporates in an enclosed space (such as inside rocks in dry air), its concentration, or density, of dissolved material increases until, with sufficient evaporation, the water can no longer hold all the material in suspension, wherefore some of the material begins to "precipitate." From that point onward, as the water continues to disappear, more material precipitates, and all has precipitated when there is zero water left. "Precipitation" is their word, but I'm not at all sure that it's the right word when it comes to rock pores.

Precipitation means that it falls to the bottom, pulled by gravity. I do not think that cement in rock material falls to the bottom of anything, or that it's pulled by gravity alone. I would suggest that the rock's molecules come into attraction with the cement's molecules, meaning that the molecules of both materials are bonding from all directions equally, and that gravity is a minor player as this goes on. If correct that the silicate cement is negatively charged, meaning that its molecules are negatively charged, then they repel one another in all directions, and therefore repel one another against sand particles. Once they contact sand particles, they merge with them. The merger is the actual bonding process between the two. The molecules of the cement cannot inter-repel against the sand molecules until some water volume has left the pores. It suggests that all cement molecules are bonded with water molecules until that point. It also suggests that cement molecules are shed from water molecules while the latter is leaving the fluid. The cement molecules then find themselves free in the water, but are immediately attracted by water molecules. However, the latter have a limit as to how many cement molecules they can load; when fully loaded, all cement molecules becoming free at the surface will inter-repel against sand molecules. My view of atomic structure (developed over about a decade) and atomic physics differs greatly from that of evolutionists; they have it backward when they say that all atoms attract. They take this position because it's needed for the evolution of the cosmos, but that's another story.

Wikipedia's article on evaporite sedimentation: "Although all water bodies on the surface and in aquifers contain dissolved salts, the water must evaporate into the atmosphere for the minerals to precipitate." This is a well-known fact. Water needs to dry out.

When we read above from the writer who claims that most cementing-of-rock processes occurs under water, he's the one writing the following in the same article: "Dissolved minerals in the ground water precipitate (crystallize) from water in the pore spaces forming mineral crusts on the sedimentary grains, gradually cementing the sediments, thus forming a rock." There you have it, that the cement does not form from dissolving, but from coming out of solution. The latter statement may not have been from the same person who insisted that rock cementing occurs under water, for Wikipedia articles can have more than one writer. As the writer uses "precipitation," it suggests that evaporation (i.e. drying) is necessary, yet this flies in the face of the underwater statement.

I've been noting that evolutionists / articles stay away from volcanic activity in discussions on sediments. They could appeal to volcanic activity to explain the abysmal plain, could they not? I'm sure they do, but it's not a pointed topic in their discussions on sediments. After millions of years, volcanic material could provide a lot of material in the plains. I've never read that mid-ocean volcanism can produce sand and pebbles. If it can, I would accuse evolutionists of keeping a secret, that the world's sands were formed from underwater volcanism. They would keep this secret because, not only does it evoke the Flood, but it robs them of the only other explanation for sand, erosion of rocks over millions of years. They desperately want the latter ingrained in everyone's mind.

Here is what they tell their students: "Sediments are produced by different forms of weathering such as glaciers, rain, snow, freezing, thawing, and plant growth [note: no volcanic activity mentioned]. All three categories of rocks, sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks become weathered. The sediments are then cemented together, forming new sedimentary rocks." So, the stupids view all sand as derived from weathered rock, even though weather does virtual zero to a rock throughout your entire lifetime. You really need to be science-dumb to take this view. They have no evidence that rocks erode sufficient to form the earth's entire supply of sedimentary rocks, yet they not only believe it, they teach it to my children against my will. That's why, when they are punished by God, I will be right there in happy agreement.

How did all that sand get to beach from rivers if no rivers flow to the beach? And there are vast deposits of sand far from the sea too. Where did all this sand come from? There had to be a day when there was no sand. We could agree that, on that day, the earth was pure igneous rock. The fool, without evidence, claims that these igneous rocks eroded to form all the sand on earth. He teaches this to my children against my will because he is sure that there has not been a Creator, nor a Flood. He doesn't allow me to believe in a Creator to the point of teaching my children the same; he insists that my children must be taught his view, where time is the creator of all things. Is this a small sin? All of life and existence screams a Creator, yet he is sure that time is the ultimate god. Given enough time, all things in Creation can be explained apart from a creator. Is that just a small thing? And he views his dogma as sacred, something so vastly important that my children MUST be taught it, and I am to pay the taxes that teach it to my sons. Clearly, demons seek to control minds, to pit them against God, and so on the day of their punishment, I will be right there in happy agreement.

We would like to press evolutionists on how they explain the precipitation of sand particles in sea water. It gets more difficult in that many sedimentary rocks are of pebble- and gravel-sized particles. With calm seas, a particle of sand does not float or hover around in the sea in order to become precipitation in the first place. No one expects pebbles to be precipitating in a normal sea. One can easily fathom pebbles and gravel pushed down a river bed by a flood of rainwater, but the normal sea can't do that. Therefore, the sea can neither cause sand to hover in the water, nor push it along on the floor. It doesn't come from outer space, and is not carried to deep sea by wind, though areas where desert sand touch upon the coast could have some of that (near the coast). How did pebbles and gravel get to become part of the sedimentary-rock world? The Flood model can explain this easily, as volcanic material raining down. It's exactly as though the evolutionists are avoiding the truth deliberately.

We go back to the idea pre-Flood cavities in the earth, filled with water. What happens when water from the sea flows down into the cavities for the very first time? First, magma is "pumped" out as ocean-sea lava; cavities then form under the floor, and finally water creeps or rushes in. It falls by gravity to the bottom of the cavities. It strikes molten material, sizzling. Can that cause the formation of sand? I'll bet it does, but the expert in metal smelting (from ore) might know for sure...though we should keep in mind that the rocks he works with may not be identical to planetary magma. Pure rock does not need cementing agents. If freezes, as does any other material. Freezing of rock is merely a molecular bond between like molecules, no cement needed. Frozen rock is not made of sand nor clay particles. It's just molecule after molecule of bonded material. Can water against molten rock cause some of it to splash away as small, frozen particles? In an experiment, we are not throwing a bit of water over a tub of molten material, but instantly immersing the tub with water. What happens?

As a hard, frozen or semi-frozen crust develops over the planetary magna, trapped internal heat under pressure will tend to push through it. I can imagine the molten material exploding through the frozen material while it's yet a thin shell so that more molten material contacts water, etc., etc. Can these explosions, predicted to form large chunks in various sizes, cause small particles to form too? Do the explosions continue non-stop until the smallest-possible particles are formed? Can this explain the true cause of an earthquake, when a relatively thick part of the semi-frozen material is bust through? Earthquakes are known to be related to volcanic zones, but as evolutionists reject internal cavities with semi-frozen rock sandwiched between water and magma, they came up with another idea for forming quakes, and I don't think it's an especially good one. A quake has an epicenter (pin-point center), which is not expected from shifting tectonic plates (expects longitudinal centers).

Water in cavities was destined to flow out to the surface, contributing to overall sea level. I can imagine that the sands, pebbles and gravels in the cavities were pushed out as well, forming the abysmal plains. We read above that abysmal plains are sand and clays laid flatly over rolling hills or jagged volcanism (it didn't say which, only that it wasn't flat underneath). But there was volcanic material spewed elsewhere, aside from the mid-ocean ridges, and evolutionists can entertain these as sources of sand.

I have always wondered about smooth stones. I've seen it as river rock. Evolutionists tell us that smooth stone is formed by long-term erosion as rocks are ROLLED down river beds in local floods. But this explanation may be a fine deception. If layers of smooth stones and pebbles have origin in the cavities above, they will eventually, once spewed upon the earth, be found by rivers. It could appear as though the rivers formed the stones. Lava spewed underwater is called, pillow lava, giving the impression of smooth roundness, you see. Why not also smooth pebbles and stones?

You see, when a molten piece of rock enters water, it is soft enough, at first, to be shaped roundish, because water pressure surrounds it, pressing in from all directions. That's it, the formation of roundish rocks. Might evolutionists be keeping this quiet, even though geologists know about it? It would figure, because evolutionists don't want people tampering with sedimentation formed from underwater volcanic debris. It gets us to the very heart of geologic truth, exactly where they don't want us. If this truth didn't support the Flood and oppose long-age erosion, they wouldn't mind us getting at it, but, as it is, they lie deliberately just so people won't have the truth about the Biblical God. They are worse than self-deceived fools. They are sinful rebels.

As we continue with Nye's arguments, he becomes confusing because he's confused. He starts to speak of huge rocks at the side of the road, up high in elevation, and he shows a simplistic view of the Flood thereby. He argues that, in the Flood, all large rocks should have fallen to the bottom of the sea first of all, followed by the lighter rocks and sand grains. But there are large rocks everywhere above the highest sedimentary rocks; I have them on my property, it's nothing new, and Creationists have no problem with this. Nye doesn't seem to realize the enormous erosion of material during the Flood, and continuing to the end of the Flood, when all sorts of pre-rock material was disturbed and knocked around. This type of rock (sedimentary) is jagged randomly, not smoothly round (though, sometimes, by chance, it can take a round shape).

In fact, large rocks out in the open serve as evidence of a gigantic Flood. If the rocks are too heavy to be moved by river floods, all the better to serve as evidence of Noah's Flood. Where's the problem? But then how does the evolutionary view explain these rocks? It doesn't have a massive flood to appeal to. You can't always appeal to glaciation as the method for moving giant rocks, because they exist around the equator too, we may assume.

If large pieces of soft sediments (in the Flood) were rolled over and over, or slid, miles from their sources, they are predicted to fall apart into small pieces...perfect for explaining random-shaped rocks of all sizes strewn throughout a terrain. The large ones that we see in the wide open can therefore be predicted to have been larger to begin with. We shouldn't necessarily think that such pieces were too soft to remain rock-shapes while pushed along by water, for sediments were formed under the pressure of a lot of weight.

"Many different sources have been proposed for the origin of silica cement in sandstone rocks." They apparently don't know for sure. "According to Pettijohn (1957) the mode of origin of silica cement in sandstone is not yet clearly established." Perhaps it was understood, but then the evolutionists decided they didn't want it, the truth, but preferred something else. Evolutionists will battle the truth with scientific "evidence" until their false theory stands as textbook truth. They have been doing this for about a century. Pettijohn believed that silicate is the most abundant cementation for sedimentary rocks. The reason that they don't know where it originates is that it may have been from the volcanism of Noah's Flood. They would never think to look there.

The following webpage has a title suggesting a study of, or report on, silicate, called "quartz," in the recycling of sediments. You can be sure that an idiot wrote this. You must not enter the book thinking that the writer is highly intelligent, or inclined toward truth. It is important that I remind you often that evolutionists are sheer idiots, who, with all the tools they need to see the truth, yet they report sheer garbage:

Of particular interest is the presence of silica cements on well-rounded quartz grains. Since quartz from the Beacon Supergroup is originally derived from basement rocks [deep, non-sedimentary rocks], these cements, which are only visible in a CL image [certain kind of light], are the only evidence that the grains have undergone recycling. In this case, recycling would involve being eroded, transported from their original source and re-deposited before being uplifted with the Transantarctic Mountains. Then they would subsequently be re-eroded and finally deposited offshore in the Victoria Land Basin. Silica cements seen in CL are the only way to differentiate these recycled grains from grains that have been transported straight from a basement source.

http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/PCAS_13/Williams%20SupervisedProject%20Quartz.pdf

The paragraph appears to be saying that the mere presence of silicate cement in the grains of quartz is proof that the grains have been eroded in the past, even more than once. I do not see why the idiot thinks so, except that he takes the position fed to him by leading evolutionists. That's what makes him the evolutionist's idiot. As he claims that the quartz is from basement rocks, he appears to be verifying that silicate cement has been accepted by some as having that source. But why does he insist that the cements "are the only evidence that the grains have undergone recycling"? I see the trick completely. Evolutionists came up against the fact that cements cannot be re-used for cementing recycled rocks, which utterly destroyed their theory of recycled rocks, and so, to save themselves, they found some "proof" that cement existing in sedimentary rocks means that they have already been recycled. It is like arguing with a mad man to argue, or have debates, with die-hard evolutionists. They are completely devoid of the morality needed for sticking to a truthful track, and will abuse science in any way to take any needed avenue that spoils things for a Creation model. When they are debated, they consistently use their false science dressed as respectable science, hoping that the listener will listen to it.

I showed a compelling argument that silicate cement does not get re-used after rocks are eroded. You can't grind rock down, then mix it with water, to form new rock. Period. It won't work. If it did work for the evolutionist, there would be rock formation along river sides where river depositions are made. Or, when you dig up clay (= tiny sand particles), it would become solid rock just by letting it dry out. If crushed rock could become hard again by adding water, they would sell it concrete mix. The idiot says: "Silica cements seen in CL [cathodoluminescence, big, respectable word] are the only way to differentiate these recycled grains from grains that have been transported straight from a basement source." He speaks as though it's a roundly accepted fact that cement in rock material is evidence of past erosion, while first-time rock from the basement has no silicate cement. This is a great way to kill the Flood model, and I think they concocted a tenet of science for this very purpose while saving their own theory. However, I do not think that all geologists accept this view above; it's too obviously in error for any geologist with morality.

It is imperative that they find a way to prove that silicate cement is reusable. The following fraction of a sentence says it all: "...indicates that the silica cements were precipitated during early diagenesis [= rebirth of recycled rocks]." There you have it; they teach that this type of cement can be precipitated and re-used. If one argues this point in a debate, the idiot simply appeals to the "well-established science." All of evolution continues to stand on the "experts" behind it. That is how they deceived, and brainwashed, the law-makers. The person on the street, which includes the law makers in most cases, finds it difficult to believe that scientists would be brazen liars with their science. If the person on the street favors atheism, or disfavors Creationism, it's all the more-expected of them to respect and uphold the evolutionist's science.

It's interesting that firing clay in some extreme heat causes it to become much harder, suggesting that the cements in clay have not yet taken affect, but can be made to take affect with sufficient heat. This does not play at all to the claim of re-use of cement in eroded rock, for, even if we entertain that false theory, it ends up lying in cool ocean waters or in cool ground during so-called uplifting (when sea floors become dry land). Besides, you can't erode hardened clay pots to make new hard clay by just adding water and/or pressure, or they would be doing it commercially. The hardening of clay in heat suggests that its cement can be made with planetary heat.

I assume that clay has a form of silicate cement, but not the same as found in sedimentary rocks. Clays (defined here as nutrient-poor soil) are always below rich soil, suggesting that they were laid immediately after the Flood, prior to the shedding of annual vegetation. If clays were formed from eroded rock, we should find some clay beds above soils. I've never seen that, have you? I have over a hundred acres of property with rocks jutting out in shallow soil. I purchased a mini-excavator to build my septic system, make my driveway, and drain my wetland. I have used it over 600 hours on this place, much of which was to dig down to the clay, to mix it with the black and oozy surface soil (highly acidic) in making a more-workable garden soil. I know the geology of my garden area. There is a foot or so of black soil over a couple of feet of brown sandy clay that is itself laid over a foot of grey clay that is itself directly over igneous rock (some of the brown clay shows grey-clay veins, meaning that the two were laid at the same time, mixing). There is no sedimentary rock here. There has never been any ice, from an Ice Age, over this garden. The geology that I have encountered here tells me what the Flood did at this area of the world. Instead of depositing sedimentary layers that turned to rock, it laid clay that never hardened. The Flood did not lay the soil, obviously, but, rather, the soil was formed from about 4,350 hundred years of rotting vegetation. I have absolutely no problem with this logical interpretation of my soils.

Why didn't the clay harden to rock? I assume that clays precipitated from Flood waters ("precipitate" does not always involved materials coming out of solution) just as sedimentary rocks had. Can we say that clays remained uncemented because they were laid with little water left above them (during the Flood's receding) i.e. with less water pressure over them? I don't think so, because, if clays could be made into rock just by adding pressure, there would be a commercial use for that too, such as in making building blocks. If clays could be hardened to rock just by applying pressure over too-long a time to make building blocks affordable (or commercially viable), we would have heard about other rock products (e.g. artwork) made by compressed clays. Therefore, typical clays that can be fired hard in kilns are predicted to have a different sort of cement than sandstone, mudstone, or similar forms of sedimentary rock. You can't fire sand grains in a kiln to make a piece of artwork or pottery. Sand won't stick together just by adding heat.

Mudstone is important for this discussion, because it's supposedly made of mud. But we all know that mud doesn't turn to rock just by letting it dry out. The "mud" of mudstone is basically the same as sandstone. "Clay" has a different definition in geology, where they define it as the specific size of silica particles. These clay-sized particles were not necessarily from what we ordinarily understand as clay soil. The evolutionists would like for us to think so, as that compliments his recycled-rock dogma, but, clearly, mudstone, having clay-sized particles, is not the same as clay soil. The evolutionist would be loath to distinguish clay soils from rock material, as that raises "dangerous" questions? Mudstone was, as with other sedimentary rocks, directly from basement rocks (body of magma), but clay soils may have been from the soil of the pre-Flood earth, washed of all its richness, mulch and nutrients. If correct, pre-Flood inhabitants had the ability to wash their soil of vegetative matter, or not, and fire pottery in a kiln. Or, clay soils today may simply be a different form of basement-rock material issued from Flood volcanism.


The Nature of Light

What exactly was the CL mentioned in a quote above? "Cathodoluminescence is the inverse of the photoelectric effect, in which electron emission is induced by irradiation with photons." Albert Einstein, the inventor of the modern photon, was credited with the discovery of photoelectricity, a fancy word defined as the emission of electrons from a lit substance. All lit materials can be made to eject electrons. That's because a ray of light consists of electrons, not photons. Einstein had the discovery correct, but misinterpreted the nature of light. Cathodoluminescence is the bombardment of a material with electrons to produce light. All materials struck by electrons produce what we call reflected light (not the light source). That's because reflected light formation is to be defined as materials struck with electrons (from the wave of a light source). The electron beam used in Cathodoluminescence is artificial, man-made, and can cause some materials to glow rather than merely reflecting light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodoluminescence

Just so that you understand me, let me clarify. A light source emits / fires electrons from a material, but not anywhere near 186,000 miles per second. Every electron fired by the source moves into the electromagnetic field of an electron in front of it, which is merely to say that the negative charge of one electron acts on the negative charge of another one so that the emitted electron repels the next electron forward, pushing it in the same direction. There is "contact" between the two, but it's not physical contact. They make contact only through their inter-repulsion forces. This is defined as a wave, with the electrons acting as the wave medium. You have never heard of this theory on light mechanics, because it's my own, and it's very correct, albeit there is more to it than I can fathom.

The second electron pushes the third in the same way, and so on, forming the wave. None of the electrons moves far. None of them move like projectiles through space. They are fixed in space, and thus act as a wave medium. They are not fixed in such a way as they cannot move at all, for they do move about, as wind moves them, for example, yet they tend to take equidistance from one another due to their inter-repulsion. They can be defined as a fluid grid.

The wind is to be defined as a combination of electrons and air. There is no air that doesn't have the electrons. The latter fill the space between air atoms. This is the starting point of all understanding in the field of energy, and evolutionists, fools that they are, have missed it. The air is filled with free electrons ever flowing back into outer space, their origin. The suns sends them into the atmosphere, a thing known by evolutionists, yet the fools do not realize, or do not wish to realize, that the solar electrons are the light-wave medium. They prefer to stick with Einstein's photon, a fantasy. They know that solar electrons are not moving anywhere near 186,000 mps, but their theory of evolution benefits greatly with a photon moving at 186,000 mps.

Their theory also benefits greatly from one of their fantasies: all atoms inter-attract. The truth is the opposite: free electrons, whether they be the ones between gas atoms, or the ones between liquid and solid atoms, cause all atoms to inter-repel. Liquids and solids are defined as merged atoms that attract one another stronger by their merger than they repel one another by the electrons in their midst. It's the electrons in their midst that causes liquid atoms to unmerge, and thereby to revert to the gas state. Once the density of free electrons between liquid atoms reaches boiling point, the atoms unmerge and revert to a gas. To put it another way, the boiling point of any liquid is the point at which there are sufficient free electrons to unmerge the atoms. The gas atoms will not come back together in merger unless something forces them. Precipitation of gas atoms upon a solid surface forces them to merge (for example, dew on a leaf when vapor molecules are pulled to the leaf by gravity).

Back to the light wave. The third electron pushes the forth in a very straight line. They all repel one another in a straight line. I have not been able to understand why light moves as a wave in a very straight line. A wave of light energy "travels" in a straight line from source to target, wherefore I call it a longitudinal wave. The light wave will not bend around objects as it passes them. Physicists decided to adopt the photon projectile, for bullets travel in a straight line. But they did not give the light-wave view a chance to explain the straight line; they quickly adopted the photon as though the life of their evolutionary Frankenstein depended upon it. This monster was only beginning to walk when Einstein gave them the photon. From that day onward, Einstein was credited with being a genius...for being wrong about the photon, and a lot more.

Einstein came up with the impossible, MASSLESS photon. Every particle has mass, but Einstein's invention could not stand if the photon had mass. That's because a particle with mass, traveling at 186,000 mps, is a bullet that will pierce your body. A single ray of light from the sun upon your face has enough photons to wipe the flesh from the skull, and disintegrate the skull...unless the photon has no mass. Suddenly, magic was placed into the field of physics. The magic photon, it could do many amazing things. And the stupids continue to teach to this day that light is both a photon projectile and a wave. The lunatics teach that the photon moves as a wave. But everyone knows that a wave has no projectiles. A wave of water has no projectiles, aside from the one that starts the wave (e.g. a stone thrown into a lake).

The reality is that the sun ejects elections, and each ejected one is the stone that causes a light wave. When the last electron in the wave hits your face, it sends electrons into your skin, and you feel this as warmth. The electrons do not enter deep into the skin, but merely on the surface. That's because the sun is ejecting electrons at a much slower velocity that 186,000 mps. Just go with logic, and deny the magic silver bullet that evolutionists use to prop up their monster.

Nye not only gets confusing, I sometimes don't grasp his points. In the debate with Ham, he arrives to cosmology, where stars are moving apart, and he says this fact suggests a big bang sending material outward. But that's hasty, for there is not a reliable method to prove that stars are moving apart. In the same way that evolutionists are dishonest with geology, evolutionists are dishonest with cosmology. They all seek to murder the Creator with their specialized brands of science. And so Nye assumes with the whole gang of fellow lunatics that the big bang was some 14 billion years ago, and he of course asks how there can be stars more than 6,000 light years away if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet science has not reliably proved that stars are that far away. In fact, there is no reliable proof that galaxies exist as anything but exploded stars within our own galaxy, which I think is the only galaxy (the full created universe) anywhere.

You've been so conditioned about galaxies that you would take me for some sort of flat-earth nut for my denial of galaxies. But that would be a stretch. We can plainly see the many evidences for a spherical earth, but we cannot know how far the "galaxies" are. Rather than galaxies having billions of stars, each one is merely an exploded star with many clusters of bright material. For all we know, they show us galaxies only after time-lapse photography, to get the bright spots brighter than the reality. When you see a cosmic nebula, it's actually invisible to the eye; they use time-lapse photography to get it to become much brighter than it really is.

Measuring stars by triangulation, the method Nye points out, is clearly being abused by the goons who came to control cosmology. The differential in angles would be too small to measure reliably. They are manipulating their own science to net as large of a universe as possible...because, the larger it is, the more that a young earth looks ridiculously wrong. We should not be naive to the tricks they use. They want an ancient universe so that they can make sport of Genesis, and the way they have the cosmos rigged (with a big bang), the bigger it is, the older it is. Don't forget: the bigger the universe, the older they can claim it to be. That's why 186,000 mph is important for them.

Just try to imagine how relatively short the base of the triangle would be when its the distance of the earth between January 1 and July 1 (93 million plus 93 million = 186 million miles). In the triangle, a star five light years away then has an apex 186,000 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.24 x 5 miles away from the base. Do you really believe that science can reliably measure the angle between the base and apex? They would have you believe that they are able to achieve this with stars much further than five light years.

Get out your surveyor's instrument (it's like a telescope). Set it up on a stand on your front porch. Point it to a star, any star, on April 1. Or, you can even point it to the moon. Put the cross-hairs of the instrument dead-center on the star or moon. Next, wait six months, and do not move the instrument even a hair, or the experiment will be spoiled. You are waiting for the star or moon to come back into view, and you want to see how far to the left or right of dead-center the star or moon is now. This will determine the differential of angle between April 1 and October 1. The only problem is, the star or moon will not come into view in the instrument because it will be in another part of the sky six months later. He now needs to move his instrument to focus on the star in some other part of the sky. How does the evolutionist deal with this problem without spoiling the experiment? How does he measure the angle of a star using this method with this problem? I don't think he's telling. I think he wants only to make you think it's a reliable and easy thing to measure the angle differential of stars six months apart.

In other words, he's got the telescope pointed at one part of the sky on April 1, and then needs to move it to another part of the sky if he wants to see the same star at that time. How possibly can he measure the angle differential if he needs to re-point the telescope? They would need to adjust for this problem, and could easily add a component to the adjustment technicalities that always gets a larger angle, thus making the star measure further from earth than it really is. You may think that the amazing abilities of scientists reach the point of miraculous or even magical; they can do just about anything. The truth is, they lie, they really can't prove all the things they claim they can. Black holes? They lie. Warped space? They lie. Planets in other solar systems? They lie. Sedimentary rocks on Mars? It's a hoax.

Of course, stars are not light years apart, and the earth is not 93 million miles from the sun, nor is the moon some 240,000 miles from earth. It is not true that light particles travel 186,000 miles per second. They measure the distance to the moon and sun by their assumption that light particles travel at that speed. If they are wrong, their solar system shrinks accordingly in size. One form of triangulation is called parallax: "Accurate calculations of distance based on stellar parallax require a measurement of the distance from the Earth to the Sun, now based on radar reflection off the surfaces of planets". Why don't they measure the distance to the sun using triangulation, if it's so reliable? Instead, they use the reflection of radar light, which they think is moving at 186,000 mps. They time the radar beam, how long it takes to bounce off of Venus and come back to their detection equipment, and from this they not only get the distance to Venus, but claim to be able to calculate the distance to the sun with that information. But the calculation of distance to Venus is wrong because the radar does not move as fast as they think it does.

Nothing can move at 186.000 mps. There is nothing in the real world to propel particles to such a velocity. They use the big bang, likely, as the original propulsion force of particles to 186,000 mps, and they conveniently believe that these particles never slow down, not even when they make contact with one another. Every physicist knows that objects making contact slow one another down with each contact, but in the fantasia of cosmological physics, particles never lose net energy after contacts. They rigged this up in order to maintain the speed of light at a constant velocity. They prepared their vast speed of light for to proclaim a universe much larger than the reality.


True Distance to the Sun

Wake up and smell the reality; they have everything rigged to create their own fantasy. In many cases, they are simply willing fools to believe the wrong interpretation of the data just because it benefits evolutionary long ages. You just read above that triangulation cannot work unless they know the distance to the sun. I don't know why they need that information, but this work I'm about to show you has the sun almost eight times nearer to the earth than they claim. What does this do to their measurement of the stars using parallax?

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 0.0003 arcsec [says who?]. This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Try to imagine how small the angle is when the base of the triangle is 2 centimeters wide, while the star is more than 5 kilometers away. Can they really measure it correctly? Are they close, even if they are wrong, or is this a hoax to begin with, the express purpose of which was, from the start, to enlarge the universe fantastically? They needed some method to do it, and there you have only one. They have another method claiming to know the distance to the far stars, and to other galaxies. Do you really think you should trust them for these things? "In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can now precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements." Something is wrong. They are putting out information to make us believe that the early pioneers in triangulation had the measurements correct because, look now, they can go as far as 10,000 light years. Who can argue against it? But NASA is in the business of advancing sheer hoaxes. It has lately become obvious. For example, they have taken pictures of an earth landscape with sedimentary rocks, and claimed it to be the Mars landscape. These kinds of tricks are exciting for them, to see how far they can make fools of you.

If you click over to the parallax article, and scroll down to the drawing, Stellar Parallax Motion, you will see that they determine the angle using the background scene, or the stars behind the star that's being measured. But they don't know whether the neighboring stars are nearer or further than the star they are measuring. They claim to know, but there is cause not to believe their methods. They can't claim to use parallax to know the relative distances to stars because it involves circular reasoning. That is, if the distance to stars is wholly dependant on parallax measurements, then they can't know beforehand whether stars are in another star's background versus foreground. They can't even get past the first star's measurement reliably. But even if they do know, are you going to trust such small angles on this method of measurement? Surely, this is a hoax, for if they are measuring stars in light-year distances, that in itself is a huge red flag?

Unless the angle is known, they cannot conclude the distance to the star. There is cause for doubt, and the very fact that they claim to have achieved virtual perfection with these methods is a red flag signalling a hoax. The greater their claim to perfection, as we saw NASA doing above, the greater the likelihood for a hoax. Honest scientists will tell you it's not reliable.

If their triangulation measurements and their speed-of-light measurements give the same distance for the moon, there you have another red flag where rigging is expected on both counts. It's the same situation as rock dating. They have multiple ways to date rocks, and when one dating system give the "wrong" date, they chalk it up to error, then adjust for the correction. In the same way, measuring cosmological distances nets varying measurements, but only the "right" ones are accepted and disseminated. Who gets to choose the right ones? Not the Creationist, that's for sure. If it sounds unprofessional, that's why Creationists keep telling everyone they can concerning the unreliability.

They want the universe as large as possible, which is why their 93-million-mile distance to the sun is an outrageous but deliberate "error". I have discovered a way to measure the solar distance with some undeniable accuracy, so long as the details for the moon are factual as given to us from astronomy. One needs to have eclipse data for this method, not all of it online. One can, with sufficient data -- and astronomy knows it -- figure the angles of eclipse lines. This is some of the information not made available to the public, upon eclipse pages, for obvious reason of protecting the lie of evolutionists. To explain this to yourself, do a simple drawing of the shape of both a lunar and a solar eclipse. You need only two circles on the page, one for the moon and earth, a straight, vertical line to indicate the earth's umbra shadow, and four angled lines (two lines for each eclipse) to the edges of the sun (off the page at a mystery location).

NASA has the information to tell how large the earth's shadow is during any one lunar eclipse, and it has the data to tell you where the "axis" or tip is for any lunar shadow in any solar eclipse. You need one or the other but not both to get the correct angles for both sets of lines. I have found webpages by Fred Espenak that give the location of the axis.

It is not easy to come across the diameters of earth shadows where the moon crosses through them, which I think is for obvious reason of not allowing the man on the street to calculate the distance to the sun. [After writing here, I learned how two numbers from Espenak pages can reveal the exact diameters of the earth's shadow, and found that they lie on dead-center eclipses. This was exciting to find, all explained later.]

One can find the tip of either the lunar-eclipse or solar-eclipse lines by figuring out the angles of the lines. You do not need to figure out the angles in degrees, but in miles or kilometers. That is, an angled line is defined as stretching along in one direction by x amount while moving out, in a direction perpendicular to the first, by y amount. Don't let me lose you here. This is easy. I'll explain it this way: if you have your sun off the right side of the page, the two lines for either eclipse will stretch x amount toward the right while expanding (moving away from one another) toward the top and bottom by y amount. That is the angle of the line expressed in miles toward the sun versus miles of expansion. As I go on, I will deal with only the two top lines, expanding toward the top of the page.

This is a big deal because it exposes the fraud of astronomy. Any astronomer with the data can expose this, and so there may be a tight lid on the data, as in fact there seems to be. Doesn't everyone want to know the diameter of a lunar shadow upon the earth when one is at a page with details for a solar eclipse? That seems natural enough? Doesn't everyone want to know the diameter of the earth's shadow when one is at a lunar-eclipse page? Yet, I spent 12 hours yesterday seeking these things, or keeping an eye out for them, and did not find them. Isn't that amazing? It was astonishing, in fact.

Just think about this. Amateur astronomers study the lunar eclipse. They want to know how wide the shadow is, and have only the times of moon positions to go with. They can figure out only the width of the umbra (perhaps not perfectly but close) where the moon passes through it. NASA could spare the amateur all that work by simply adding this information to the page, and can also add the diameter of the umbra while it's at it, to spare amateur the problem of figuring it out for themselves. NASA is a dirty little secret, isn't it? Later, I will show you a description page describing an enormous amount of detail for lunar eclipses, details useful only for the very-serious astronomer types, yet the page leaves out the diameter of the umbra, the distance of the moon from the earth during the eclipse, and the lunar velocity, LEAVING OUT EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW TO CALUCLATE DISTANCE TO THE SUN.

To find the distance to the sun, you need to know only two things as per a lunar eclipse: 1) the diameter of the earth's deep shadow (umbra, not penumbra) when the moon is midway through it, and, 2) how far from the earth the center of the shadow is at that time. This information alone will get you the angle of the lunar-eclipse lines to the sun; you don't need the lunar velocity if the umbra diameter is given (the velocity is useful to figure the umbra diameter if it's not given). The top lunar-eclipse line on your drawing will extend from the edge of the earth's shadow to the edge of the earth to the edge of the sun. Very simple.

For the solar eclipse, you want to know one thing: the diameter of the lunar shadow on the earth. If you have that, you can calculate for yourself where the tip/axis of the lunar shadow would be (in the earth, or behind it). There is a question on whether to trust any page that gives you the location of the tip, because the information can be calculated backward, starting from the premise that the sun is 93 million miles away. These pieces of information may not be from observable, hands-on measurements, but may be from mathematical theory, based on the 93-million figure. The only way to know where the tips of either shadow are, per given eclipse, is from the measured diameters of the shadows.

If you can find the diameter of the shadow upon the earth, you can draw a line from the edge of that shadow to the edge of the moon to the edge of the sun. Perfect. Once you have a perfect lunar-eclipse line to compliment a perfect solar-eclipse line, they will tell you both the distance to the sun and the sun's diameter. I am not kidding, and have spent enough time on this to know that there is no mistake about it.

It is best if the earth is the same distance from the sun for both the lunar and solar eclipse that you use, but even if not, you will get a good approximation. I'll show the approximation below.

Once you have your lines drawn, you don't really need to know their angles in degrees, if you don't know how to figure them out or work with them. You need only to know grade four math, and these two things: 1) how many miles wider (toward the top of the page) the lunar-eclipse line gets per every one mile toward the sun; 2) ditto for the solar-eclipse line. The solar-eclipse line spreads out more than the lunar-eclipse line; if it doesn't, you've done something wrong, or have been fed the wrong information. You don't need to work in individual miles. You can easily -- VERY EASILY -- figure out the number of lunar distances needed (toward the sun) before the solar-eclipse line catches up with (meets) the lunar-eclipse line. That point is the solar distance, at the edge of the sun.

Let me put it this way: when you first start out, having all four lines in the drawing, all you know is that the sun will be at a mystery distance but in contact with the two lunar-eclipse lines, and in contact with the solar-eclipse lines. It's a no-brainer that the mystery distance is where the two sets of lines meet. Once you are confident that this method is reliable, that's why you won't be able to easily find the information needed.

One can do this with approximate numbers and still shame the astronomers, if the earth's shadow can be found at 6,000 miles or more when the sun is at a distance equal to the solar distance during a solar eclipse having an axis at the center of the earth. A lunar shadow with an axis at the center of the earth will have a shadow width, on the earth's surface, of about 35 miles when: 1) the moon is at it's average distance; 2) the lunar shadow's tip is at the center of the earth. But this is a gross estimate because the sun's specific distance to the earth can change the size of the lunar shadow.

We have the following fact to work with, providing the average lunar distance and lunar diameter (2,160 miles) given to us are true: the solar eclipse line has an angle of 224.7 miles toward the sun for every mile of spreading out, when the moon is at its average distance (238,700 miles), and when the line starts at the center of the earth. It's a great tool because the astronomer can't argue against it. The math looks like this: (238,700 + 3,960) / 1,080 = 224.68, where 3,960 is the distance between earth core and earth surface, and 1,080 is the lunar radius. The latter is the amount or distance of spreading between the center of the earth and the edge of the moon. The 224.7 figure is not likely the one you will use. You will need to calculate your own figure (based on the math above) according to the actual distance of the moon during any one solar eclipse.

Fact: a solar eclipse line with its tip at the center of the earth will spread wider by half a lunar diameter (2160 / 2 = 1080 miles) per lunar distance toward the sun. Look at your drawing and verify the truth of that statement. This is one of the two legs that your science will stand on, so get it right, understand it. It's simple. To find how deep behind the earth's sun-face surface the axis / tip of a lunar shadow will be, find the radius of the lunar shadow on the earth's surface, and multiply by your particular number with which you replace my 224.7.

Using a lunar shadow with an axis at the center of the earth is advantageous, for simplicity sake, because the calculation for lunar-eclipse line can be started at the center line of the earth too, which is where that line crosses the edge of the earth. This way, both the lunar-eclipse and solar-eclipse lines have the same starting line for this "race". As I said, the solar-eclipse line will run faster (i.e. spread out) than the other.

Now find how much the lunar-eclipse line spreads out. With the earth's shadow at 3,000 miles in radius, while the earth is 3.960 miles in radius, the lunar-eclipse line will spread out about 959 miles per lunar distance. Look at your drawing and verify that this is correct. The line from the earth's shadow grows 959 miles over one lunar distance. It's simple. That is the angle of the lunar-eclipse line. And the solar-eclipse line grows by 1080 miles over the same basic distance. You thereby have your ammunition to tear down the halls of science.

As you can see, the solar-eclipse line will catch up to the lunar-eclipse line by about 121 miles (straight upward) per lunar distance; at the earth, the two lines begin about 3,960 miles apart. It means that the sun's distance is calculated with: 3,960 / 121 = 32.7 lunar distances = 7.8 million miles. Isn't that exciting? Tearing down the walls of science can be a lot of fun.

We haven't yet verified that the sun is 7.8 million miles away; we merely used a 6,000-mile umbra to get that figure, and so we need to go out and find a way to measure the umbra. Are you into this, hombre? What if it's bigger than 6,000 miles? The sun gets even closer. You can't pay to have more excitement than this.

Once you know the exact number of lunar distances to the sun, you can know the solar diameter too. That's because the lunar-eclipse line grows about 959 miles per lunar distance. As the lunar-eclipse line rises 959 miles per each of the lunar distances, you find the solar radius simply with this: 959 x number of lunar distances, and then throw in the one earth radius at the very start of the race. If we use 32.7 lunar distances, the math: 959 x 32.7 + 3960 = 35,000 miles approximately. Spread the news; let's all get murdered together.

I realize that math makes for dry reading, but this is a project, not an exciting fictional novel. Someone will make the movie a few generations from now, after they realize we martyrs were right. How much does this shrink the solar system? Are the relative distances between planets based upon the distance to the sun, or are planetary distances measured separately? We saw that they measure the distance to Venus by their speed-of-light figure, but once the distance to one planet is known, they say they can calculate the rest with math.

So, if their light-speed figure is too high, making Venus much closer to the earth than they think, then all the planetary orbits shrink accordingly. Therefore, the goons raised the distance to the sun with the raising of the speed of light to erroneous levels. The distance to Venus cannot be known by light-speed until the speed of light between Earth and Venus is known. They wanted a constant speed of light so that they could spread their erroneous view of the universe, but, the fact is, light is a wave, and waves do not move at the same speed unless the wave medium is always identical. There is more density in wave particles (electrons) between Earth and Venus than between Earth and Mars. Sorry, but that's the reality. And the speed of light outside of our solar system is a turtle in comparison with the speed between here and Venus.

So, here is what happened in the 18th century. They (who?) figured the distance to the sun using parallax on Venus, and they got a figure near 93 million. You can bet that this crew, which included Mr. Halley as a chief instigator, was part of the movement toward evolutionary time periods. They were already working on a big universe by the time that the first Rothschild was alive. The same Rosicrucians to which Isaac Newton belonged formed the Royal Society of London, and this was under the Crown, which is how it achieved international respect. Religious mutants with atrocious religious bents did scheme. That is the history of the Enlightenment. Fools who gave the work darkness for light. If anything is preposterous, it's the evolutionist calling someone else preposterous, not realizing that it applies a hundred times worse to himself.

Under the condition that the lunar eclipse was at the average lunar distance, the sun works out to about 94 million miles away when the eclipse takes place where the earth's shadow (a cone) is about 5,780 miles wide. If the eclipse were taking place where the shadow is about 5,760 miles wide, the solar-eclipse line would be parallel with the lunar-eclipse line, meaning that the two lines would never meet at the edge/surface of the sun. As we know that the two lines must meet, the earth's shadow must be greater than 5,760 miles for the average eclipse. That gives you a glimpse of what we're dealing with. All we need to know is the diameters of the earth's shadow as reported by NASA. Where are they? If they felt comfortable reporting false figures, they would, but as they are not reporting any figures, true or false, at least not where Google brings us in a search, it appears that NASA is a little fraidy cat between the knees.

We don't easily find the velocity of the moon for any one lunar eclipse. Without the lunar velocity, we can't find the exact diameter of the umbra by using the times of lunar positions during an eclipse. Lunar velocity is always changing, wherefore one would think NASA to be kind, sparing a lot of researchers a lot of work, by offering lunar velocities along with all their other eclipse data. But, just wait until you see their false entries on two very-important eclipses. I don't see any way for NASA to clear itself because it did the same thing with at least two different eclipses, and it did it very dangerously, making it easy for itself to get caught. Why would it do id under such risk? Because, the alternative, is to have someone like me find their 93-million-mile hoax.

Take a look at the three total eclipses presented at the top of the page below. None of them have the moon through the center of the shadow.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/lunar.html

Standard lunar-eclipse data often gives the time for moon travel from when it's first fully within the umbra to when it's first fully out again. That distance of travel represents the full width of the shadow. If that sounds great, it's not so much, because the full width of the shadow traversed by the moon means little if it's not the width at the center of the shadow. The width at the center is the diameter; that's what we need to know. NASA could give the diameters in plain black and white. Instead, it hides the diameters; only the learned get to know them, and, moreover, there are false entries. Don't rush through this if you want to know.

Put it this way: if the moon were moving straight across the center of the umbra, that information would reveal the umbra's diameter...under the condition that we had the lunar velocity. And the velocity is easy to discover with an eclipse like that. At first, I thought that NASA would never offer an eclipse with the moon moving straight through the center. I then found that they have secretly revealed the umbra diameters in their eclipse data. After that, I discovered two near-central lunar eclipses where one can prove without an umbra of a doubt that the sun is less than seven million miles away, and it was these two eclipses where they entered false data to slow the moon down to impossible speeds. To be clear, they did not offer the lunar velocities, but as the lunar paths were central enough to discover the velocities for ourselves, NASA entered false times to slow the velocities, and thus artificially shrank the diameter of the umbrae. One might never discover this unless one were seeking the true umbra diameter.

Look at the top three eclipses at the page above, noting that from the time of kissing the umbra, to the time of being fully immersed, there is significantly more than one lunar diameter. Trying to get the velocity for these examples has uncertainty, because we don't know the distance traveled between the two points. There is a gap showing between the two moons representing the two positions, and we cannot use the size of the umbra to determine the size of the gap because we don't yet know the size of the umbra. We need to assume that the size of the umbra in the diagrams is not to scale, anyway, and that would make the size of the gap not to scale with the size of the moon. Basically, you can't use the measurements of the items in diagram with certainty. Put it this way, that if they don't want us to know the diameter of the umbra, they probably won't give us the diagrams to scale.

But, now, let's go to a lunar eclipse that has the moon more central, almost dead on, at the page below. In the drawing, there is no gap between the two positions under discussion.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEprime/2001-2100/LE2018Jul27Tprime.html

. The eclipse above (July 27, 2018) is shown on the page below The page below gives the times. As there is no gap between moons in the first two umbra positions, we will at first think that we can find the velocity to near precision by the fact that one lunar diameter of travel took place between 18:24 pm and 19:30...one hour and six minutes = 1.1 hour. The moon was supposedly traveling at 2,160 / 1.1 = 1,964 mph. But this is supposedly impossible because they say the slowest moon travel is 2,163 mph. What went wrong?
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEprime/2001-2100/LE2018Jul27Tprime.html

There are two options to answer the question. One, they entered the wrong times to throw us off. Or, there was not truly one lunar diameter between the two positions (U1 and U2). Instead, there was more than one lunar diameter of travel, only they didn't show it in the diagram. If the moon was moving its slowest at 2,163, the math looks like this: 2,163 x 1.1 = 2,379 miles of travel between U1 and U2. We are to conclude that the drawing should be showing a gap of at least 219 miles (2,379 - 2,160), which appears impossible from the particular lunar path, almost dead-center. The calculation for this event's shadow diameter is done in the next chapter, getting a lunar path, through the umbra, of 6,078 miles while using a more-realistic gap of about 60 miles.

Lesson learned: don't trust the sizes and positions of items in drawings, and be skeptical of the time entries on eclipses that have near-central paths.

If we have a moon passing through the direct center of the shadow, there cannot be any gap between U1 and U2. Think about this before you read on. The time for the U2 entry has got to be the very end of the U1 travel. There is to be zero gap between them. We can grasp this. If they have a gap, they are in the wrong. They would never show a gap between two moons that enter straight down the center pipe.

In the 2018 eclipse above, the distance traveled between U2 and U4 appears to be one full width exactly of the particular umbra that the moon passed through. The U2-U4 path was from 19:30 to 22:19, or 2.82 hours. Even if we use the smallest velocity possible, the math looks like this: 2,163 x 2.82 = 6,100 miles. This is good for us and bad for them because the path measured by that number is not yet as large as the diameter of the umbra. However, there can be a gap (that they have failed to show) between U3 and U4, and it's predicted to be the same size (or smaller in this case) then the gap found above between U1 and U2. We can do little at this point but agree that these two gaps exist, and so we trust the times given to us. The latter gap requires that we remove its distance from the 6,100 figure in order to discover the precise width of the umbra passed though by the moon. The gap between U1 and U2 was found to be between 219 and 495 miles, depending on the velocity of the moon at the time.

To find the size of the gap, we use the perigee and apogee calculator at the page below, which tells us that, on July 27, 2018, the date of the eclipse under discussion, the moon will be at apogee, defined as one of the furthest distances the moon ever gets from the earth. It's known that when the moon is at apogee, it's moving in orbit at some of its slowest velocities. We can therefore know that the gap cannot be larger than about 219 miles. Even if we go with 235, the 6,100 becomes 5,865 (this is over-generous to make a point).
https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

If one wanted to, one could do the math to find the angle of each lunar-eclipse line for an umbra shadow 5,865 miles wide, at the lunar distance of 406,222 miles (252,426 miles) from earth. That's the figure at the apogee calculator for July 27, 2018. Here is the math: (3960 - (5865 / 2) = 1,027.5 miles of rise per 252,426 miles toward the sun. If you wish to find solar-eclipse lines in pairing up with this eclipse, just convert the angles of both the solar- and lunar-eclipse lines for miles up per mile toward the sun. In the case above, it's: 252,426 / 1,027.5 = 245.67 miles toward the sun per one mile up. You don't even have to do the thinking because I've got the math prepared for you. Just plug you own figures in. Just remember here, the 5,865 is the minimum umbra diameter.

I doubt very much that you will use the lunar eclipse above, anyway, because there are at least two much better ones. The evolutionist's knees should be rattling at the sight of this.

In the page for this eclipse, note the figure for the so-called "U. radius." That's the umbral radius given in degrees. One can get the impression that this is half the umbral diameter, but it turns out not to be. The figure given for the umbral radius is .6488 degrees. Degrees of what circle? One imagines that this is the size of the umbral radius on the circle of the lunar orbit. That's what I thought at first. But then I found their page where the umbral radius is defined:

"the apparent geocentric angular radius (in degrees) of Earth's penumbral [should be "umbral"] shadow at the distance of the Moon at the instant of Greatest Eclipse."

http://eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEhelp/LEdatakey.html

That sentence is exactly the same for his entry on "Penumbral Radius," meaning that he mistakenly entered "penumbral" in his entry for the Umbral Radius. The problem is, what does he mean by "apparent geocentric angular radius"??? The "apparent" part is probably the key to figuring out what is meant, but the following helps greatly (from a NASA page):

For instance, the Moon is located r = 384,000 km from Earth and it has a radius of d = 1,738 km, so its angular radius is 1,738/384,000 = 0.0045 radians. Since 1 radian = 57.3 degrees, the angular radius of the Moon is 0.0045 x 57.3 = 0.26 degrees, so its diameter is 0.52 degrees as viewed from Earth.

http://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/education/pdfs/Deep3.pdf

What they do is to divide the lunar radius by the average lunar distance (384,000 kilometers) to find what fraction of the distance one lunar radius is. Don't ask me why they do this, because it's over my head. It apparently has nothing to do with the lunar-orbit circle. The long and the short of it seems to be that angular radius, or the .6488 degrees listed under "U. Radius," is NOT a fraction or piece of distance within the lunar-orbit circle, but a piece of the circle of the sky as viewed from earth. That should explain the use of "apparent GEOCENTRIC angular radius." If you divide the circle of the sky into 360 units, the moon is .52, or about half, of one of them (one line up 692 moons in the full circle of the sky). In that case, the umbral radius on the eclipse page is not the true radius (in miles or kilometers) of the umbra, but rather is the APPARENT radius as seen from earth. I am very happy to have been able to bring this to you, in case you might have confused "U. Radius" with the true umbral radius.

The next question has to do with a comparison of .6488 and the angular radius of the moon, .26. Is this a comparison of the size of the moon versus the size of the umbra? Yes, and no. Not if we're taking their true sizes; yes if we're talking their apparent sizes as viewed from earth at different lunar positions. The figure, .6488, is 2.5 times larger than .26, suggesting that the umbra will be (in 2018) 2.5 times larger than the moon. If we do the math, 2.5 x 2160, we get an umbral diameter of 5,400 miles. We saw that the umbra could not be that small, wherefore 2.5 x 2160 is uncalled for (irrelevant). The .6488 figure is therefore the relative size of the umbra in comparison with a moon that changes size depending on how far or near it is from earth. The moon does not always have a size of .26 degrees. That might be the average. I've seen it with a figure larger than .27. As the moon will be at apogee for this 2018 eclipse, it will be at its smallest. In the meantime, because it's at its furthest from the earth, it will pass through a smaller part of the umbra (the latter is a cone shape, ever smaller with distance from the earth).

The page below has details for an eclipse in January of 2019. As the eclipse above was in July, one might get the impression that it should have formed a much-larger umbra than any one in January, for as the sun is closer to earth in January, the shadow will be smaller. However, there is another factor in the size of the shadow that overrides this. The eclipse below has a U Radius figure of .7634, meaning it's larger than the .6488 umbra above. This 2019 eclipse will be on January 21, which the perigee and apogee calculator has smack at perigee, the closest (largest) the moon comes to earth. Both the moon and the umbra become largest at perigee, verifying for us amateurs that the other factor for umbra size is the distance of the moon from Earth. It's a no-brainer, anyway, but it's good to know that two factors are combined in umbra sizes.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2019Jan21T.pdf

The apparent sizes of the umbra and the moon for any one lunar eclipse are directly related to their true sizes, yet I have not seen any data in the eclipse pages that tell the apparent diameter of the moon. THAT IS VERY SUSPCIOUS. It again suggests that they don't want us to know the umbra diameter. We know the true size of the moon out there, but are not given the true size of the umbra in plain black and white. They give us the apparent size of the umbra as seen from earth, but they have not given us the corresponding apparent size of the moon. What is going on? It's exactly what one expects when seeking to know the real distance to the sun when he thinks that the NASA gurus are lying to us. .

Back to the eclipse of July, 2018. It shows a gamma figure of .1168. Gamma is defined by the same website as "the distance (in units of equatorial Earth radii) of the center of the Moon's disk from the center of Earth's umbral shadow at the instant of Greatest Eclipse". The gamma figure, .1168, is therefore to be multiplied by 3,960 (6,371 kilometers) to find that the moon's center was 462 miles from the center of the umbra. This is a key entry in arriving to umbra diameter. Here is the page again in case you need to re-load it:
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2018Jul27T.pdf

Now check out the so-called Umbral Eclipse Magnitude, defined by the same website as "the fraction of the Moon's diameter occulted [or immersed] by Earth's umbral shadow at the instant of Greatest Eclipse". The magnitude figure given is 1.6087. What I think this means is that .6087 of a lunar diameter exists between the outer edge of the lunar disc and the nearest outer edge of the umbra. If this is correct (it turned out to be correct), then one can calculate the diameter of the umbra using the eclipse-magnitude and gamma figures combined. This is exciting. I am in suspense to discover whether the umbral diameter is merely backward-mathematical calculation from the 93-million number, or from hands-on measurements that actually reveal the truth. Wouldn't it be nice to have the truth?

The way this works is to account for .6087 lunar diameter from the top edge of the umbra, to the top edge of the lunar disc, in the drawing at the page above. That figure amounts to 1,315 miles. Next, add the lunar radius of 1080 miles, which brings us to the center of the moon. From there, gamma tells us it's another 417 miles to the center of the umbra; we have traversed exactly half the umbra so far. The umbra is therefore to be twice as large as 1,315 + 1080 + 417 = 5,624 miles. That is absolutely dismal, an apparent failure on their part. How can the umbral diameter be 5,624 miles when the times given by this same eclipse had the moon traversing the shadow for over 5,800 miles??? This is the same July-27 eclipse where the path of the moon through the umbra was found to be about 5,865 miles.

I ASK YOU, who is responsible for this inconsistency, me or them? Was my 5,865 figure wrong? You can bang away at it yourself to see that I have it right. But, again, the lunar shadow for that eclipse is larger than 5,865 miles. We now know that they are not entering the correct figures for arriving at the diameters, but things are about to get worse for them in the worst-possible way.

Let's re-write that paragraph above, but with the figures from the eclipse of January 21 of 2019, the one with one of the largest umbrae. As you read along, and if you want to spend the time, assure that I'm interpreting the umbral magnitude correctly. I am 100-percent sure that I am. The figures are 1.1953 for the umbral magnitude, and .3684 for gamma. This accounts for .1953 lunar diameter to the top of the lunar disc. That figure amounts to 422 miles. Next, add the lunar radius of 1080 miles, which brings us to the center of the moon. From there, gamma tells us it's another 1,459 (3,960 x .3684) miles to the center of the umbra. The umbra is therefore twice as large as 422 + 1080 + 1459 = 5,921. That is absolutely dismal, on their part. The umbra needs to be larger than that. The July-27 eclipse was on the day after apogee, when the moon is furthest from the earth, and where the earth's shadow is the smallest, yet its umbra (larger than 5,865) was at least as large as the 5,920 here, and this one is an eclipse at perigee, when umbrae are their largest. How can the perigee umbra be as small as an apogee umbra??? To their credit, the eclipse is in January, when the sun is closest, having the effect of shrinking the umbra, but the umbra size is more-dependant on the distance of the moon from earth. Therefore, this January eclipse is one you might want to investigate, comparing it with others in order to find that a false diameter has been entered in the magnitude and/or gamma entries.

The goons can manage a false system like this, if they are working backward from their 93-million system. In that way, they can claim they were not deliberately lying. But wait. They can fool us on the street, yet the professionals and even the amateurs are able to compare the moon with the umbra, with their own equipment, to get their respective sizes, and thus to arrive to the true umbra diameter. Surely, if the umbra were truly larger than the numbers arrived to with magnitude and gamma combined, the hoax would have been revealed centuries ago. However, I think I have found how they eliminated the threat from as early as the 18th century. I'll get to that.

Their figures so far suggest the average umbra size to be midway between 5,920 (perigee) and 5,624 (apogee) miles, or about 5,770 miles, suggesting a very distant sun. Here is what I wrote before getting to this paragraph: "Under the condition that the lunar eclipse was at the average lunar distance, the sun works out to about 94 million miles away when the eclipse takes place where the earth's shadow (a cone) is about 5,780 miles wide." Therefore, it appears that they are entering shadow diameters to expressly fit their scheme. No surprise at all. We need only to understand how to sabotage the figures. Let's call it righteous sabotaging, identical to spraying pests with painful toxins.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2019Jan21T.pdf

Let's do the same with a lunar eclipse midway between apogee and perigee. This one will be on November 8 of 2022. The figures are 1.3589 for the umbral magnitude, and .2570 for gamma. This accounts for .3589 lunar diameter to the top of the lunar disc in the drawing at the page below. That figure amounts to 775 miles. Next, add the lunar radius of 1080 miles, which brings us to the center of the moon. From there, gamma tells us it's another 1,017 miles to the center of the umbra. The umbra is therefore twice as large as 775 + 1080 + 1,017 = 5,745. As this is nearly the predicted average of 5,770, there is showing consistency in their numbers, meaning also that I am interpreting correctly both the umbra magnitude and the gamma figures. The fact that 5,745 is smaller than my average-moon figure of 5,780 suggests that this eclipse was closer to apogee than to perigee, and it turns out that November 8 is ten days after perigee and six days before apogee.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2022Nov08T.pdf

My interpretation of the magnitude and gamma numbers perfectly reflect the drawings of all eclipses treated so far. To prove absolutely that the interpretation is correct, the eclipse below has an eclipse with the lunar disc just barely outside the border of the umbra, meaning that the umbral magnitude should be just under 1.0 if I am interpreting this aspect correctly. As it turns out, the magnitude figure given is .9742. (I forgot to give you the URL for this one, and have lost it, sorry, but there are other eclipses showing the same).)

I'm happy to find that I'm interpreting this right, and even happier to find that someone has committed to placing the wrong umbral diameters in the details. The devil is in the details, they say, and all we need to do is find the horns, yank him out, and start questioning. Why did you do, evolutionists? Why did you deceive the entire human race? It seems that Fred Espenak is managing virtually all of NASA's online eclipse data. Why him? A great way to find all available eclipses is from the page below; just change the year in the URL (Internet address at top of browser). I'm checking all total lunar eclipses from 2001 onward for one with a dead-central path. There was not one central one between 2001 and then end of 2010, unless Fred skipped them. That's a long time to go without one central-path eclipse.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OH2011.html

Finally (below), a quasi-central one on June 15 of 2011, a little more central than the July-2018 one above. The gamma for the June 2011 one is just .0897, meaning the lunar center was just 355 miles from the center of the umbra. The umbral magnitude is listed as 1.6998, which amounts to 1,512 miles. So, the umbra diameter for this eclipse is twice as much as 1,512 + 1080 + 355, or 5,893 miles. To disprove this garbage, we appeal to the times given for U2 and U4, which cannot be fabricated, right? They wouldn't enter false times, right? Could they get away with that? U2 was at 19:22, and U4 at 22:02, a total of 2.67 hours. We just need to know how far the moon would travel in 2.67 hours. NASA could have just pinned this up on the page, it would have made it so easy for everyone wanting to know. As this eclipse was three days after perigee, its lunar velocity was on the fast side. But before we do the math with the 2.67 time, let's look at something else.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OHfigures/OH2011-Fig03.pdf

The eclipse has a moon entering into the umbra almost squarely at dead-center. Amazing. It means that the time between U1 (18:22:55) and U2 (19:22:29) should give us the lunar velocity exactly. The time between the two is 59.48 minutes, or .991 hour. This means that the moon was supposedly traveling 2160 / .991 = 2179 mph. This, one of the slowest velocities for the moon, is impossible near perigee. I can see what they did already: they slowed the speed so that the full path of the moon through the center of the umbra comes out with less mileage than was in reality. It's not a wonder that they don't give the velocity figures anywhere; experts would have picked up on the errors fast.

They would have said, "wait, you can't have a velocity that slow at perigee." So why haven't they piped up? Maybe some of them did send in some questions, all shrugged off. Others just figured honest mistakes. But I say that "mistakes" are predicted for all central-path eclipses. It's bad enough to always give the false diameter of the umbra, but in the eclipse under discussion, they gave the wrong times. They slowed the moon and shrank the umbra with the wrong times. You look at the time numbers, you see they look fine, they are just numbers, but they entered the wrong ones.

NASA, where are the velocity figures? The amateur astronomers you pretend to serve don't trust you anymore.

Look it. The time between U2 and U4, which represents almost exactly the diameter of the umbra, is calculated like as follows using the 2.67 figure above: 2,179 x 2.67 = 5,818 miles! That exclamaton is an I-told-you-so scream. With the moon moving at one of it's fastest clips, only three days after perigee, the shadow is predicted to be over 6,000 miles!!! But here, from their figures, it only gets little more than 5,800. Are you with me? You need to re-do the math, changing the 2,179 mph to something more expected of three days after perigee.

Yes, I did say that they wouldn't dare try changing the times, but, in this case, with a near-dead-center eclipse, they had no choice. If they didn't change the time, the shadow would have worked to over 6,000 miles, with a sun way to close to earth. The true velocity for this eclipse is much nearer to the fastest lunar velocity of around 2,414. Three days after perigee, the moon could have a velocity of about 2,350 mph, but even if we use 2,325, the math now works like this: 2,325 x 2.67 = 6,341 miles!!! Even if we go down to 2,300 mph, the umbra diameter is almost 6,150 miles.

I TOLD YOU SO.

Here's the perigee calculator in case you'd like to check the date out yourself to see it's three days after perigee.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

I've just measured the size of the umbra on my screen to 9 centimeters. At that size, the lunar disc is 3.33 centimeters. The math, 9 / 3.33 = 2.7 gives the number of lunar diameters per umbra diameter. The math, 2.7 x 2160 = 5,838 miles is clearly wrong. The diagrams used for eclipses are deliberately to scale to get a very distant sun.

The best dead-center eclipse (CAN'T GET MUCH BETTER) so far is the one below, for July 16 of 2000, a day after perigee. Gamma is given as .0301, just 119 miles between the lunar and umbral centers. If this figure was altered, we know that the gamma was even closer to the center in reality. The umbral magnitude, 1.7731, means that there are 1,670 miles from the outer edge of the umbra to the outer edge of the moon. The reported umbral diameter is therefore twice as much as 1,670 + 1080 + 119 = 5,738 miles, ridiculous.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot1/LEplot1951/LE2000Jul16T.GIF

Let's look at the times, checking for false entries. Between U1 (11:57:17) and U2 (13:02:05) there is 1 hour, five minutes, which is 1.08 hours. As the moon enters directly at the center, the distance between U1 and U2 must allow maybe an ant to get between them. Maybe. It means that the distance between the two positions is one lunar diameter, plus an ant, maybe just half an ant. Can you believe it? The lunar velocity works out to 2,000 mph (2160 / 1.08). Now you know that they are lying for both dead-center eclipses. If you were not convinced in the last one (you would be kind to give them the benefit of the doubt), here you can brightly exclaim, like a valiant savior of the world, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 2,000 MPH FOR THE MOON. Help save the world from the evolutionists. Do not be kind, do not be trusting, do not spare them.

The only reason that they are lying is that it's a dead-center eclipse, capable of revealing their 93-million-mile hoax. The time given between U2 and U4 (15:53:55) is 2 hours, 52 minutes = 2.87 hrs. If we use the velocity figure of 2,000 mph, the umbral diameter works out exactly to where they want it, at 5,740 miles. We have them right where we want them because we can now use the slowest lunar velocity: 2,163 mph x 2.87 = 6,208 miles. That number is going to get a solar distance of well under seven million. This eclipse was a day after apogee, and the 2,163 figure does not occur in most cases of apogee, meaning that the velocity for this eclipse was more like 2,200 mph.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot1/LEplot1951/LE2000Jul16T.GIF

NASA, where are the velocity figures? Amateur astronomers no longer trust you. In case the page disappears, here it is from my files:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/lunarEclJul2000.gif

How can they live with themselves? The time given between U3 and U4, where there is exactly (virtually) one lunar diameter of travel, is 1 hour, five minutes...same as between U1 and U2, meaning they have the moon moving at 2.000 mph in both cases. If they had mistakenly entered a wrong time in either U1 or U2, they would not likely have done so in either U3 or U4, especially as both sets are the same time period. There cannot be a logical explanation for a moon far slower than the slowest-ever moon, this being in conjunction with another central-path eclipse where the times were likewise entered wrong there. Here is the other one from my files in case the their page disappears or changes information: http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/lunarEclJun2011.pdf Does the moon know it's about to cross dead center? And does it say to self, "Self, slow down unusually, here comes dead center"?

Let's repeat the problem for the goons. If they had entered the correct time periods, well, there are a lot of people out there wanting to know the diameter of the umbra. The correct time periods would have given the lot-of-people-out-there the diameters without fail, and pretty soon amateur astronomers would get very used to the fact that umbrae come in 6,100-plus diameters. Some would then come across the writings of evolutionists where they say that umbrae have a maximum size below 6,000 miles, and, suddenly, a controversy sets in, everyone starts to talk about it. They discover how to interpret eclipse magnitude and gamma, and see that they can get as large as 6,000. They would start to ask questions. But I'm telling you right here the answer you need to know: they are protecting a 93-million-mile fraud.

Let's go back to the eclipse data for the one on July 16, 2000, the most-central one of all. The magnitude and gamma figures combined gave us a diameter of 5,738 miles. The clock times gave us a velocity of 2,000 mph. The duration for the entire umbral path was 2.87 hours. When we multiply the latter by 2,000 mph, we get 5,740 miles, which is exactly the 5,738 figure they provided (I didn't get the figures bang-on, but close enough). So, there is no mistaken entry of the clock time(s); they deliberately entered the wrong times, as well as the wrong gamma and/or magnitude figures. That's what's going on. You have the backing of the entire astronomical world, including NASA itself, assuring us for a long time that the moon moves at its slowest at around 2, 160 mph. You can take NASA to court on this one, and it would have to lose, or the judge would go down in infamy.

Here is what NASA can do. It can say that there was a gap between U1 and U2, and between U3 and U4, raising the velocity figure from 2,000 in both cases. But here is the math they would need to cling to: 2,180 mph x 1.08 = 2,354 miles, the distance between U1 and U2. That's 194 miles larger than the diameter of the moon, and nine percent of the lunar diameter. Does it appear that there can be such a gap between U1 and U2? U1 is defined as the moment when the moon kisses the umbra with its front side. U2 is defined as the first time the back side has reached the inside of the umbra. There cannot be any gap at all when the moon enters straight-on. While one can argue that the moon does not enter exactly straight on, in this eclipse, it's so close that an argument against it becomes a sign of desperation.

Take a look at the dotted line through the umbra.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot1/LEplot1951/LE2000Jul16T.GIF
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/lunarEclJul2000.gif

What do you see? You see that the distance from the entry point to the dotted line is the same as the distance from the dotted line and the exit point. This means that the moon is entering dead-center, with a straight line through the center. Keep looking at it, asking how gamma could have the center moon's center 119 miles from the center of the umbra. Does it not appear that the center of the center moon is passing directly through the center of the umbra? Indeed. They entered a false gamma figure, didn't they?

Well, they could say that they got the path a little wrong on the diagram. But, under the circumstances of an umbra too small by multiple hundreds of miles, and with their desperation to make this look to their best advantage, they probably set the moon off-center by as much as thought they could get away with. As such central eclipses do not come very often, people who witnessed and reported it knew it was darn close to the center. The goons could only off-set it so much.


Getting the Science Right

The difference between an umbra predicted by the 93-million system and the reality is only about 2 percent. For example, a shadow 5,880 miles wide becomes 6,000 miles when multiplied by 2 percent (1.02). The fraction for 2 percent is 1/50. With this in mind:

In the early 1700s, Philippe de La Hire made a curious observation about Earth's umbra. The predicted radius of the shadow needed to be enlarged by about 1/41 in order to fit timings made during a lunar eclipse (La Hire 1707). Additional observations over the next two centuries revealed that the shadow enlargement was somewhat variable from one eclipse to the next. According to Chauvenet (1891): "This fractional increase of the breath of the shadow was given by Lambert as 1/40, and by Mayer as 1/60. Beer and Maedler found 1/50 from a number of observations of eclipses of lunar spots in the very favorable eclipse of December 26, 1833."

http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEhelp/LEenlargement.html

Possibly, though I know nothing about this, the above "observations" (disputed by others) can be used as an excuse by evolutionists for the reduced sizes of the earth's shadow by two to three percent. The men involved seem to be blaming this difference in size on the earth's atmosphere, a possible red herring of those times. I'm just guessing, as this is the first time I've heard of this, but the men appear to have made calculations on how large the umbra should be, and decided that their calculations (the "predicted radius" as per the quote) were too small for what they saw. It could therefore be that their calculations were going to use the 93-million plot in one form or another, but seeing that the reality had an umbra two or three degrees larger, they pointed it out, blamed it on the atmosphere, and went on using the larger sizes (reflecting reality) but claiming them to be artificial enlargements that could be ignored as reality.

Perhaps all astronomy students today are taught about this small discrepancy, and are made to accept it with the red-herring explanation, thinking nothing of it.

Note the date, in the early 1700s, for La Hire's discovery. It was around that time that one can predict a movement of evolutionary-minded men seeking to expand the universe greatly in preparation for a new view of "Creation." And the great distance to the sun was officially invented in 1768 after it was pushed by Edmond Halley, 1656 - 1742.

...James Gregory and Edmond Halley realized that the distance to Venus (and hence the Sun) could be determined...

...Despite these challenges, astronomers in France and England resolved that they would collect the necessary data [to discover the distance of Venus / Sun] during the 1761 transit [of Venus over the sun]...Although not all observers were successful (clouds blocked some, warships others), when combined with data collected during another transit eight years later, the undertaking had been a success. French astronomer Jerome Lalande collected all the data and computed the first accurate distance to the Sun: 153 million kilometers, good to within three percent of the true value!

http://www.universetoday.com/117843/how-did-we-find-the-distance-to-the-sun/

By that time, Isaac Newton, usually regarded as a Christian and a Creationist, but part of the Rosicrucian leadership of the Royal Society of science activists, had invented a gravity force acting from atoms. He probably wasn't alone in this "discovery," and it was very useful for the evolution of the cosmos.

I beg to see an explanation, without smoke and mirrors, as to how the distance to the sun or Venus could be hatched simply from viewing the transit of Venus over the sun. I do understand parallax, where objects further away from the viewer shift less than objects closer to the viewer, when the viewer is moving. But the sun was not moving, and Venus was. They didn't know the velocity of Venus. Basically, as there was no photography yet, they took mental snapshots of Venus from different directions, this acting as the moving viewer. I suppose that each viewer at their different location reported what was seen (telescopes were not huge then). What possibly could they have reported? Venus is on this side of the sun. Venus is on that side of the sun. Venus is near the middle. Venus is at the middle. A spider has just crawled onto my lens. Venus has just gone by the sun. How will that get the distance figure? Could this have been a hoax with a fine-sounding explanation? In every case, the background was identical, the big burning sun.

If I gave you a hundred pictures of Venus crossing the sun, could you find for me the distance? Well, maybe it wasn't just the sun that mattered. Maybe it was the sun and other stars behind it. But wait. We can't see stars when looking at the sun. Here is the how-they-done-it: "From different locations, Venus will appear to cross larger or smaller parts of the Sun. By timing how long these crossings take, James Gregory and Edmond Halley realized that the distance to Venus (and hence the Sun) could be determined." Hmm. Venus crossing larger or smaller parts of the sun. What does that mean? Well, it turns out that two or more viewers see the path at different latitudes upon the sun, and latitudes all come in different widths when looking at a ball straight on. OK, so one guy sees Venus cross at 40 degrees, and other guy sees Venus cross at 60 degrees. Now what?

I've tried to read a couple of pages on this, both attempting to explain it, or pretending to explain it, but I gave up on both pages before it was explained. It looks like the reader was set up to get lost in the explanation. You find that sort of thing a lot in smoke-and-mirror / bad science. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. If we are dealing with lunatics, it's very good that we can't understand them. Start worrying when you do understand them. Their idol was Einstein, the one with the curved mind who was able to marry space and time. He had clocks flying through outer space, such a nut. After that, universes with several dimensions. Lunacy. Black holes, where even light is pulled down the gutter, absolute heresy. Light and Gravity are made of the same particles: light cannot be pulled by gravity/ Gravity repels light particles.

In the next chapter. I'm going to share a page (with my comments) claiming to know how to find the distance to Venus and/or the sun.

Newton's gravitational theory had gravity in all materials. Gravity was viewed as a material all its own. No one could see the gravity material. It came to be viewed as a different force from electromagnetism after the discovery of the electron, but while both gravity and electromagnetism act exactly the same as per the inverse-square law (quadruple the attraction per a cutting of distance by two), yet the scientists opted not to view gravity as an electromagnetic force from massive numbers of electrons in planets. Why not? Was there really a good reason, or, to the contrary, was there a good reason to absolutely stay away from that idea?

They went ahead with the idea that gravity particles exist in every atom, as distinct from electrons. In the time of Newton, and for a long while afterward, they did not know that the core of the planet, where they claimed the source of gravity, is filled with free electrons. Planetary-core heat, that is, creates free electrons, as electrons issue from atoms. Wherever there is heat, there are also free electrons, but scientists who viewed heat as a material (before the electrons was discovered) were overcome by those who opted for a kinetic view of heat, where heat was not a material, but rather the motion / velocity of atoms. Even when the electron was discovered, it was not understood enough to be realized as the heat particle, yet the thinkers should have been open to the electron being the gravity particle. Big-bangers liked motion and velocity; it's what gave them the orbiting electron and the speedy photon particle. And the last thing they wanted was a negative gravity force made of electrons, for as electrons repel electrons, the very formation of electrons from the big bang would send them ever farther apart, never coming together in populated areas in order to form stars. The evolutionists had a big enough problem on their hands trying to explain how the big bang allowed atoms to come together after being exploded away in all directions. All particles, including atoms, are viewed, to this day, in perpetual motion from the big bang, the thing that took multiple fields of science into great error.

Negatively-charged atoms repel negatively-charged atoms; how possibly can that situation form stars from an explosion in pure space. Newtonian science said that materials in motion in space continue to move perpetually in one direction, unless turned by some force. How could atoms come together unless they attracted one another? Therefore, the fallacious big bang gave the world of science the attraction force between all atoms, and evolutionists ruled, wherefore this theory remains to this day. That's why the electron is not viewed as the gravity particle. Instead, all atoms needed to have their own built-in gravity force. Do you get this? As atoms flew apart, they attracted one another, and they formed stars as they flew along, away from the big-bang location, and stars still move apart to this day. This is very fundamental to their views.

Forget the lunatics. They were so wrong that they needed fantastic fixes for the problems in this initial theory. They have only themselves to blame for becoming fools on behalf of their invention of a Godless universe. Fact: gravity is known to attract every atom. But this means that the negatively-charged core of the earth, or any single electron, for that matter, attracts all atoms. We need only to figure out why this law exists. And it's not very difficult because I was able to do it. I have never excelled in academia, yet I was able to explain it. That's because it's on the simple side, if only one applies the mind to it. The evolutionists did not wish to apply themselves to this alternative, electromagnetic view of gravity. If they had applied themselves, they easily would have discovered what I have. You start from the basics, asking how it needs to unfold from there.

As I explain this, don't start thinking to yourself that such-and-such a law of science contradicts my theory, because such-and-such may itself be one of the tricks of evolutionists. Such-and-such includes the premise that science has proven the attraction of gravity toward electrons, but this is not correct. One can see the great need of evolutionists to prove that electrons are attracted by gravity, thus ruining the electromagnetic theory of gravity and meanwhile proving that gravity consists of some other particle. Science only proves that the electron has mass; to assume that anything with mass is attracted by gravity was the incorrect theory of Newtonian gravity. How have scientists proven that gravity attracts the electron? The only way to do this is to show an electron falling downward. But I have found proof that electrons rise away from gravity. It was my great Kansas experience when this dawned on me.

The truth is that all atoms inter-repel while all atoms are forever captured by gravity. There is a deception taking place within the atomic world that fools the scientific observer. This deception is from the fact that atoms are able to attract one another by merger even while they inter-repel at all times. But they cannot attract until they make contact with one another. This does not serve the big-bang view of creation at all. I'll explain below why atoms should attract only when in contact; it has to do with the compliment of captured electrons in every atom.

It is not at all true that all atoms are attracted by free electrons...anymore. It was true, only in the beginning. You can easily understand that the atom needed to attract electrons in the beginning, but, after being fully loaded, the atom no longer attracted electrons. I can't tell you how the beginning took place, whether the chicken came before the egg, but one thing is certain, that if there is an atom created by God, fully loaded with captured electrons -- a thing that all scientists agree with -- some of the electrons will be blown away by the massive force of gravity...because the latter is a massive negative charge. What do you see happening when the massive gravity force blows electrons from an atom? The answer is easy. This is the starting point for the true atomic model.

An atom will only load electrons, from the proton's positive charge, for so long. The size of an atom is determined by how many electrons its central proton can load. The proton cannot continue to attract them forever until the atom is the size of the planet. As the electrons are loaded, they send out a negative charge (all directions around the atom) to all other would-be loaded electrons. When this negative charge has a force equal to the positive charge of the proton, the atom will cease loading electrons. This is so logical that even lunatics can agree with it. However, this balanced situation cannot take place in the real world, in the presence of gravity, that is, because gravity is a negative force of its own that surrounds all atoms, or that flows out / reaches past all atoms. The proton can only load as many electrons as gravity, the boss, allows.

In other words, no matter that the proton is hungry for more electrons -- that it still has the capacity to load more -- , gravity does not allow them to load if the negative power of gravity at the atom is stronger-acting on an electron than the pull of the proton. If electrons were forced upon a fully-loaded atom by some method, gravity would just blow them away again. Gravity needs to be viewed as a wind with a level of force (call it 'g') that permits the atom to retain only the electrons that it holds with greater than g-force.

It means that every atom was, in the beginning, shy of a certain number of captured elections. The atom was not balanced between positive and negative, which is to say that every atom started with a net-positive charge. Gravity produced this net-positive charge in all atoms, and, meanwhile, gravity had a bite on all atoms precisely because it made all atoms net-positive. It was God's ingenious system. It is simple and logical.

Free electrons in the atmosphere are ever being repelled by gravity into outer space, explaining why hotter air rises, or why heat rises up a metal rod (even in a vacuum). Electrons are ever introduced into the atmosphere from the solar wind. As space is a vacuum, the kinetic theory of heat cannot explain the loss of heat into space. If heat did not escape equal to the amount of heat entering from the sun, the earth would build in temperature perpetually. The only way that kinetic heat explains heat transfer is the banging of atoms upon other atoms, but if there are no atoms to bang on, as is the case in space, heat cannot transfer there. Evolutionists, while willing to hang onto lunatic ideas of their own invention, knew this problem from the start, yet rejected it. They rejected the logic, and clung only to the things needed by evolution. All of physics had to conform to evolution; physics and evolution -- not to mention geology and chemistry -- grew together as one.

Enter heat. It surrounds all atoms, and is defined as free electrons surrounding all atoms. Free electrons force themselves, by their inter-repulsion, into the cloud of captured electrons owned by every atom. There is a question as to what these free electrons do to the net charge of the atom. Possibly, all atoms have been made net-negative by the heat that surrounds them. In any case, this addition of negative energy to atoms does not come to make the atom repel gravity. There is a question on whether atoms surrounded by electrons become negatively charged toward one another while the negative-to-positive bite that gravity has on them remains. I don't seem to have the mental capacity to answer this question. What happens when inter-repelling electrons are crowded between air atoms, pressing in on all sides of atoms? The answer is easy. They force atoms to take equidistance from one another, as far as possible from one another. If that sounds like air pressure, it's because it is.

In a closed box, or the tire of your car, the atoms produce air pressure, but what happens in an open system like the atmosphere? Not only is there an upward steam of electrons toward space, but the inter-repulsion of electrons between atoms forces them toward any opening. If there is a hole in your tire, the inter-repelling electrons would flow through the hole, and force the air with them. The sky is a huge hole, and elections are forever forcing air atoms toward this hole. Atoms are saved from forever entering space by the pull of gravity upon them. The fewer the heat particles between air atoms (i.e. the colder the air), the lower the upper limit of the air atoms.

Gases expand with increasing temperature (= increasing electron density) because of greater electron inter-repulsion between gas atoms. A gas increases in pressure by eight times when the distance between atoms is cut in half, which is twice the force in the inverse-square law. The reason for twice as much is because there are two opposing forces, atom verses atom. But in the case of gravity on an atom, there is only the massive gravity charge that plays into it; the minute charge of the atom against gravity can be ignored. To prove this, electron-to-electron repulsion (or atom to atom repulsion) would be half as strong if one of the two electrons had a microscopic force as compared to the other. Now you understand why gravity force is only half as much as electron-to-electron repulsion. In the same way, magnetism and electromagnetism have only half the power of electron-versus-electron because there is only one, not two, forces acting. A magnet on a piece of iron has only one force, not force on force.

This is easy. Take a box filled with air, and put a square piston at the top. Press the piston half way down in the box to squeeze the air to half its original volume. The gas measures twice the pressure, but the atoms have not yet been brought twice as close. You need to cut the volume in half three times, once for all three directions, before the atoms are half their original distance. There is the top-to-bottom direction, as well as two side-to-side directions; these are called the three dimensions. When atoms (or sardines) have been moved twice as close in all three directions, they are twice as close in every direction. When we compress the air in the box a second time to half its volume, the air pressure in the box is increased to four times the original. When we cut the volume in half a third time, the pressure goes up to eight times. The volume has been cut to 1/8 the original volume; the pressure is eight times as much, and the atoms are twice as close in all directions. The electrons have been forced twice as close together too, but they leak through the walls of the box, though some of them remain on atoms.

So, we now know why particles act with four times the force when they are brought to half their distances, and if there are particles repelling / attracting particles, they repel or attract with eight times the force.

Electrons are not in orbit around atoms, of course, but spin around the proton if the atoms are moved, and remain stationary if the atoms are not moved, the only logical view of atoms. The number of electrons per atom is probably in the thousands or even millions (evolutionists are out to lunch with the few electrons they see around a proton). The higher, captured electrons are hovering over the lower captured electrons because all electrons inter-repel while captured. The lower captured electrons are probably in contact with one another because proton attraction is strongest at the bottom; if these lower ones were to be set free in an instant, by the destruction of the proton, great and explosive nuclear force would result. In normal circumstances, the lower ones (a huge source of heat) are never released.

Atoms are able to merge because the upper electrons are hovering. The greater the depth of the hovering electrons, the greater the possible depth of atom-to-atom mergers. Atoms always attract during merger because the proton of one atom attracts the electrons of the other. There is no attraction between atoms if they are very close to one another; they need to begin merger before attraction sets in. During merger, electrons are always shed, which is the heat output that can be measured in chemical reactions, or from liquid creation from gas. It is predictable that elections be shed during merger because the merged sections are forced to contain a double/higher density of electrons, which the protons are unable to hold. As electrons are shed, the protons are predicted to bite into (attract) the electrons of another atom.

A complete re-vamping of atomic physics is needed, and I worked on this over ten years to explain (to myself) how various systems of mainline physics can be re-explained with my model. My model explains perfectly why all atoms (or cannon balls) fall to gravity at the same velocity / acceleration...because every atom, regardless of type, has had electrons blown away (by gravity) to the same result, leaving the same level of positive charge on every atom. Only the elections pulled by the proton with a stronger force than gravity are permitted to stay on the atom, meaning that the top layer of every atom is identical in net-positive charge. Every atoms is therefore attracted by gravity by the very same level.

As this atomic model predicts that every atom weighs the same, regardless of type, this is one example of how atomic physics needs to be revamped. The current model claims that all atoms weigh differently according to their specific levels of mass. In their view, gravity attracts mass; in my view, gravity attracts atoms. An atom with a million electrons weighs the same as an atom with a thousand. An atom with a huge proton weighs the same as an atom with a tiny proton. It's revolutionary, but has absolutely nothing to do with paying your bills or making your life more pleasant. It does, however, involve the battle between God and the devil as to which creation model wins out in the hearts of men.

Every atom has only one proton. The idea of mainline physics that one atom has clusters of protons is illogical and impossible (because protons repel one another). There is no neutron particle except as an invention of mainline physicists in fixing problems with their bad theory. The idiots take the position that the big bang (random explosion without a brain) produced zezillions of identical elections, zezillions of identical protons, zezillions of identical neutrons, and zezillions of identical gravitons. It serves only to show how ridiculous the dopes have been. On top of that, every electron was given a negative force equal to the positive force of every proton so that one proton per atom neatly attracted one electron. Fat-fat-fat chance. On top of this, they had orbiting electrons that still carry the force of the big bang. Utter fools came to control physics because they largely invented it; those who disagreed with them were dropped off on the roadside to hitch-hike home.

I apologize for the deviation in topic, but one thing led to another, and I felt a fuller explanation was needed after getting to Newtonian gravity. The long and the short of it is, my theory works, and permits gravity to be an electromagnetic force. The moon is held to earth by the latter's negative charge attracting all lunar atoms, but it works in reverse too, for the moon has its own internal heat i.e. free electrons. The lunar orbit may be wobbling (does not maintain the same apogee or perigee levels) due to the uneven spread of heat in the earth's interior. In any case, stars cannot pull light. The idiots have invented stars so strong with gravity that they pull in their own light. And they now teach these black holes as fact. Light is the transfer of physical energy through free elections, and cannot be pulled by gravity. Once a physical jolt (of light) pushes one electron outward from the sun, the gravity particles in the sun cannot stop it.

The physical jolts are ultimately from the explosive mechanism in the sun's inner parts. As my guess, the heavy weight of material destroys atoms in the sun's (or earth's) interior, and atoms thus release their captured electrons in what I see as nuclear power. Great heat is formed, and flows upward into space as electrons which, once on the "surface" of the sun, jolt the free-electron medium of space. The heat particles in the interior of the sun, the gravity force, can no nothing to stop the physical energy of these jolts from moving outward.

Sunspots are black, in my opinion, because they represent material in the sun moving downward faster than its jolts of light move away from the sun. It is not reasonable to say, as they say, that sunspots are black because they are merely colder. Even "cold" material on the solar surface has great light. This is very important, for if light is made of jolts that do not move as fast as the downward material in sunspots, then light does not move as a photon particle at 186,000 miles per second. The evolutionist is made to look like a stubborn donkey, really, by the sunspot. As always, the donkey comes up with a fine-sounding argument to explain a problem in his theory. This time, we are told that the sunspot is cold. No, it is not cold; it is black. It is not emitting light, period. Why, really, does it not emit light? You can't ask the question to a donkey that refuses to see the problem with his beloved photon. The answer must be that the material in a sunspot is moving away from our eye faster than the jolts of light, making the jolts incapable of moving toward out eye. Or, to put it another way, the jolts are incapable of jolting forward any free electron between it and our eye. All free electrons are moving toward the sun at the sunspot, not toward our eye. It suggests to me that the sunspot is some sort of whirlpool situation.

Light (example, x-rays) penetrates human flesh completely, if the light is strong enough, but it's not made of projectiles in the first place. A wave does not have velocity in the true sense of the word. Light waves act less quickly (from source to target) in a less-dense wave medium. Outer space has a less-dense medium than the science lab. But if they can bring themselves to believing that light is a photon particle with the same velocity everywhere, they can claim that light has the same velocity in space as it does in the lab. A light-wave denies this.

The further one forces light to travel, the slower it becomes. The wave is not going to act as fast between here and the moon as it is between test objects in the lab. A light wave weakens (or spreads out) just as a water or sound wave weakens with distance. A wave through a light medium acts on the particles of the medium, which are free electrons throughout space, all inter-repelling one another and therefore suspended (not in physical contact) at equal distances from one another, the distance depending on their specific density in any one area. As the first free electron in a ray of light moves toward the next one, the second one is bumped ahead a little slower than the first one had been jolted by the light source. On and on goes the domino effect, from one electron to the next, until the last electron, for example, at the lunar surface. It takes time for this effect to reach the moon. It doesn't take much time, but it takes time because an electron is predicted to move a slight distance before the one ahead of it starts to move. The greater the forward motion before the next one starts to move, the slower the wave. The greater the distance between electrons, the greater the span of motion without the next one yet moving along, the slower the wave. As specific distances between electrons defines their density, outer space has a low-electron density.

You can grasp this. It's logical and expected. If the electron ahead started to move exactly when the electron behind started to move, light would be instant from source to target. The row of electrons between here and the moon would be like a solid stick to the lunar surface; as soon as the end of the stick starts to move at the earth, it pokes the moon. No time delay. But if one electron is moving forward while the next one takes some time to start moving, the wave is less than instant. Electrons in outer space are much further apart than in the earth's atmosphere, wherefore light is much slower in space than it is in the science lab. Evolutionist, fool. But if he were only a fool in a vacuum, it wouldn't be so bad. He's a destroyer in our midst.

Light particles are the free electrons everywhere in the universe, expelled constantly by sun and stars. Cosmologists know about these electrons, yet their evolutionary circles rejected the wave medium with the photon invention of Albert Einstein. He was the one used by evolutionists to eliminate the wave medium that scientists had held to previously. They didn't know the electron at that time, and therefore didn't know that the wave medium was made of electrons. Nor did they understand that free-electron density in the universe is the direct cause of temperature (low cosmic temperatures = low-electron density).

My personal discovery that heat particles are identical to light particles came while driving through Kansas to go see the Grand Canyon for the first time. The shape of my atomic physics was born that day, and I was able to realize the many errors of evolutionists as they came to control the field of physics. Free electrons in space have no weight, even though they have mass, and they are literally the substance of heat (once called caloric) that evolutionists have rejected. The so-called ether (light-wave medium) that light-wave mechanics espoused was done away with, partly because Einstein's crew could not find its mass attracted by gravity, wherefore they claimed it could not exist. They reasoned that, if this ether existed, it would cause drag on the planetary orbits, but that idea was correct only if the ether had weight. It did not occur to them that the electron could be repelled by gravity because they had their eyes shut to the possibility.

Where free electrons are repelled by gravity, there is no weight to them, and, therefore, an object can flow through them as though they pose no/little restriction. The restriction to flow you feel through the air is due to gravity pulling air atoms down. But if gravity was repelling them toward the sky, then, as the sky has no surface for gravity to squeeze atoms against, you would feel no resistance in flowing through.

Evolutionists need gravity to attract all things, including electrons, to explain the formation of galaxies without a Creator. Therefore, the erroneous claim that all atoms attract one another, by their own built-in gravity force, is an invention. Free atoms (not in contact as a liquid or solid) by nature repel one another when in gaseous form. Not only the electrons in the atmosphere, but the air atoms too, repel one another.

Evolutionists agree that free electrons repel one another. They have the wild and impossible idea that electrons orbit atoms at something like the speed of light. This is possibly one of the nuttiest inventions ever, and it signals their dire need of it for some particular reason. You can realize why they want such-super fast electrons when you learn that their photon light particle is ejected from electrons. This is how they explain the speed of a photon at 186,000 mps. They are complete fools. They not only have photons ejected from elections, but, at the same velocity, other electrons catch the photons before sending them out again, over and over, with never any loss of velocity either in the orbiting electrons or in the photons. There is no hope for this batch of lunatics to ever get things right. They are making fools of themselves before all the angels. How does a super-fast electron catch a super-fast photon? They have got to be kidding.

It was established by NASA that the solar wind consists of free electrons traveling outward in all directions. This solar wind thins with distance from the sun, meaning that the light medium gets weaker, for transmitting light, with distance from the sun. Light also gets slower with distance from the sun, therefore.

Take a guess at what would happen when the space between all stars is filled with inter-repelling electrons. Or, just imagine stars shooting these particles at one another. What would happen? Stars would move further apart. If all electrons situated between two stars repel one another, they would act to push the stars further apart. But they not only have inter-repulsion to force stars apart, they have electron velocity to do the same. Imagine two people each on their own raft afloat, both shooting water hoses at one another. As the water from one hose hits the water from the other, the rafts would move further apart. Now you know why stars should be moving further apart: not from a big bang.

It is unbelievable that anyone would adopt such a thing as orbiting electrons, and then teach this thing as fact to students of public schools, protected by law. There was apparently no authority strong enough to stop this brazen demonism. There is no such possibility for a proton to attract an electron so strongly that the latter doesn't fly out of orbit when doing untold millions of revolutions per second. There is nothing that could set the electron in orbit that fast. The possibility of a proton attracting even one such speedy electron into a perfect orbit is as remote as sheer impossibility itself, never mind that every electron in existence is said to enter and exit, and then re-enter, orbits as though it were a perfectly natural thing. An electron, prior to entering an orbit, needs to be envisioned on a straight-line path as it approaches a proton; it is impossible for the electron to enter an orbit under these fantastic circumstances.

People need to start thinking for themselves, to realize that wild and ungodly imaginations came to control many fields of science. If you did not agree with them, you could not find promotion in a science field. The trick became as simple as that. If you failed your exams, you could not continue. If you were caught holding the "wrong" ideas, you might never be respected much or promoted.

If you care to deny the photon, then you will deny the 186,000 figure, in which case you will agree that the distance figure to the sun is not correct. We then need to contend with whether or not they are telling us truth at all when they claim to bounce light waves off the moon, which, they say, proves that light moves at 186,000 mph. In other words (correct me if I'm wrong), they first came to believe that the moon was about 240,000 miles away, and only afterward claimed that bouncing a beam of light off the moon returned to earth in exactly the time predicted by a speed of 186,000 mps. So, they say that the light beam takes less than 1.5 seconds to arrive to the moon, and less than 1.5 seconds to return. They claim to use this same method on Venus. If true that the 240,000 figure came before they invented the speed of light, then they are either lying about the time taken for light to bounce off the moon, or they knew before inventing the speed of light that it took less than three seconds to bounce off the moon. In that case, the moon is not roughly 240,000 miles away; it's much closer.

Think about that. What does it do to the sun's distance if the moon is much closer than 240,000 miles? It's of obvious importance as we work with lunar- and solar-eclipse lines to determine the distance to the sun. If the moon is not the distance that they say it is, we need to adjust our calculations. We can, however, be absolutely correct in determining the number of lunar distances to the sun; we just won't know the number of miles in one lunar distance.

Once you grasp what the organized and activist anti-Christians have been doing in secret for the past few centuries, you tend to know that they invented the 93-million-mile plot. It was due only to my strong belief in this that the problems in the lunar eclipses were sought out in the first place.


Best Solar-Eclipse Lines

This section was removed because, three chapters from here, I realized that one doesn't need to compare a lunar eclipse's lines with a solar-eclipse's lines. Instead, just use the imaginary lines from the size of the sun on the day of the lunar eclipse, a perfect way to distance the sun.

I've left NASA's Decade Tables of Solar Eclipses, midway down this page:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEdecade/SEdecade1981.html





NEXT UPDATE

Table of Contents


web site analytic