Without Missing Links, Rock Dating is All the Fools Have
Dueling Atomic Models
I haven't abandoned the Iraq topics, though I have considered suspending the Iraq Updates due to seeing no real progress in the Middle East. I'll give this some more time, and continue to talk on other matters while waiting.
I'm not going to have political material in this update, except this short news clip with Tucker Carlson and Devin Nunes shows that we are at the tipping point of a barrel filled with hot oil, to be dumped on American Intelligence. Nunes just needs one fat Rump in the White House to help tip it over. Tucker helps us to learn that NUNES has the unredacted form of the FISA applications, and on two occasions, Nunes claims that the redactions are unjustified. On the second occasion, he says that the redactions must be cleared up because, in my words, they expose the enemy of the United States. The FBI is claiming that the redactions must be retained to protect the United States from the enemy, when in fact the redacted parts expose the FBI as the enemy.
Tucker challenges Nunes to send him the unredacted applications, and he will expose them on his show. Nunes turns down the offer down due to the "penalty" he would need to pay for disclosing classified material, yet if the material is not justly classified, what is there to fear? Law is law, and Nunes is probably doing the right thing, for the moment, to withhold. He once again appeals to Rump, in a public forum, to declassify. If that disgraceful thing in the White House refuses much longer, someone needs to leak the applications. The world deserves to know about the 20 redacted pages that Nunes has been talking about for about a week. We assume that these 20 are the worst of all, for the FBI and/or those involved with Hillary. Still waiting for Nunes' report on the Hillary issues; why do these things take so long?
I want to tell of an error I made in the 3rd update of this month when dealing with the 232 protons of a uranium atom. I had the number wrong, to begin with, as it should be 238 (it's been many years since reading up on it). I also confused myself, saying that evolutionists have 232 (make that 238) times as many uranium atoms per equal volume of gas as compared to hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen gas. That's actually my own view. Their view is that there are equal numbers of atoms in all gases at the same pressure (STP), but each uranium atom has 238 times as many particles as compared to a hydrogen atom. Sorry about that if you were trying to figure out what I was saying.
In order for evolutionists to maintain their view, they really should provide an explanation as to how each gas (for all the elements) at the same pressure and temperature should have identical numbers of atoms. What causes such a grand coincidence? I can see no answer, especially in their kinetic view of atoms.
In my view, I have the grand coincidence that every atom weighs the very same. As dorky as that sounds to one engrained with the evolutionist's atomic model, I offer a simple / grasp-able explanation for how gravity arranged all atoms to weigh the same. Gravity is a negative force that blows outer electrons off every atom until the outer electrons are held by protonic attraction with a force equal to the force of gravity wanting to knock the electrons off. That is, all electrons held to the proton with less force than gravity wanting to blow them away will be blown away. Logical, easy to understand.
With all electrons blown away that can be, all atoms (at the same distance from gravity source) end up with the same net-positive charge radiating outward toward the gravity force. All atoms, for all elements, are therefore attracted by gravity by the same force. Gravity attraction = weight. That's it, the entire theory. No complicated jargon. You are learning something today because I realized that evolutionists screwed up the atomic model in favor of their big-bang needs.
It still looms ridiculous to suggest that the big bang created all protons exactly the same, all electrons exactly the same, all neutrons exactly the same, etc. But it's even harder to believe that the big bang produced some 90-100 different types of atoms, with each type exactly alike. One expects zillions of different pieces of atomic dust, not exactly replicas of one another. The big-bang is, aside from these problems, a colossal stupidity, the creation of all things from nothing. If there were a God in the picture, then at least we can fathom the explanation of matter from nothing, as well as the genius creation of atoms just as they are.
It's been a couple of weeks at least since loading NASA videos, which always come now with slews of flat-earth videos. Youtube is actually planting flat-earth videos out there, for some long-term goal, and I think I know what it is: to equate flat-earthers with youtube's and NASA's enemies. Although I do not click flat-earth videos, youtube still brings them up as suggestions, two weeks later. Every day, it puts flat-earth videos in my face. In the meantime, it buries quality videos, we can be sure. This past week-end, I loaded many Creationist videos, but already, just two days later, youtube is not offering me any more. That's how this skunk works. And all the better people are learning it.
It is my belief that those who have rejected God for long enough are about to be bumped by God into a lower and still lower quality of humanity as their reward. They may not even realize that they are becoming scum because they will glory in their rotten attitudes as something smart and even correct or justified. In the end, they will look upon themselves and realize what deplorables they have become. That's how I see God working.
If some fields of what we call science, which could be called something else, and maybe it's time, point to a Creator, can't people use it to argue on behalf of a God? Why do evolutionists become so angry if we merely ask such a question?
If some scientific data points to a Creator, why can't those who already believe in a Creator -- on a common-sense approach to what he/she merely sees in the Creation -- share the data without the atheist becoming uncomfortable? Because, the crass evolutionist and activist atheist is trying to murder God in the minds of other people, including our children. The activist evolutionist repeatedly says that no science proves the existence of God. The time has arrived, over the past 20 years especially, to make that statement from the evolutionist make him look like a fool. The evolutionist will say that the NATURAL (no God needed) formation of DNA and the making of a snowflake is similar. Is he willfully nuts?
Here's a good video for young (and old) atheists and agnostics/doubters:
Perhaps the most powerful segment of the video above is where the speaker says that we don't see things half evolved today, such as half-evolved legs, noses, eyes, etc. If evolution is the explanation of all things, we expect to see many, many more body parts that serve no purpose, or get in the way of the animal's well-being, than such things that help them to survive. If the genes had accidentally formed legs and eyes and so-forth, without a God, then the genes have no idea what animals need to survive, or that dogs need their eyes at the front of their heads rather than under their tails. You can add endless such arguments to confound the activist evolutionist, and it's not that he hasn't already thought about these things, it's that he willfully wants God dead, and therefore refuses to so-much as bring such things to his students' minds. So, Creationists have the opportunity to teach these things, and they will defeat the fool by such teachings, if only the gigantic media were not almost all on the evolutionists' side.
Do you think it's possible for Creationists to buy some of the big media as they fold and collapse? Imagine how the world would change overnight. It's so refreshing to see nature shows that give God the credit. Believe in God, have peace with your own soul. Confess Jesus, celebrate the grabbing of eternal life. I would have said "grasp," but that can be taken for a mental grasping. Instead, I mean go after eternal life by sticking with Jesus, until your death because you want him.
If you believe just because you have been convinced intellectually that Jesus exists, or even if you believe that he died for satisfying God's wrath upon you, you can be re-convinced the other way. But if you happen to feel the appropriate sorrow for your sins because you express love for Him, that's when you receive His love and Spirit, making it far more difficult, if not impossible, for the sons of the devil to get you back on their turf. Many intellectual converts there have been, but the Church doesn't grow anywhere near as fast as they come in, because many simultaneously leave. Belief is not enough; there needs to be some rich desire for the person / heart of God. He cannot be some aloof cosmic force. He is very interested in you if you are very interested in Him.
It's someone's love of Jesus that drives them forward to actually put righteous living into practice. It's one thing to cease in sins, and better to do the things you know bless God's heart. It's your very private relationship with God. In a sense, you make it what it is, because God awaits to see what you will do, how you will act as a believer. Don't let it devolve into merely the church experience, nor the Bible-reading experience alone. Practical holiness (being-of-Godness) is not by re-reading the Bible 500 times, but by grasping what it says, approving of the Plan forward, and growing a faith through it. That stronger faith is then usable to partake with God's Spirit now, which is the ultimate goal: to be His friend, his child, one in purpose, one in celebrating togetherness. Chasing materialism thwarts this togetherness.
God is calling us to become toughened up, hardened in Him, through perseverance. I hate perseverance. If it were easy, it wouldn't be perseverance. Give me something pleasurable and relaxing any day. But God chooses hardships for us too. Expect it. Try not to despise it. Bend your mind to understand it. There are curses everywhere in this world, curses from God on unrepentant humanity, that will not be removed until Jesus returns. These curses affect Christians too. We need to endure them no matter how it disappoints us. We have no choice. We can leave Him if we get angry enough, or we can find a way to adapt, to continue forward in spite of the pests in life. Toughen up like flint, and cut your way forward to salvation's target. Whoever endures to the end will be saved.
It wasn't more than 20 or 30 years ago, while Creationism was still arising, that evolutionists were passionate about producing papers and such to combat Creationism. But I'm not seeing videos much like that, as compared to Creationists banging-up on evolution. I think I know why. It's because evolutionists got burnt by arguing against their enemies, because it requires setting forth the Creationist points of view, and that's great advertising for us because people really are smarter than the fools think they are. People still believe in God thanks much to Creationism research and their fight against evolutionism. Make no mistake, Creationism is largely a war against evolution. It's useful for evangelism in the meantime. And people really appreciate hardening their faith thanks to Creationism. It's all good all around.
Here's Bill Nye comparing flat earth with Creationism just because Creationists take the position that the sedimentary rocks, and its fossils, are about 4,300 years old. While there are arguments to prove that mankind himself can be tracked to about that age, Nye starts out stating his "fact" that the earth is billions of years old. So, because his brain is set on that picture, Creationism is, to him, like a flat-earth theory. But experienced Creationists are not like those who insist on a flat earth. Far from it. Therefore, the Nye's of the world are actually our greatest helpers, for they shoot themselves in the foot everytime they make cheap arguments like this. They think they can convince the world that Creationists are buffoons. Not so.
CNN asks Nye a question that is loaded for him, and he makes the typical argument that Creationism is not science. This is what they were all saying 20 or 30 years ago too. Christian parents simply want restraints on evolution, because it's faulty science. There is much knowledge, call it what you will, science or otherwise, arguing for Creation. Nye is narrow-minded, thinking that science is defined only as the findings of evolutionists, and that all the counter-arguments of Creationists are based on the Bible. This is the liar, for while the Bible teaches Creationism, it is not correct to say that Creationism is based on the Bible if the Creationism being referred to is the system of arguments made by Creationists. The latter can counter evolution without mention of the Bible, which is to say that none of those arguments is based on the Bible.
In other words, when the Creationist shows that rock-dating techniques don't work, how is it based on the Bible? It isn't. When the Creationist argues that the fossil record is absent the expected special formations needed to solidify evolution as a fact, how is that based on the Bible? It's not. On and on the Creationists go, countering evolution with their own facts, but this cannot be included in science because it happens to argue for Creationism, which happens to be in the Bible is and therefore deemed unscientific. That's the best that Nye can do, to fool himself, to show himself as narrow-minded, which is not going to win the game for evolutionists. Their only hope is to have the major media and the governments on their side; otherwise, they stand no chance with their tricks.
CNN goes on to say that 46 percent of Americans now believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That is a phenomenal testament to the success of Creationists and evangelicals in the face of the devil's sons owning (generally speaking) lawmakers, courts, schools, media, and so much more. If they gave Christians half of the above, this game would be over. Nye says that Creationism is winning because evolutionists aren't doing their jobs i.e. to fight Creationism. Incorrect. They were doing their jobs, but everytime they opened their mouths, they lost followers, because Creationists are more powerful in using the science than evolutionists are. So, the more they say that the own science, the more people see evolutionist as narrow-minded. Just look at that long, thin, hollow head that Nye wears, the deceiver of our children. Woe unto Nye.
Youtube is not offering me any good Creationist productions at this time. It's time for the wicked to cheat now, because we are starting to get too close to toppling them. The more they cheat, the more God feels He has a right to intervene. This war is going to go our way. Sweet revenge on the sinners intent on making sinners. It's time to view Jesus as our sweet revenge. It's time to describe Him as our sweet revenge. It is not sinful for us to desire sweet revenge. Does this mean that we desire for them to go to the lake of fire? It is they who lead people to the lake of fire. What do you think should be their reward? Woe unto those who cause others to sin, said Jesus, especially children. Woe unto Nye. What did Jesus mean by this? The lake of fire. Painful, lonely, forsaken, shamed, awful. It is their just reward.
God will make his case that these wicked deserve this just reward. That's why they own most of society, by God's will, I am very sure, so that they can come totally out of the closet, to show all their true colors, to fight for the devil's society, and thus condemn themselves by their own words and deeds. Though they play tricks to retain power for their beloved society, it is God who tricks them fatally. Quiet He operates as they expose their true selves. back in the 1950's, they dared not, but now they cry out for satan. That's the reason for the anti-Christ, who blasphemes God and wars against His people, so that these people might condemn themselves by latching onto him as their hope. Revelation says that his worshipers will think of him as unbeatable. Yet, in less than four years, he not only comes to his end, but takes the world down with him, all who trusted in him. Sweet revenge. If it's God's sweet revenge, let it be ours also.
Nye is more than simply wrong in his thinking. He's rebellious, leading a rebellion, wishing for others to start similar crusades. This type of activity will cause the anti-Christ to raise up their representatives, and, I assume, the prophetic anti-Christ will be just dandy for them. I can see this coming. And I think you can too. It can happen imminently, especially with the supreme court slipping away from them. The comments at the CNN video above are filled with anti-Christ. They are fully out of the closet. They wish to rule, to run society, with us being lowered to the status of fantasy-chasers. They are the new Nazi's arising, the murderous.
There is nothing more important to do but to testify for God in this war situation. It's childish, but that's not our fault. It's childish to be having this argument at all. Grown men beating up on us because we have the obvious, Creationist truth. Long before evolution, Creationism was the belief for a reason. It's not new. Science is new, so let's keep on giving them the correct view of scientific facts. Rock dating is a sham. The rock layers are often contorted and uncracked as evidence of their being bent/folded while still soft. Virtually the entire earth is covered in sedimentary rock as evidence of a global flood. Fossils show no evolution of species. Fat chance can't create the cell or DNA. The big bang could not form suns. Life begs a Designer. Genes don't know what animals need to survive. Planets in orbit begs the existence of a powerful God. Biology begs the existence of an super-intelligent Genius. Modern flesh on dino bones makes evolutionists into liars.
It just so happens that science arose from evolutionists. Creationists contributed to scientific learning, but science was definitely a property of evolutionists, who worked error into what they called science that "proved" evolution. Erroneous science is not science at all, any child understands it. But not Bill Nye. Shame on Bill, who can't bring himself to saying that there is a Creator. Great shame. He looks so out of touch. He's so far from the truth. He teaches his children lies. What a sorry excuse for a human being. We now need to war against his type, so sad, in order to save the next generation. Is there any hope for it? The demons insist on corrupting it. God permits...because He wants a grand exposure for their judgment.
The same readers at CNN who support Intelligence agencies and Rod Rosenstein also support Bill Nye. The liars all-around. They want a society based on lies, and without a method of salvation for the soul. They don't want people to believe in salvation, but rather to accept the lie that death is all there is. We are maligned by these grown and foolish children because we believe in salvation by a Creator. It is disgusting to them. But why? It's not as though we are offering poison to kill them. We aren't trying to pull their teeth out, or to mug them. Yet they hate us viciously, as if they cannot understand why we believe in a Creator, as though we have no argument at all just because science says that the rocks are millions of years old.
Bill Nye knows that tree trunks stretch through many layers of hard, sedimentary rock. But when he's arguing on CNN that each layer is millions of years old, he doesn't mention that part. And there are other objects that stretch across more than one layer. Here is undeniable evidence that one strata is not millions of years old, yet they deny this to the world, and instead use their worthless rock-dating techniques that no one on the street can speak to either way. It's hocus-pocus. The reason we can't understand many scientific explanations is not because it is above our intelligence level, but because is nonsense. It confuses people who approach it as reliable; they cannot follow it because it is intended to be nonsense disguised as higher learning.
If ever you could not follow their atomic theories, it's due to the nonsense. They know it's nonsense, but they need it for their theories of evolution. That's their priority, not truth. They know electrons don't orbit protons. They know it's nonsense for protons to be joined to protons. They know it's nonsense for atoms never to slow down when making endless contacts. They know that a particle-wave theory is rubbish. And they have heard that rock-dating techniques don't work.
It is a fact that tree trunks have been discovered stretching across several layers of rock. Do we call this a scientific fact? Why. What makes it science? Is it a science just because a scientist discovers such a tree trunk? Suppose a child found it and then reported it to an adult until it finally got to scientists. Does that make it a scientific find? What do you think should be the standard for claiming a scientific fact? I know. It starts off as a theory, and then some evolutionist "proves" it. Just like rock-dating techniques that cannot be proven to work. But that one tree trunk (fossilized) cutting across the hard rock is the only thing that should be part of the rock-dating science, because it proves that rock dating is a sham.
Accept it, child Nye. It's time to grow up and admit your defeat. The more you teach your rock-dating technique, the more the Creationist will expose you with those fossilized tree trunks. There is no escape but to sensor the Creationist, to block him off from the education channels, and that's why they don't want Creationism in the schools. They want the monopoly on learning, shame. Is that how they plan to operate, by blocking all facts that deny their science? By calling Creationists crazies for daring to point to facts that deny their science? Tis a joke.
Here is Wikipedia's article on polystrate fossils: "A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. This term is typically applied to 'fossil forests' of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide..." It should be against the law to teach rock-dating techniques without also mentioning these trunks and other items. "The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in Creationist publications."
So what do evolutionists call it when tree trunks destroy their theories? Why isn't polystrate part of their science? You know the answer. They see the evidence with their own eyes, then deny it. That's why evolutionism is losing. And it survives now only because half the world is wicked, willing to push the lie to destroy Faith in God. This is what history has arrived to, the Showdown. God is only too happy to play a part of Showdown. It's won't be pretty, Bill. You have a terrible future. Woe unto Nye.
"According to mainstream (actualistic) models of sedimentary environments, [polystrate objects] are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation separated by long periods of either slow deposition, nondeposition, or a combination of both." Oh, I see. While admitting that rapid sedimentation can occur, they yet retain the million-years-long theory. But how do they explain the rapid sedimentation? By floods. Has anyone ever found one tree trunk (still woody) buried in several layers of mud from one or even two river floods? No. In fact, the article says that polystrate items take decades, at least, to be buried i.e. from consecutive floods. Well, then, show us one tree trunk, still wood, found in flood deposits still mud. Until they can show this, they have no right to enter, into their "science," the theory that polystrate occurs as they say it does.
The one flood of Noah was a volcanic event. The evidence is overwhelming. Volcanoes now called mid-ocean ridges were the fountains of the great deep bringing up subterranean waters. Unusual levels of heat is what caused the Flood; there is no other explanation. Heat brought water and rock material to the ground and to ocean floors. This is the premise for explaining the conditions of the Flood.
Marine fossils now on mountains is evidence of ground lifting due to ocean-floor collapse. To explain how land could rise thousands of feet into what are now sedimentary-layered mountains, evolutionists are out of luck in claiming a slow process of sea-floor uplift over millions of years. The polystrate objects are only part of the evidence against them. And so the Creationists are in a position to glean the truth, since evolutionists close their eyes to it.
I've considered the problem. I suppose that, if great enough, increased internal heat could raise sea floors thousands of feet into the air all at once during the Flood. But I suspect something else at work. Sections of the crust broke in long lines. For example, the crust at what is now the Pacific "plate" along the coast of North and South America snapped away from what is now the continental plate of North and South America. The Pacific plate then sank down into the molten material, and its vast weight created vast pressure, which forced neighboring continental land to rise, forming the Rockies, what we now call Central America, and all the mountains along the west coast of South America.
There are two ways in which the crust, assumed to start off as one spherical piece globally, could snap into several pieces. 1) When molten material beneath the crust was transferred to the top of the crust, it added weight. When the heat subsided, the plates could sink into the cavities formed by the transfer of material. In either 1) or 2), the crust was thinned by upward melting of their undersides. 2) Pressures from the heat below is expected to apply upward force on the undersides, which could cause snapping away of the crust. Once snapped away, there was no longer anything to keep the pieces of crust from weighing down on the magma. As long as the crust was one piece globally, there was no downward weight on the magma.
Repeat: as long as the crust was one piece globally, all gravitational pull on the crust transferred its weight into itself, not on the materials below the crust, in the way that blocks above an arched doorway transfer weight along the blocks of the arch. Therefore, water could exist beneath the crust without being pressed. We expect water beneath the crust because volcanic activity, before the Flood, created the cavities into which ocean water could recede. Or, even aside from volcanic activity, there may have been water-filled cavities from the start of the earth's creation. Genesis does not say that the earth was created in the six days, but seems to have been there already before the six days. Neither does it say that it had been there for a very long time.
On the third day, land is made to appear from the water that previously covered the crust. It can be gleaned that God caused internal heat to bring up molten material, which hardened into islands and continents, all of igneous rock. This formed cavities beneath the crust into which much of the waters could recede. The situation for producing the Flood thereby took place.
One can wholly ignore the details in Genesis 1 in arguing for Creationism. This is a means to keep the evolutionist from continually basing Creationism on a "fairy tale." How did an Old-Testament writer know that "He hangs the earth on nothing" (Job). He didn't have the means to circle the globe. He hadn't spoken with one who had. Just because the moon and sun were round was no reason to conclude that the earth was a sphere, which is an idea that, I think, was not as old as he. Apparently, some men knew in his time that the earth hung in space as did the moon and sun, and that the earth, therefore, circled the sun, or vice-versa. The idea did not come from Genesis. It came from observation, but why call it scientific observation? Why don't we just discard this word, scientific? It has no good meaning anymore. Evolutionists have corrupted it. Men saw. They thinked. They concluded. It's exactly what Creationists do.
According to evolutionists, no water could have remained on earth at its creation. They went forward with their gas theory on planetary creation in spite of this, because they don't have another theory. To explain how earth got all the water later, they invented ice planets, which they call comets. Yup, comets hit the earth and created the oceans. So, who believes in fairy tales now? Plus, comets are not really made of ice. They lie. When evolutionists need one, they appeal to a cartoon scenario far more challenging to the mind that a global Flood. And speaking of animation, they are now feeding the world false images of Mars having sedimentary strata and other geological features "proving" the existence of water there.
If the solar system started as a cloud circling the sun, it's a wonder as to how all planets move around the sun with different periods and different speeds. It's a wonder that they are all in perfect balance too, forming perfect orbits, that is. To the intelligent mind, this is just plain impossible. But the evolutionist was his own willing fool. Evolutionists shackle free thinking. If you think and teach on a wide scale anything that violates them, regardless of whether you are religious, you will be persecuted, mocked.
Ask Velikovsky. He proposed that Venus came into its orbit from further out in space than earth. It follows that, as Venus passed the earth, it created such huge tides that it caused the Biblical Flood. The passing of Venus from some other place to become trapped in its solar orbit is no more outlandish than what some evolutionists say, for example: in the way the moon came to orbit the earth. Yet, because Velikovsky betrayed evolutionists, his theory was ridiculed. Does this sound like a reliable bunch of nobles? More like bums. Throw them out.
To be sure, Velikovsky based his Venus theory on imaginative thinking, but in no way was he as outlandish as evolutionists. No one beats the latter for sheer imagination. It is highly unlikely that material spit out by Saturn, as he says, came to orbit the sun where Venus now orbits. But evolutionists have all planets orbiting at different speeds around the same star, after they were all parts of the same gaseous cloud, an impossibility. Even if we could imagine how a spinning cloud had nine of its parts spinning at different velocities, there is little chance that all nine would end up at exactly the right mass to form an orbit.
For example, if Jupiter's cloud material was starting to come together into a proto-planet, while the orbital velocity was progressing to such-and-such a final speed, the total material in the finally-formed planet had to be exactly perfect in mass to keep it in orbit at such-and-such a velocity. While we might find it somewhat credible for this to have taken place for one planet, nine planets for one star from one cloud is impossible. Evolution has so many impossibilities that it's dead in the water, like a living corpse.
If Velikovsky was correct, then there is no need for my theories above on the crust. Velikovsky's idea doesn't appear to explain the formation of sedimentary mountains, with their marine fossils, wherefore I reject his explanation for the Flood. Someone may say that the passage of Venus may have attracted the magma in the earth along with the oceans waters, but that is a great stretch. Pulling the free-fluid water laterally to greater depths that then flood the continents is one thing, but pulling the heavier, trapped magma and causing it to raise entire continental land masses seems to be a fatal stretch.
Back to Wikipedia: "Scientists interpret polystrate fossils as fossils buried in a geologically short time span - either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples, a few of which are discussed in the paragraphs below, of buried upright tree-trunks that have been observed buried in the Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens, Skamania County, Washington..." There you have it. If scientists say so, who are we to argue? And that's the way they operate. They devise theories, call them the best facts available, and who are we to disagree? If I disagree, why should you believe little old me? If a Creationist disagrees, he's just a crazy, right? That's their game: all truth must come from scientists...and evolutionists have naturally stacked fields of science with themselves.
The fact remains: evolutionists admit that one log or tree can be buried in short order in several layers of strata. The onus is thus on them to prove that all strata were not laid in short order. But they cannot prove it because dating techniques have been overwhelmingly proven to be unreliable. The bible of their faith, old rocks, is thus unreliable.
I would go further by charging that they fixed dating techniques to be deceptively self-serving. They needed a system to date rocks in the millions of years, and so they devised one. It's easy to figure. The best thing that evolutionists can do for Creationists is to appear as liars in various ways, for in that way, decent people, their would-be victims, can more easily confess that dating techniques were fabricated by liars. Exposing their liberality in utilizing the lie tactic is what Creationism is half about.
We read above: "buried upright tree-trunks that have been observed buried in the Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens..." Uhh, ya, but volcanic deposits are not sedimentary strata. Where are the buried logs, with wood still in them, buried in the sedimentary rocks that supposedly take millions of years to form? Here's more from the same article; see if you read anything about the trees cutting through several layers of sedimentary rocks:
At this time, the best documented occurrences of unfossilized [wood still there] buried upright trees occur within the historic and late-Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens (Skamania County, Washington) and of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. At Mount St. Helens, both unfossilized and partially fossilized trees have occurred in many outcrops of volcanic debris and mud flows (lahars) and pyroclastic flow deposits, which date from 1885 to over 30,000 BP. [28,000 BC], along the South Toutle and other rivers.
What's this quote doing in a polystrate article? Is this a joke? No. It's the evolutionist's serious attempt at using tricks. That's what it looks like, anyway. What's needed is to show a tree trunk still woody in multi-layered, water-deposited sedimentation still muddy. Hello? Does the evolutionist not get it? Does the evolutionist not understand the Creationist argument? Yes, he does, but he fights tooth and nail against it. The best way is not to mention those nasty trunks at all.
The same article comes to a section on river-buried logs. See for yourself that there is no mention on how many layers of mud cover a single piece of log:
Within excavations for Interstate Highway 10 in the United States of America, and in borrow pits, in landfills, and archaeological surveys, unfossilized upright trees have been found buried within late Holocene, even historic, fluvial and deltaic sediments underlying the surface of the Mississippi River Delta and the Atchafalaya Basin of Louisiana. In one case, borrow pits dug in the natural levees of Bayou Teche near Patterson, Louisiana, have exposed completely buried, 4 to 6 feet (1.2 to 1.8 meters) high, upright trunks of cypress trees. Northeast of Donaldsonville, Louisiana, a borrow pit excavated for fill used to maintain nearby artificial levees, exposed three levels of rooted upright tree trunks stacked on top of each other lying completely buried beneath the surface of Point Houmas, a patch of floodplain...While searching for buried archaeological sites, archaeologists excavated a 12 ft (3.6 meter) high upright rooted cypress tree completely buried...these upright trees were buried in the 1800s, during the initial diversion of Mississippi River's flow into the Atchafalaya River.
Ya, duh, but were they buried in just one layer of mud? Why doesn't it tell us how many layers of mud there were for any one of the examples given? Something smells like a trick here. I might maybe believe that a log could be buried in a couple of layers due to two river floods near to one another in time, but a fossilized log stretching across six or seven layers is a lot less likely by that method.
Here is how to prove them liars and deniers. True scientists would study a fossil tree laying in six or seven layers of rock. They would seek evidence that the upper half of the log is a lot more rotted than the lower half. After all, the upper half sits open to the rain and sun for a lot longer before a flood arrives to bury it. The log should be progressively more rotted with height above the ground. If there were truth to this, it would be mentioned in this article with great priority. It would be at the top of the article, because it would be the killer for the Creationist argument.
Tree trunks sticking up in the air in flood-prone environments last only about 30 years, my guess, before disappearing altogether into the soil as rot. If we ask Google, suddenly, the unexpected answer, as though evolutionists have toyed with their tricks in this department too: "The computer model calculates that the 'residence times' (how long a tree will take to completely decompose) for conifer species range from 57 to 124 years, while hardwood species are typically around on the forest floor for 46 to 71 years." It seems stretchy to me, but even so, let's also quote this from a Google result: "The stump left behind by a large tree can last up to 10 years without treatment." That's a "large" tree, probably over a foot in diameter. It rots faster because it's in contact with the wet ground. But so is a tree or log sticking out of the mud of a river flood. While the top half (latter scenario) in the air can last decades, the part at ground level lasts only one decade, on average. When the second flood comes, it could knock the upper part off due to rot at ground level, if it hasn't already fallen off without the aid of flowing water.
In other words, it is highly unlikely that river floods could explain fossilized trunks through the seven or eight layers that I count at the photo in the Wikipedia article above. If they change that photo, by the time you're reading this update, to one with less rock layers, we can understand why. In the photo, there are many layers (most not shown) below the bottom of the "log" (article claims it's the trunk of a non-woody Sigillaria plant).
It's likely that fossilized polystrate items are not near flood plains. The liar would argue that flood plains did occur millions of years ago where these items are found. And who am I to disagree? Just a crazy.
Listen to seasoned Creationists, because they would not use flippant arguments that serve evolutionism well by allowing evolutionists to call them crazy. The first argument in the video below is that life in Cambrian rocks, the lowest layers of rock with any fossils, appears in complicated. That is, the ancestors of these complicated forms are not in simpler forms the pre-Cambrian layers of rock below the Cambrian strata. Why not? Because the life forms did not evolve. Instead, pre-Cambrian rock was the top of the earth's crust before the Flood, and Cambrian layers were the first sediments during the Flood. It's by far the better explanation, especially as fossils in the Cambrian strata are largely sea-floor creatures. Hello?
The second topic in the video above glorifies God wildly. The putting together the various programs in the many cells of a body, all working together, animal after animal, is mind-boggling, and we don't yet vaguely know understand a single percent of it all.
The teacher of evolution below makes a confession that he regrets teaching evolution, what he's paid to do:
When an evolutionists says that his theory works on survival of the fittest, there are at least two wrong assumptions being made. One, that there is a natural, upward evolution to something better, formed, in the first place, by a change in the genetic code. So, the first thing happening, he thinks, is that some beneficial change in the genes produces a better animal, and then the better animal predominates in getting all the women for reproduction so that the better change wins the day for evolving the animal onward. It sounds so logical, but he's left something out. The second assumption is that the ones getting bad mutations, and even the old winners no longer the best, do not proceed to the future; they die out...which is not necessarily correct, anyway.
The problem is, if the only thing he talks about is the beneficial mutations, he's lying a fat lie. The same line that got a beneficial mutation also got thousands of destructive mutations in the past, and will receives thousands of bad mutations in the future before the next beneficial one comes along, on average. The direction is toward destruction of the species. So why can't he accept this simple thing? Is it because he has only half a brain? No. It's because he prefers to lie. He's a fool advancing very-stupid things.
Evolutionists have stacked science departments with like kind, and have probably been meticulous in discovering who the Creationists are amongst them, in order to fire or demote them. Then, after gaining the monopoly to the point that all colleges / universities forbid teaching the alternative point of view, they boast that all colleges / universities forbid teaching Creation science in order to give appearances that evolution is by far more respectable when in fact they plotted to form a monopoly by trollish and brute craft.
Evolutionists cry the blues because Creationists don't quote evolutionists in the science journals, and thus they portray Creationists as anti-science. Well, yes, they are anti-science when the science is wrong. What's wrong with that? Creationism is more than the glorifying of God; it's also an attack on evolutionary "science." What's wrong with that?
It the courts won't allow Creationism to be taught because the majority of judges are Godless trolls themselves, then Creationists need to change strategy. Go to court and argue that schools need to allow criticism in the college class against evolution, wherever the criticism is warranted. Just destroy the "fact" of evolution first; the rest will come naturally to everyone's mind, because the only alternative is a Creation.
I really like the ending in the video below:
The video above makes the excellent point that evolutionists who refuse to entertain a Creator in their scientific endeavors of history and origins is like our asking him to explain the origin of a computer where he is not allowed to mention man. In this game, the evolutionist is permitted to tell only how the computer came about naturally, by fat chance processes. It shows how ridiculous he is to wipe God out of his own picture. If he were worthy of respect, he would at least entertain the possibility that there is a God with miraculous powers, but, from the outset, he says that miracles are not permitted in his endeavors to explain reality. Such a laughable clown. Miracles are beneath him. Claiming that God is able to create things is out of bounds for him simply because he hates God. When he argues that God is not permitted in the scientific exploration of origins, he does so with pride, as though he has a logical and justified position worthy of being passed on to science students, and not willing to realize his stupidity.
First ask whether there is a Creator, stupid, and then proceed with science. As one proceeds, ask whether the evidence exposes the possibility of a Creator. The stupid doesn't have the choice to pick, no Creator, at the outset, but this is what he picks. He's fully strict about this starting position. Before he even seeks the cause of Creation, he's decided that God can have no part. Isn't that an absolute fool, a hater of God?
If he goes to great and ridiculous extents to explain the computer's existence without a man to design and create it, we have got to conclude that he hates the computer's creator. The biological life he claims to study is far-more complicated than a computer, and far-more of a wonder or miraculous thing. He studies the miracle of life, and then says there are no miracles allowed. Such a bozo. His job is to keep humanity in the dark. This is the purpose of evolution. It is more than a science, it is all-out war against God and those who would give Him glory for the Creation.
If you care to listen to a fool, the video below, starting at the end of the 4th minute, has him criticizing God as a poor designer, and he ends in a scathing attack. And he starts off with an argument that would make his listeners hate God, because kids die every year by choking to death, because God created the wind tunnel next to the stomach tunnel. On and on he is willing to go to point out all of the designs that could have been done better. This is the fool who refuses to see the glorious parts of biological Creation, is it not, simply because he hates God. Many more people do not choke to death than do. Can God get credit for that? I can add that many people have bad breath, or a bad case of foul gas from their stomachs, such bad designs. God did not make things good enough for the evolutionist. He therefore gives credit to an imperfect process of evolution.
It seems to me that the Creation was Created imperfect deliberately, and that a far superior Creation awaits for those who pass the test in God's testing grounds. This history is a testing ground. It wasn't the best God could do. It's deliberately a testing ground where God also punishes or protects, whichever He decides to do. And sometimes I feel that He lets things happen as they happen without intervention in any way. It does seem cruel on his end at times, but for every cruel event in humanity, there are many good ones. War is cruel, and he allows it, to my sadness too, but I would be a fool to say there is no God on that argument. In this life, we have got to accept death, and Jesus came to make death a non-issue for those who receive Him, which is what makes the evolutionist more the fool than when he invents an alternative method of Creation. In the meantime, he refuses the Victory Over Death.
We are imperfect flesh, granted, but the body is yet a fantastic machine. Have I got that right? Yes. Then why can't the fool above bring himself to say the same? Because, he has allowed himself to hate God for the way that history has unfolded. He refuses to give credit for death and suffering to a humanity run amuck, and he himself is exactly part of that problem, the reason that God punishes with death. If he could just give God the opportunity to create the New Earth and the New Universe, he would be amazed, and this is exactly what he will miss out on, a far-superior body and a far-superior and glorious Universe. The first rule of wisdom is to understand that God created this Creation with mediocrity because He knew that it would come to be possessed and corrupted by corrupt human leaders. The winners of wars became the leaders throughout history. Even those who attacked others for no reason but selfish gain came to order full societies. It's terrible, it really is, and we must endure this, not speak vainly against God. We wish and groan for better things, but, please, let's not condemn ourselves as evolutionists do, by pointing the finger at God when man is far-more cruel.
God punishes for wrongdoing, thankfully, not because he enjoys the pain of others. If the latter were true, we would see far-more cruelty. Men in war were apt to causing others pain, and they killed for the purposes of raping women, or taking their belongings. Do things like this cause pain in God? Didn't a time arrive, after repeated evil episodes, that God stopped feeling pain? Didn't he replace his weeping with indifference and sometimes anger? He decided that man will not mock Him, not get away with evil, and so He prepared things to be the thorns of life, that man might finish his days unable to say that he got away unscathed. To toil he goes daily, for most people, to a life of servitude and seeming hopelessness in a certain death not far off. Surely, this was prepared by God because the bulk of humanity wanted to have thrilling lives while slapping Him in the face. That's your typical enemy of God, and the evolutionist is at the head of that charge in modern times. He wants man to punish God for the bad things in life, to rob Him of his glory, to dump Him into the garbage, to trample on His very face.
I don't agree with Christians who say we were perfectly designed. I do think that there is such a thing as a perfect body, as it was intended to operate, but it is not perfect in other senses. It is marvelous, but it has limitations. We get tired fast. Muscles can ache. But even so, God may have intended to limit how much we work. Our night-vision capabilities are not impressive, yet even that is a good thing for sleeping purposes. While we might say that there's room for better design, we can also argue that God created us darn well for the tasks in this life, to get by until death opens a door to a far-superior life. Yes, death is the most blatant imperfection of life, but even that has much more than a silver lining, if we just endure in Jesus. Don't be the fool. Stay at peace with God, because the devil wants you to hate him. Evolutionists are servants of satan.
As we get older, our limitations can increase while patience can decrease. If we tend to blame God for all those moments when things seem unbearable, it's a bad habit. Things seem worse when we desire pleasantries. The contrast between the sort of life we would like, and the life that actually stares us in the face in the hardest hours, can be hard, but a healthy faith in Jesus makes us overcomers. It gets harder for us when people at work discover that we are believers, and their task becomes one of making life hard for us, to minimize us, to slander us, to give promotions to others instead. Turning to Jesus makes things harder too, and most people are unwilling to own that. Others think that life with God in a New Heavens is worth the price to pay to be hated by the likes of evolutionists. It makes for anguish to see how the latter think and respond to Jesus.
Want to see what insanity looks like:
Why Should Fossils Be Old?
They say that over 90 percent of all fossils are marine animals. A video from the series above told that science claims about 4,000 human fossils only. Burial may not be sufficient; heavy weight upon the buried item may be required.
Whatever explains the disappearance of the carcass, the mud surrounding the remaining bones must become rigid, not runny, or a cast of the bones would not be formed. Take away the bones altogether, and there is a cavity inside the cast. With the bones disappearing and creating space, water would not only move in, but out, of the cavity. That is, water would flow through the cavity, bringing in small particles of rock / mineral material that eventually fills the cavity. That's my guess for fossil formation. Just being logical and keeping it simple. Science agrees with this method, but has other ones, for example, "permineralization." I don't have the knowledge to comment.
Evolutionists need lots and lots of time. Bones rot in far less time. Permineralization is said to be mineral (stone) material replacing decayed cells one by one. Obviously, the outer bones have their cells replaced first, and, so, I think I can spot the trick here: due to stone material covering the outer areas of the bones first, decay of cells deeper down, and therefore fossilization, is vastly slowed. In this method, Wikipedia says that some of the organic material of the cell remains, but I don't trust evolutionists. Wikipedia says that most dinosaur fossils are permineralized.
How long does it take for bones to evacuate the space between the mud that surrounds them? What do the bones turn into? If they disappear by slow combustion (needs oxygen), don't they turn into some form of bone-oxide / calcium-oxide? In order to rot, the bones need bacteria, and while most bacteria need oxygen, some don't. Most fossils found are in shallow ground, where oxygen can reach, but I don't know whether oxygen can penetrate solid rock. As water can get through both mud and rock, so can oxygen, we may assume, get through mud.
Calcium-oxide is lime. Wikipedia's article on calcium-oxide doesn't tell whether it dissolves in water. If so, water running through a cavity can take it away. I don't know that bones would suffer slow combustion with the weight of a thousand feet or more of mud above them. The idea here is that the weight causes some special event to form a cavity, and, afterward, the receding of Flood waters washes away the sediments from above the fossil to the point that it ends up close to the surface of the permanent ground. Technically, bones are made of calcium phosphate, and I don't know whether slow combustion acts on that material, or what sort of oxide it forms if it does. I have no idea whether slow combustion is even applicable to bones under great weight.
As fossils form only by rapid burial of a carcass, why do typical fossils possess only the bones? If the carcass rots away before fossilization begins, how do we explain the existence of fossilized leaves, items expected to rot faster than a carcass? It appears that rotting has nothing to do with fossil formation. But then where do the flesh parts of bodies go? A Creationist could try to solve this by saying that a carcass under the pressure of even hundreds of feet of sediments will burst, spilling its guts. The capsule that it's in wouldn't stay roundish, but would flatten out under the weight, and, conceivably, some of the soft parts, and especially the body's water content, would be squeezed out to neighboring areas of the mud. If you put a soccer ball, filled with water, under hundreds of feet of mud, it's going to flatten. It'll want to, and the prediction is that it will also burst while flattening out, allowing its water content to escape into the mud all around.
It is necessary for the fossil-shaped cast (bones only) to form AFTER the soft body has disappeared. The rest of the body parts not made of water, we may assume, slowly decompose and migrate to the outside too. It all needs to leave BEFORE the mud gets too stiff or semi-rockish to change the shape of the body capsule into a cast of the bones alone. But this is not yet a fossil, so long as the bones are in their cast.
How does the calcium in the bones rot? What eats it? Might calcium-decomposing acid explain the formation of fossils rather than bacterial rot? I'm a little suspicious in that an article on the process of bone rot doesn't pop up when asking Google the best phrases I can think of. The process is called diagenesis, in case you'd like to read up on it. Never assume these days that you're being told the truth by scientific establishments. Any science discussion requiring the cover-up of evolution's sins will use cover-ups. Proceed with that in mind. Key details in bone rot may be denied to us if there is something to hide in fossilization. Any requirement of the evolutionist's explanation of fossilization can and will work its way, true or false, into diagenesis discussions and papers. Expect it.
We don't hear of people, modern or ancient, claiming that their buried animal was later dug up as a fossil. It tends to point to the great weight of the Flood needed for forming fossils. The evolutionists doesn't have a great weight above in his fossil theory. It tends to point to the weight of sedimentation in the Flood, for stone material is much heavier than water. It's a good reason to expect that evolutionists will deny us the facts on what might happen to bones under pressure. Frankly, I can't imagine that anything would happen. But I'm open to a surprise.
As sedimentary layers formed within water, they were saturated with water. It couldn't dry out so long as water remained above it. If we have reason to believe that fossils formed before the Flood ended, then the casts must have been formed by a cementation process, where the mud turned at least semi-rockish...but not before carcass materials migrated out of the capsules. A leaf doesn't have soft, blubbery parts that can be made to migrate into the mud under weight. I can understand why a cast would form around the entire leaf, but in order for this to take place, it needs to be fast enough that the leaf doesn't first decompose. While millions of years for cast formation is out of the question, could it be that cast formation took place before the Flood ended? If it did not, we can't appeal to great weight to form fossils...which is to say that, if great weight is the explanation, it looks like fossil casts formed in less than one year.
The next process is removal of bones from within the cast. One can easily imagine that 1,000 years is sufficient both to decompose the bones and to replace them with rock atoms entering with a constant flow of water in and out of the cast. If the bones rotted, they turned into bacteria, and, it must be assumed, the bacteria was carried out with the flow of water. All the bones thus left in the stomachs of the bacteria, so to speak. If acid decomposed the bones, ditto: the bone material had to leave the cast, as a chemical(s) this time, by a flow of water. I see no other way, unless there exists some rodent / ground dweller that eats bones. I've never heard of one.
One page on diagenesis:
Much collagen loss in bone is correlated with microbial attack (as shown by typical histological alteration). All severely attacked bone has lost a substantial fraction of collagen (at least 80%); while a considerable portion of Holocene bone in temperate regions, when selected for showing no, or slight, histological alteration, retains a high proportion of collagen.
That is, according to scientists, decomposition of bones is preceded by decomposition of its collagen. Or, so long as much collagen remains, the bones are hardier against rot. What happens to collagen under great pressure? I have no idea.
The article repeatedly laments that too little is known, and that study papers on the topic are scarce. Is this by design of evolutionists? Is this topic out of bounds for a suspicious reason? The article makes the following statement that could be an evolutionist's falsification: "With regard to [the timescale for microbial attack], it is quite clear that bones do not increase in their severity or frequency of microbial attack with duration of burial, at least on a timescale of, say, 4000 years or more." Hard to believe. Very hard. They would have us think that bones are nearly indestructible if buried.
There are soft-tissue and body fossils, underscoring the quickness that fossils form with. Answers in Genesis talks about soft-tissue fossils: "The decay process plays an essential role in biogeochemical cycling. The microbes responsible for the quick decay of tissues release ions as they metabolize the organic matter. These ions are then available to precipitate in and around the nearby tissues, fossilizing them." I'm no expert, but this sounds to me like an evolutionist's hokey-pocus explanation on fossil formation. The ions, sometimes used in physics to play hokey-pocus tricks, are hereby the fossil-producing agents. I'm not buying it. How possibly could the products of microbes, upon eating tissue, form minerals? Where's the logic?
There are many ways to show that the earth isn't close to old enough for evolution. There is no way to prove an old earth, neither by appealing to the time needed for fossil formation, nor dating rocks. How else do evolutionists date the earth? Off hand, I don't know. If they had a third method used often, I'd probably remember it. Creation happens to be the alternative to evolution, and where the latter fails, Creation is proved to be true by default, not pixie-dust as our enemies contend who abhor the thought of God ruling their society. They can't argue that Creationism fails anyone because they can't disprove it. If they argue that no one can prove a Creator, they argue also that they can't disprove Him.
We can disprove evolution by their own "fossil record." Their peers of a few generations ago have inadvertently proven that Creation is true by predicting a filled fossil record that never filled up. It's that simple. Their day of reckoning has arrived when they no longer want to talk fossils because they realize that they are getting absolutely hammered by it. The evolution of species is not in the fossil record. There is no progression shown for any species. If it were in the fossil record, their peers of old wouldn't have had need to conduct fossilized hoaxes. They are taking the world to the predicted, end-time apostasy. They are the apostasy.
What's all this talk about forgiveness of rebels and fools? It doesn't make God sound like a cruel being if he's offering forgiveness, the end of pain, the end of death, and a New Universe. There is no doubt that He can be harsh, as the Flood itself exposes. Mock him, behave like an evolutionist on a crusade to turn the planet against him unjustly, and a world like that is headed to a second harsh reaction at Armageddon. We don't know how bad the world was at the Flood; we must trust God in what Genesis says, that every inclination of man's heart was evil. The same should be the case for Armageddon.
It is a fact that evolutionists have used science to promote their theory. They are guilty of wasting much of their lives, and our money, trying to prove a theory that cannot be valid no matter how much scientific knowledge they use to validate it. They have failed, yet speak as though they succeeded. They have the wicked and the sinners backing them. There is no shortage of these types, unafraid to mock God in public forums. You can read their words everywhere; they are not afraid to be shocking, and they love it that way, now. It wasn't that way two to three decades ago. By 2030? Who knows? Will this turn around?
The more the evolutionists as a whole can boast on the extent of scientific knowledge they've accumulated for seeking to prove his theory, the more they admit how much has been wasted. But there is one thing that gets my ire the most, when God mockers argue that children should be taught evolution simply because it's truth. That's how they like to get under our skin, by implying that they will teach our Christian children their God-murdering theory, in the schools, and we can't do anything about it. That's partly why I lean to agreement with their everlasting damnation. Go ahead, Jesus, dump them into a grave heap, who cares? That is how God felt just before the Flood. Let them die, because they grieved God too much. Let better ones fill the earth. If they care not for their own salvation, why should I? Why should I weep for those who wish to die and never arise? Let them weep for themselves if they wish; I've got to weep for something else, all the damage they do to the earth.
Why should fossils be old? Because Dinosaurs are old? If there had been no evolution theory, it would not be engrained in people's heads that dinosaurs are very old. We can't trust these abusers of science. Look at what they have done to everyone's thinking? Look at the rebellion against God that they have set up? Think of all the injustices and crooked events due to a society with no fear of God, where people think that their own survival is all that matters, where they behave more like animals? Pain and struggle is the result.
The end result of the wicked in power is that you will need to work more in order to pay for everything they seize by crooked means. While the political parties tear one another apart, the rulers are robbing our money. And so are corporations as much as they can. And so is the local businessman. Almost everytime we have an expenditure, we are forced to pay too much. Fairness is not the game of most. Survival to the best of their ability is their game. For any item they provide, rather than asking what a fair price is, they go by a standardized system of price fixing that is usually on the high side. Evolutionists have managed to create a majority that acts sinful, and it's all rubbing off on Christians.
Think you have problems? Look at Kent Hovind's life now:
Unbelievable. Speechless. Here is evidence that Kent has gone mad from being in prison:
There is a good chance that Kent had to neglect the family to a degree to do what he deemed to be God's will. It is always troublesome to me when men decide to serve God with big programs. I never know where they are going beyond what God has called them to do. It's a waste when men do big and expensive things, on everyone else's dollars, that God never intended to be done. Kent seems to be going in that direction now. I am not criticizing him if he had to neglect the family for doing the will of God in Creationism. I expect God to approve of a man's having the right priorities. His wife may have been of the opinion that Kent did not act as a good husband or father due to his devotion to his Creationism ministry. But God may have a different judgment. When Kent was working for free to spread Creationism, that's where I can see God approving and assisting. But when Kent is asking others for money to produce something for God, that's where I begin to worry.
His wife's definition of neglecting the family may not be God's definition. The wife may have deemed his love for his ministry as her competitor. God probably wouldn't have the same view. God would probably want to see the wife being Kent's greatest partner in his ministry, but she may have resented the ministry because it kept him from devoting some/most of his energies and affections toward her. Or, she may developed that impression in an exaggerated way.
Marriage is temporary. It's not forever. It helps us to get by in this life, or, it can be a burden in this life. It depends on whether the couple get along. If they can't work as a team, they can drift away from one another. If the wife is not there to conform to the husband's service to God, I can see a major problem in the forecast. If Jesus wanted to send a message on the role of women in ministry, akin to the message of women in modern times, he would have chosen six female apostles. He wasn't curbed or shackled by a male-dominant society in his days. God could have chosen for him anything He so desired, meaning that He could have chosen six female apostles, or even two or three. But he chose none. The reason(s) is debatable, but the conclusion seems obvious enough that the woman is not to expect the husband to conform to her ministry for God, but vice-versa.
Or, the wife is not to scheme, even though her intelligence levels or abilities are equal to or greater than of her husband's, to make him subservient to her ministry for God. There is reason to doubt that God would call her to such a ministry. However, it is possible that a wife could have almost all the zeal for God, and be approved by God for a ministry, while the husband is much colder toward God. In such a case, I can see God approving of the husband's service to his wife's ministry.
But this could get tricky, because the wife may start to weigh whether she is hotter for God than her husband, in order to decide that he should serve her. This can get more explosive, in a destructive way, as Christian women follow on the heels of the liberal agenda for womens' "rights." It's a very good question to ask: how many divorces are caused by women who refuse to be subservient to the husband? Or, how many women now think that they are superior to men, and should be given the reigns of power? Big problem here, and it's thanks to evolutionists, who do not see respect of God as a virtue. When the whole society respects God, there is a societal bond. Break that, and society goes to war, even spouses, exactly what we have today.
I can understand why God would chose for a leader in a partnership, simply because two leaders as partners are bound to end in war, sooner or later. I have the choice of taking a different view at the risk of disappointing God. I have the choice of saying that a woman can be just as good as a man, and that she should be the leader in half the marriages, half the corporations, half the courts, etc. But I fear God and therefore will not say that. The Biblical view seems to be clear on men taking the leadership roles. To help perfect the men, he provides the talents and mildness of the female. Men are by nature more "animal" than women. The latter can make us more refined, gentler, and who knows what else? We don't know the half of what else because no one's talking about it anymore. No one's talking anymore on the value of a subservient wife. The value is obvious. The destructiveness of a liberal, animal-woman is obvious. We saw feminists become animal. How could that make for any good thing? It hasn't. It may have made for more female leaders, but where's the glue?
If women now join a survival-of-the-fittest program, and they band together in such a conspiracy, they go to war against the jobs of men, just for starters. Already, the bond between men and women is broken. The devil loves it. Where is my subservient wife? I don't know, she took me to court, tried to take everything that was half mine all to herself, and I have never desired her since. This is what apparently befell Mr. Hovind.
Does it seem self-centered for a man to want a wife to be subservient? It's worse than that, which is why no decent man should want a subservient wife. It's not man's call to make her such; it's God's call. A man goes into a marriage hoping for the best. If he sees her acting contentedly subservient, he raises her up. He doesn't try to change it because she's doing her service to God, and she'll be rewarded for it. The marriage will cling together better. The decent man doesn't take advantage, doesn't bully her into submission. But if the wife has an agenda to specifically NOT become subservient, then look out.
I find it deplorable for a couple to always keep in mind that the woman needs to be subservient. The woman should not overdo this thing. The man shouldn't even be thinking of it. It's simply a matter of being a team. A woman doing so has fulfilled the role of helper. It's all that subservient means, isn't it? It doesn't sound unreasonable, or abusive. It sounds beneficial.
The main purpose of a marriage, usually, is to pay the bills, to retain the house and re-fill it with food. Ideally, the man alone goes to work, the hunter, and the woman makes the house a home. She celebrates that she now owns a home, but the thieves in our world have provided a situation where married couples now need to rent basements as starter homes, and moreover the wife needs to work too if they have any hope of purchasing their own home, such a gross evil. The liberal governments have betrayed us. They have fornicated with the rich, and abandoned the rest to their schemes of becoming richer, taking more of the money pot to themselves. And the news media celebrate the richer-ness of the too-fat-already corporations. This selfish thing is now deemed a "thriving economy." The people are being brainwashed to believe that this is good for them. But more money owned by corporations is less money owned by the husband and wife, let's put it that way.
Ignoring exported goods versus imported goods, the money pot doesn't grow, unless money is borrowed or printed, in which case the governments force the husband of wife to pay for it. The money pot doesn't grow. the money in the pot just changes hands. The more money that's flowing into corporations, the less that flows through the household of husband and wife. The corporations are limited in the prices they charge by the amount that the husband and wife can afford, meaning that corporations always maximize prices. The government does nothing to curb this, for even when the government puts limits on energy prices, for example, it allows too-high prices. It favors a good-greasing of the corporation's wheels as a priority. They won't need to struggle like husband and wife do.
The newlywed husband should be able to afford purchasing a house for his wife. And she can value that house, but not if it's not a home. How can the house become a home when no one lives there all day? What's the difference between a house and a home? In how many ways can a home be pleasant? You need to ask the "housewife," if you can find her in her 20s anymore. Talk about extinct dinosaurs. The end-result of feminism has been to force the young wife to work whether she wants to or not, unless she wants to rent a basement or a run-down shack. When women went to work more than they had previously, at the trumpet sound of the warring feminists, the corporations saw the doubled family income, and, bonanza, they doubled their prices soon enough. The end-result was that the woman had to work for nothing but the increased prices. Great, thank you feminists! You have done women a great service. Spit!
Feminism and evolutionism were a simultaneous, two-pronged attack on the normal. They demanded a new normal, and together fought for it in contradiction of God's will. God could have stamped it out in a minute. But He did not. Ever wonder why? In the end, the world would know the shame of both groups, because they both lead to societal chaos, only if God allows them to "succeed" to the point of open failure. For evolution, that open failure has already arrived:
Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea...
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."
...In his article in Natural History 86:22 (1977) entitled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change…." "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
That precious little then becomes understood as coincidental similarities rather than proof of evolved physical features. Clearly, if the fossils don't show the evolution of species, it's time for evolutionists to give up, stop wasting our money, stop brainwashing our children, and stop warring against God. If evolution did not take place, there must be a God. Belief in God brings society to its senses. It works to eradicate sins, pain, hopelessness. It's the needed cure. But liberals don't want the cure. Even if they come to agree that evolution is bogus, they want a Godless world. Ask again: why does God allow it? He could stamp it out in a minute, spare us all the harm. But, for exposure's sake, it's happened, and is still happening. I can't see that it won't continue until the very end.
Some evolutionists have come to realize that the fossil record is so bad relative to evolution theory that they want to avoid it entirely as support for evolution. Mark Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in his article published in New Scientist 90:832 (1981) that
"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
The article, by Institute for Creation Research, goes on to quote an evolutionist: "Naturalists [God-murderers] must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms." How can they forget, stupid? They know it painfully. You don't need to remind them. Yet, stupid, why are you still an evolutionist? Well, they are in transition now, wondering how else the species may have arisen. Or, better yet, trying to devise another con-job that can sucker the Godless to keep the faith in naturalism.
The point has arrived that the God murderers will continue to murder God even in the face of evolution's impossibility. They love their societal engineering, and they love what they have planned for the world. But God says the wicked shall not arise to rule the world. What we are seeing now is merely their exposure as they are given rulership over the globe very temporarily. For me, this has gone on long enough for exposing them sufficiently, but God knows what he's doing: it must go on longer, get worse.
It's not only the fossils that shoot the evolutionists dead, it's also the living record. There are no animals with half legs, half wings, in the process of evolving into flying animals. There are no animals with part air-breathing and part water-breathing organs. There is no special mention of organs that are useless for the time being because they haven't yet evolved to usefulness. For every one organ that evolutionists could claim as having no purpose, there are many others that do serve vital functions. If there really is no God, then the evolution of organs from nothing should produce many more useless things in bodies than useful. Genes have no idea what's useful or not useful.
Accidents / alterations in the genes don't tend to produce useful organs, everyone realizes this, yet the evolutionists have been dishonest with us. They are a crying shame, yet refuse to weep for their sin. Instead, they seek another working con-job, and in the meantime they war against Creationism in the schools.
If you find a bird fossil that looks just like the bird living today, you have cause to doubt evolution. If the dino in rock supposedly 65 million years old looks like the dino in rock supposedly 100 million years old, there is cause to doubt evolution. If not even the bones are changing shape, or if no bones were added or withdrawn, then evolution is wrong. To continue forward with this theory then becomes gross abuse on the world, and the governments with their school systems are responsible, because any school principal, and any school-board leader, can grasp what was said above, that fossils and real life offer no evidence, and, apart from fossils, there's no other way to prove evolution.
It's probably not good enough for God to justify the lake-of-fire dump if people thrown into it were purely deceived by evolutionists. It's necessary to show that they will continue to hate God even when they see that evolution is not possible. And God is likely setting many other methods to test rebellious man, so that by their own words they will be judged. It's not just the man on the streets that he's after, but leading governments. They have together become crooks, and we don't yet know the tenth of it.
You read for yourself the statement by Gould and other evolutionists that missing links are woefully absent. Others, you guessed it, are incapable of sending that message out. Instead:
This is one of the most common arguments that I hear from Creationists. The claim is that if evolution is true, then in the fossil record we should see lots of intermediate species...Evolution certainly does make that prediction...The reality is that we have hundreds of transitional fossils, and examining them not only provides extremely strong evidence for evolution, but it shows a critical logical flaw in creationists’ thinking.
Wow, "EXTREMELY strong evidence for evolution." In that case, Gould should be convinced by the fossils, yet he says there's stark absence of missing links. So the guy above is like the Democrats who easily deny the truth and tell lies even easier, expecting like-minded ones to do the same. I won't spend the time examing his evidence as I think Gould's statement alone is sufficient to deny his claims. With so many species, some of them are bound to have similarities, but is this proof of anything? No, it's more the game the liars play. If evolution were true, bone structures should show deformities / queerness / useless baggage that the species was forced to live with. Genes don't know what they are producing by mutations. We don't expect streamlined skeletons, species after species.
A missing link of note is not an animal with fully formed wings and a body like a typical lizard. But if different forms of that animal were found, showing the development of the wing, with each specimen in its proper strata, that would be a serious argument for evolution. But if all they ever find is the same animal, find after find, well, sorry, God can create such an animal. It proves nothing to find an animal sharing bird features and lizard features.
Here's a young Hovind on fossils:
The Bible never says that the earth is flat. It talks about the circle of the planet, and its hanging on nothing. I noted that science topics are not the Bible's emphasis anywhere. I've asked why God wouldn't cause statements from prophets to later blow evolutions out of their waters. Perhaps God wanted evolutionists to criticize the Word, on this topic, because he wanted them to go forward in their condemnation. Prophecy itself teaches that He wants to surprise His enemies, and to have them believe in the lie. They are not condemned for believing in the lie He sends them, because they condemned themselves even aside from believing the lie. Or, they taught lies willfully, unjustifiably, and they lied about Him, and so God wanted to give them over to a fine-sounding, true-looking lie just to shame-and-pain them with more ferocity. In the end, God's fury is all there is for a Day. It's the Day he finally shuts them up. Every eye will see Jesus. Here I am, mocker, what do you say now?
I do not think that the circle of the planet can be see in the horizon by sea-farers. Ezekiel 7:2 has a phrase, "four corners of the earth," that flat-earthers use for their theory, but I happened to look up the Hebrew word used for "corner" (#3671 in Strong's Concordance) in the Daniel prophecy, 9:-27, where it says that the anti-Christ will set his abomination on a wing of the temple. The Hebrew word can mean: edge, end, corner, or a wing in the sense of off-centered, like the wing of a building. The phrase is also translated, "four ends of the earth." "Four corners" gives the impression of a flat, square earth, but Ezekiel is using the phrase in God's attack on Israel and Jerusalem, and the word, "earth" (#776) is translated "land" in my interlinear, wherefore Ezekiel isn't talking about the planet's shape at all. The four corners or ends of Israel is what he's referring to.
It seems to me that the number four was used to denote north, east, south and west. The four extremities, in other words. The phrase was never intended to denote the roundness of the planet, but rather the wholeness of God's attack on Israel.
"Four corners of the earth" is again used in Revelation, which is a book having some allusions to Ezekiel. Revelation 7:1: "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree." Unfortunately, the "earth/land" term here can be for the local area of Israel, not a global thing. In ancient times, the four directions were made related to the four winds, and so that explains the text, not to do with the shape of the globe, but of north, east, south and west.
There are four horses of God in Zechariah that seem to match the four in Revelation. The latter are exactly related to the four corners in the Revelation quote above. In Zechariah: "The one with the black horses is going toward the north country, the one with the white horses toward the west, and the one with the dappled horses toward the south." It seems that flat-earthers are out of luck using the four corners of the land as evidence of a flat earth. The Bible never makes the mistake of saying that the globe is flat. Why do we think that is?
God speaks in mystery. The four horses are a mystery. Why does God use mystery in prophecy? Why not lay it out plain for us? Because, he wants to surprise his enemies with fury. First, he wants to ambush end-time Israel, and then he wants to come like a thief in the night to pounce with fury on his other enemies. The horses of Heaven are not really horses, are they? God is using mysterious symbolism, for war in this case, his war with his enemies. The red ones go toward the east, in the direction of red Edom ("Edom" and "Adam" mean, reddish). The white ones go west toward white-skinned Europe, but the black ones go north rather than south toward black-skinned Africa. Therefore, the white horses don't seem to be so-colored as a pointer to white men. The colors of the horses in Revelation, and the details of their fury, are left a mystery until after the fulfillment.
Let's ask: why would false prophets and teachers prophesy a weak / defeated Church for the end times? If the apostles were fabricating the Resurrection and the Ascension, and if it's false that Jesus will return from the sky, wouldn't they rather have prophesied the great success of the Church in order to egg-on the believers of their time, in order to rob them? What other purpose could there have been to fabricate a Resurrection of Jesus but to take the money of their followers? These fakes would not have painted dire pictures for future Christians if their goal was to sell their lie and maximize their membership. This is absolutely correct. But they even had Jesus saying things that reveal the utter weak state of the end-time Church. And we see that this is true today, though "weak" in this case is as compared to the worldly powers of our enemies.
In other words, the prophecies having the Church steeped in apostasy (falling away, betraying Jesus), to the point of desperation, defeated by the anti-Christ, is great evidence that the apostles were not fabricating their stories to rob their membership. In Paul's writings, we get the impression that the Church of his day thought that Jesus could return within a lifetime. That makes it even less likely that fakers would prophesy dire circumstances for future believers. Fakes would have predicted great success, with honor and glory going to the leaders in order to spur a prolific leadership on their own behalf. They would have had people lining up for membership a lot more if they had the final glory apart from their testing, even unto death, beforehand. Even Revelation begs believers to go to their deaths, if necessary.
Who wants to be a part of that? No one, unless God convinces them that Jesus is true. And that's what God did for me. He must have done the same to other to-the-end believers. Jesus even said so, that no one can come to Him unless the Father makes the way. It's going to be tough to be a Follower, he said, but those who endure to the end will be saved. The others will fall away when tested.
Of the few things causing success in endurance is prophecy and love for Jesus. Prophecy for the head, and love for the heart. It is the Crucifixion, coupled with the promises of glory, but also the genuine, solid terrific-ness of Jesus toward his followers, that eggs us onward in conquering. We will not conquer our enemies in one sense, but we will conquer their will for us, which is to get us to fall away. God has permitted our enemies to argue for the sake of getting us to fall away, the task of evolutionists and other headstrong writers whom we are seeing on a massive scale right now. The mockers that Peter predicted.
Jesus kept it simple: believe in Me. The work of God is to believe in Me, because the devil wants to rob you of this. If you remain in Me in all the trials, it's because you love Me, and I will count this as your salvation. While you remain in Me, do the things that please My Father, because you will then have rewards with Him. If we become weak, so was Peter at some points, but Jesus did not tell him to leave the group. Peter wept, and determined to become stronger. When evolutionists tell us that the Bible is filled with rubbish, we stick to Jesus in spite of the attacks, and prophecy helps our heads to cope with the enemy. For we can see that the predictions of His followers are true as we speak. The world will hate us on account of taking on Jesus' name. How can that be when Jesus is such a fantastic person? Why would the world rail against Him who taught law and decency, and so much more, even the defeat of death? Go figure. It's got to be the demons speaking through end-timers, the only explanation.
And they get offended, and more angry, when we say that demons control them. It is offensive, so, maybe, we shouldn't use that language against them. But, then, how shall we portray them, as men merely wrong on the authenticity of Scripture? There is no justification for the lake of fire if people merely make a mistake on whether or not God exists. And so God will expose that they first hate God, and for that reason do they make their mistake. God has sent the world those who can explain why evolution is erroneous, but if our enemies still rail against us after having heard the truth, they are deemed as God-murderers. Have I got that right? What's the difference between a demon and a human murderer of Jesus?
There are no fossils showing the rise of life to sea-bottom creatures. So what if there are fossils of sea-bottom creatures in the lowest layers of sedimentary rocks? How does that prove evolution if the sediments cannot be dated? There are no fossils showing the evolution of the monkey from some other creature. I will go so far as to say that God created the apes to fool his enemies into taking the lie. A wise man looks at the fossils and realizes evolution isn't there, but the fool sees the monkey as proof of human evolution. The choice is therefore in the heart: what does the person's heart want, the love of Christ, or enmity with Him? The latter chooses evolution, that's how this works. Those who resist Jesus come to disbelieve in His Authenticity. That's why the work of God is to keep-on believing, because the alternative is to betray Jesus, which is what many evolutionists have done. They were the wrong kind of seed. The devil took them away. They are therefore in the devil's camp, explaining why they speak demonically.
We would like to enter a discussion on rock-dating techniques because this is the evolutionist's last stand. He sees that missing links never showed up, that animals in fossils are always identical no matter how far apart they are in the sedimentation ("geologic column"). He thinks that every foot of sedimentation is so-many million years, and of course you realize that he will come up with a way to "prove" it. But rock dating is above everyone's head, for the most part, and we cannot test the rocks on our own, conveniently enough for the stupids. They would not have provided rock-dating techniques that we could use on our own to get our own dates. It's a carefully-kept secret on how they do it, but who cares? They were tricked into giving dates for rocks of known age, and their techniques failed. It is the task of Creation Science to point to all their failures, which creates a rabid situation like Democrat-versus-Trump.
Radioactive atoms, such as uranium (the parent isotopes), decay into stable atoms, such as lead (the daughter isotopes), at a measurable rate.
This is not true at all. Uranium does not turn to lead. They are two different elements. The reason that this claim is made is because evolutionists have an erroneous atomic model, where every atom is a reproduction of a hydrogen atom. Uranium was assigned 238 hydrogen atoms, and lead with fewer. It was therefore possible to argue that decaying uranium loses some hydrogen atoms to become lead, but it could just as well be said that uranium should turn into gold or copper or anything else if it could be made to corrupt with just the right amount of corruption. Forget it, this has no truth; if they imply or say they've done it, it's a falsehood.
To get an understanding of what evolutionists do in rock dating, we need to know what radioactive decay is. Simply put, it's the release of atomic material so that the nature of the material changes slightly. Scientists claim that they can measure the normal material versus the decayed material, while the amount of the latter indicates the age of the rock by a half-life method that they themselves concocted. Something is clearly wrong. If they are measuring the amount of lead in a tested sample while lead is not formed from decay of any other type of atom, then their trick is thwarted right there.
If you read on my view of the atom (two updates ago), which is undeniably logical, unlike the evolutionist's atomic model, you may agree with me that radioactive decay is nothing more than atoms losing some outer electrons. The atom doesn't change from uranium to lead. The atom is not decaying at all, but simply adjusting its electromagnetic charge, becoming more toward the positive. But of course they will seek and find rocks with such large volumes of "decayed" material that very old dates can be announced. Once announced, mission accomplished, for anyone who comes along to dispute them is mocked. That's because they are desperate to prove evolution, and, fossils betraying them, all they have now is rock dating coupled with their on-going assertions that the fossil record does possess missing links.
Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) (Figure 1) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years. Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 2), known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years
The age of 350,000 years is not much in the face of many millions, but, the writer's point is, decayed material pre-existed in the rock at its formation, meaning that the modern man cannot date rocks because he doesn't know how much decayed material existed in the rock to begin with. For all we know, the very same amount found today is roughly what there was at rock formation. "Decay" proves nothing, but the evolutionist will phrase his rock-dating discussion in smoothery.
We find places on the North Rim [of Grand Canyon] where volcanoes erupted after the Canyon was formed, sending lavas cascading over the walls and down into the Canyon.
...But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years. This is the same age that we get for the basalt layers deep below the walls of the eastern Grand Canyon.
...To make matters even worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, these same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years, and a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years!
It's not a wonder that evolutionists hate Creationists, ever digging up dirt on them that looks like real dirt. In the section of rock contamination: "Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium 'age' of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead 'age' of 3.908 billion years!"
The article has references for these numbers, and, so, I take it, the numbers are not fabricated by Creationists, but taken from actual measurements of the bosses. Perhaps someone tricked them, not telling them the truth on where the rocks were from. That would be easy to do, I suppose. Therein is their weakness.
So, you see, the science is bogus, like that claimed for global warming. Fraud is everywhere in societal engineering and in the game of stealing tax dollars. I suspect that there is no decay taking place at all, but, rather, this is some sort of trick because they needed an aging mechanism badly. Scoundrels. Lock them up for lying to our children. Law suits against them should begin yesterday, with their faulty science brought to a court of law. Never mind trying to get Creationism into schools, just get evolution out. That would be fair ball just the same, and it would shame evolution so badly that a generation or two won't quickly forget.
From the horse's mouth: "All rocks and minerals contain tiny amounts of these radioactive elements. Radioactive elements are unstable; they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time, a process known as radioactive decay." FALSE. This cannot be true. This underscores why evolutionists will not permit their atomic model to be changed. It cannot be true that all atoms are combinations of the one hydrogen atom because it is impossible for electrons to orbit atoms. These goons would have us believe, and, shame, Creationists have believed, that every proton has one electron in orbit. What lunacy. But if atoms look as I say they do, and they must look that way because it's so logical, there is no such thing as one element decaying into another.
In my view, each element has it's own unique proton at the atom's core. I have no idea what they look like, in shape, but there are ways to determine their relative sizes. No atom can become another atom, unless there is proof. The stupids tried to make gold out of other metals, but they failed to make any metal into any other, so far as I've read. I call them stupids only when they deserve it, and they deserve it for the orbiting electron.
Each proton must be surrounded by many electrons to the point where the outer layer is held on by the force of the earth's gravity. The outer layer is under siege by gravity, and the proton can barely retain that layer as gravity seeks to repel it away, but it does retain it. If the atom is stationary, so are its electrons. It is easy to knock the outer electrons off with mere friction on any substance, or with bombardment by light waves ("photo-electricity," badly named). There are no photons because light is a wave. If science can measure light waves coming off of radioactive materials, then that's not the emission of photons. Nor is it necessarily the emission of electrons.
Let me explain. All of earth's space is filled by free electrons from the sun's solar wind. These electrons constitute the light-wave medium. To produce light, the only thing needed is to drop a rock into the water, so to speak. That is, the ejection from, or the jolt of, an atom's captured electron is the "rock" that starts a wave in the free-electron medium I speak of. By a "jolt," I mean that the electron in the atom rises outward from the proton, but does not necessarily escape the proton. If it escapes, it's the photo-electric effect. Outer layers of electrons are moved about (excited) by the bombardment of incoming light waves, and this chaotic jolting into the electron medium is to be defined as reflected light from the atom. This must be the definition of radioactive decay, if true that it's measured as light waves. "Radio" refers to waves, and are, indeed, weak light waves. So, radioactivity is nothing but weak light waves. No material is likely coming off the atoms. The atoms are not changing into anything. The evolutionist has gone wrong somewhere, guaranteed.
Why believe little-ole' me instead of the seasoned evolutionary scientists? Because, they lie, I'm honest; they distort science for their lie; I have found the atomic truth by first realizing that they lie, and then by seeking for it.
Ignore alpha particles, another conjuring of the stupids to wrongly solve a problem(s) with their atomic model: "Definition of radioactivity: the property possessed by some elements (such as uranium) or isotopes (such as carbon 14) of spontaneously emitting energetic particles (such as electrons or alpha particles) by the disintegration of their atomic nuclei; also the rays emitted." Round brackets not mine. There you go, the "rays" emitted is the light rays, and what they think is electron emission may be mere jolts. It depends on whether they are being honest with their claim that there is a change in the substance to a more-positive state. Electron emission requires a more-positive state, what they call "ions." One never knows when they are passing off lies claimed for facts. They start by calling something a theory, but, a few decades later, they just ramp it up to "fact." We are to trust that they know what they are talking about. They usually do not.
Evolutionist quackery is doing science the greatest disservice, because people will no longer trust any field of science after they learn how evolutionists deal with things. Radioactive decay is a theory made into fact. While they define it as the emission of electrons, they also have an erroneous view of atoms so that this decay process turns one type of atom into another. Decay is so slow, by design of their evolutionary long periods, that they have never witnessed one substance turned into another. They just claim it as a fact. If there is electron emission, for substances they claim for this activity, it's got to be temporary, for protons tend to re-load with electrons if they suffer a depletion. If atoms lose electrons only to re-load them all, nothing is happening to the material. One wonders how they identify / measure the normal (mother) as compared to doing the same to the "decayed" (daughter) material. A trick?
Wikipedia's article on Radioactive Decay: "Except for gamma decay or internal conversion from a nuclear excited state, the decay is a nuclear transmutation resulting in a daughter containing a different number of protons or neutrons (or both). When the number of protons changes, an atom of a different chemical element is created." Voila, atomic hocus-pocus. But we just read, and this article repeats it, that radioactivity is the emission of rays as electrons. How does this alter the number of protons in the atomic core? Wouldn't you agree that having more than one proton per atom is quackery? Why do they insist that atoms have multiple protons? Because, they are fools. The far better explanation is one proton per atom, no need for neutrons, no alpha particles either.
I had just read that, in some cases, neutrons are now said to be positively charged. They were invented to add weight to atoms where their atomic model didn't work at all times, and they were called such due to being neutral in charge. But now they say that neutrons can be positive, and that neutrons can become protons. What quackery! "An unstable atomic nucleus with an excess of neutrons may undergo β− decay, where a neutron is converted into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino (the antiparticle of the neutrino)"!!! Insanity. It's not a wonder the normal person doesn't want to follow this complicated junk. The more problems, the more they invent particles as their propped-up solutions. The house of cards shall fall.
"The neutron turns into a proton through the emission of a virtual W− boson. At the quark level, W− emission turns a down quark into an up quark, turning a neutron (one up quark and two down quarks) into a proton (two up quarks and one down quark). The virtual W− boson then decays into an electron and an antineutrino." Complete and shameful insanity, the fools are making utter fools of themselves. Please, my gut is splitting open. What comes after quarks? Let me guess. Duarks, but of course. When the quarks don't behave as they should, duarks to the rescue. And there are still 24 more letters in the alphabet to create other uarks.
They say that there is such a thing as damaging radiation, what they classify as gamma radiation, that emits as powerful light. As it's said to emit from all substances, it sounds as though a substance needs to be prepared in some way to emit gamma light. In this case, I would say that captured electrons are more than jolting around in atoms; they are emitting at fast speeds. If the fools are correct / truthful about beta particles carrying a negative charge, then they are likewise from emitted electrons...the electrons themselves. If they are correct in saying that gamma rays are neutral, then it seems that gamma is merely a light wave, while beta radiation is the free-flying of the electron through space (same as a bullet). It seems to me that all gamma radiation requires the shooting of a beta particle. Light waves penetrate deeper into a substance whereas electrons cannot pass deeply.
Something has got to be wrong and hoaxy about this: "Passing alpha particles through a very thin glass window and trapping them in a discharge tube allowed researchers to study the emission spectrum of the captured particles, and ultimately proved that alpha particles are helium nuclei." That's impossible. You cannot get a helium atom shooting out from protonic cores of a non-helium substance, and then pass it through glass into a test tube. This is hocus-pocus, a sheer lie. Someone(s) was offering faked evidence to show that all elemental atoms are made of different combinations of hydrogen atoms.
I'm no expert in radioactivity in the slightest, but I do know the correct atomic model. It seems to me that nuclear power is the destruction of a proton by firing a high-powered (beta) electron at it. Once the proton is destroyed, or even partially crippled, it releases its captured electrons, which fly out in force, acting as further bullets to destroy neighboring atoms i.e. it's the nuclear chain reaction. There's lots of heat because freed electrons is the true definition of heat.
Wrong again: "In a nuclear reaction, scientists shoot a whole bunch of neutrons at uranium-235 atoms. When one neutron hits the nucleus, the uranium becomes U-236 [absorbs the neutron]. When it becomes 236, the uranium atom wants to split apart. After it splits, it gives off three neutrons [shake my head] and a lot of [heat] energy." Laughable. There are no neutrons, stupid. Why should 236 want to split apart, stupid, just because it has an extra neutron? Are you out of your mind? The shooting of a particle is what does the damage, stupid. I can't call these imposters stupid enough, sorry if it sounds childish.
The reason that a nuclear reaction won't work on lead, or any other material lighter than uranium, is that the bullets they fire can't penetrate the larger electron atmospheres of other atoms. Uranium is the smallest of atoms, and therefore has the thinnest electron atmosphere. Yes, they say that uranium is the largest atom, because they are bewitched. They do not have the correct physics to work with, and are making mistake after mistake in vain attempts to correct each mistake as it eventually produces a problem or two.
The nuclear bomb has fierce electron bullets (from crippled uranium atoms) firing into the air, but they are unable to penetrate the electron atmospheres of air atoms in order to cause a chain reaction of air, lucky for the human race, aye? These blokes are dangerous. Ask whether God permitted the unique ability of uranium.
Here's a mistake added to a mistake to fix the first mistake: "There was one problem -- physicists couldn't explain why several elements weighed different amounts [poorly stated]. This remained a mystery until 1932, when James Chadwick, one of Rutherford's colleagues, discovered the neutron, a third subatomic particle." Oh, I see, their atomic-weights theory was not working, so that threw in some neutron baggage that didn't alter the electric charge of the atom. Later, they found more, convenient uses for the neutron, the sky's the limit on adding band-aid after band-aid. If anyone asked how neutrons are held to the nucleus if they have no charge at all, it's magic. Super glue to the rescue. Yup, they invented that too.
"While the number of protons and electrons is always the same for any given element -- carbon, for instance, always has 14 protons and 14 electrons -- there can be different numbers of neutrons." Yup, by as much as their atomic-weight theory didn't work for any given element, just add as many neutrons as are needed to fix the crisis. I get it, I really do, the fools fool themselves, and get happy. Yippity-doo-da-day, they celebrated their ingenuity.
I wouldn't call them fools, except that Rutherford, I believe it was, invented the orbiting electron. You can't get more stupid than that. This is the ultimate science fiend, surely he was up to no-good.
The very next sentence in the quote: "This explained why carbon could weigh different amounts, even though it was essentially the same element. These different weights of atoms are known as isotopes." Achem, if a substance weighs a different amount, it's because the loss of captured electrons causes a greater gravitation attraction to its atoms, while the addition of electrons to atoms causes less gravitational force upon them. No neutrons needed.
In the lead-up to discovering nuclear power, "early particle accelerators shot out protons and alpha particles, both positively charged. Even at high speeds, these particles were easily repelled by the positively charged nuclei, and figures such as Rutherford, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr felt that harnessing atomic power was close to impossible." So, they were trying to destroy the protons of a substance, but use of atomic bullets was proving not to do the trick.
Then, "This changed when Italian physicist Enrico Fermi thought to use neutrons for bombardment in 1934. Since neutrons have no charge, they can hit an atom's nucleus without being repelled. He successfully bombarded several elements and created new, radioactive ones in the process. What Fermi had done, without recognizing it, was discover the process of nuclear fission."
Achem, as there is no such thing as neutrons, it seems that they were shooting electrons instead, and that the high-powered light ray of that shot was able to get to the core of an atom, and cripple its proton. Or, at least, to cause its positive force to be subdued either temporarily or permanently.
There is another explanation for the success above: they are lying to us. In this theoretical picture that I propose, Fermi did the same as when one created neutral radiation in gamma rays, but as this likely needs a shot of a beta electron, it was the electron that did the nuclear damage, yet they lied, giving credit to the neutral particle instead. Why would they lie like that? Because, they had the wrong explanation for the previous failure. They thought the problem was in the positive charge of the protonic material they had first shot, when in fact the problem was in the too-big size of these particles. These bullets struck multiple atoms at once upon the surface of the target material, whereas an electron can zip right through one atom's electron atmosphere for an easier path to the proton.
Put it this way. If they had known that light waves are caused by electron emission, they would have known that gamma rays are formed by emitted electrons. But as they see light formed by the near-massless photon, they cannot give it credit for doing damage to an atom. All they had to appeal to was the invention of a neutron (to explain gamma rays), though they had already invented the neutron by the time of Fermi. They just gave it another role since they needed a neutral particle (because a light wave / gamma ray is neither positive nor negative).
The True Atomic Model
The uranium atom is the smallest of all the elements. I can prove it if you allow logic to dictate the formation of the following picture. Take a gallon container of space. Introduce uranium gas into it. Do the same for hydrogen gas in a second gallon container. Keep on adding gas into both until they reach the same pressure, say 14 psi, same as air pressure. At that point, there are 238 times as many uranium atoms in the gallon as hydrogen atoms (all atoms weigh the same), explaining why the gallon of uranium weighs 238 times as much.
Why should there be so many times more of the uranium atoms even though the pressure is identical for both gallons? Because, the uranium atoms are much smaller. They inter-repel with less force. You need more of them crowded in the container to match the gas pressure (against the container walls) of the larger hydrogen atoms. You may be wondering why they repel one another, but let's stick to the topic at hand first.
I explained (2 updates ago) why the hydrogen atom is the largest of all. It's because hydrogen gas (in the air or empty space) gets the greatest lift. Scientists are lying to us when they say that hydrogen atoms get the greatest lift because they are the smallest and the lightest of all atoms. There is no logic whatsoever to claim that the particular weight of a gas atom determines how much lift it will get. All atoms are pulled by gravity. All atoms are therefore ground-ward, yet something gives them all lift simultaneously. In the kinetic view of gas atoms, there is nothing to suggest that hydrogen atoms, bouncing around in all directions, should move upward more than downward. Sorry, but it's not there, and we cannot use the buoyancy principle in air, sorry; they lie to you when they do, and they know they are lying, but they have no other way to explain it, unless they want to abandon their atomic-weights chart.
As was said, gravity repels electrons. When it repels free electrons in the air, or in a vacuum, they rise. As they flow up, they get in under atoms and give them lift. I envision them flowing past the atoms, not remaining under them. They flow past continually so that there are rising electrons at all times underneath the atoms. If they all weigh the same, and I offered proof as to why that should be, then the largest atoms get the greatest lift because there are more rising electrons flowing past them. Hydrogen is the largest atom, and uranium the smallest. They have it backward.
The only thing we learn about a gallon of uranium gas verses a gallon of hydrogen gas is that the gas pressure of the two happens to be the same when there are 238 times as many uranium atoms. To show how their theory fails yet again, let's draw their picture. They have the same number of atoms in each gallon when the pressure is identical. Fat chance, but this is what they have come to believe. Why should the pressure be identical when their numbers are also identical? I see no logic.
Let's give their definition of gas pressure: the total energy by which the gas atoms strike the container walls (they do not see the atoms repelling one another). Their total energy is a combination of mass and velocity. That's all. So, they have an equal number of uranium atoms with a mass 238 times that of hydrogen atoms, yet both gases give the same pressure, for which reason they have got to conclude that the uranium atoms are flying about much, much slower than the hydrogen atoms. Why should this be?
By what coincidence could they be flying much slower to an exact science, so that their particular velocity provides the SAME pressure on the container walls exactly when their numbers are EQUAL to the number of hydrogen atoms in the other container? This is too crazy to be true, for the same repeats itself with ALL the gaseous elements. Regardless of how heavy they are in relation to one another -- and they had no say in how heavy they would end up -- they all strike the container walls with identical total force when they all have the same number of atoms per gallon. If you believe this, you are one sorry scientist.
To put it another way, the goofs wouldn't have a theory on relative atomic weights if they didn't wrongly guess and believe that all gases at the same pressure have identical numbers of atoms. That's exactly how they determine atomic weights, by incorrectly assuming as a fact that all gases have the same number of atoms. Sorry, but this is the dismal reality of evolutionist contortionists. If they were not goofs, they would have known better.
There is no use trying to figure out whether the goof's theory works by some magical means, because it's impossible from the outset for gas atoms to retain motion if they are ever striking the walls of a container. You can prove this to be true with ease, but don't expect the liar to tell you it's done. Everytime an atom strikes another atom, they both slow down. It doesn't matter how they strike, at whatever angle or velocity, both will slow down. In no case will one speed up while the other slows down. The latter is how the goof imagines the situation when a gas atom strikes the vibrating atom of the container wall.
Take a billiard ball on a table, and have two people, with a cue each on the ball, shooting it at the same time from opposing directions. The ball will roll in neither direction. The one cue perfectly counters the other cue so that the ball remains stationary. This situation is identical to one where each of two people shoot a billiard ball directly at one another at the same velocity. The two balls will meet, and stop on contact, because they both move with identical energy, one transferring its energy to the other, and cancelling it. Yes, if both balls are shot with x force, the x force of one exactly counters the x force of the other, bringing both balls to how they were before being shot, which was stationary.
The evolutionist, however, and shame, the Creationist too, teaches that two atoms striking dead on at the same speed will bounce off one another, both at the same speed by which they made contact. Impossible. They do the impossible. They are like little children unwilling to accept their error. They are willing to accept fantasies on behalf of something very sacred to them. If it were not sacred, they would not be so utterly stupid. The sacredness by which they operate is love of satan, love of murdering God. They must at all costs, even by sacrificing their own respectability, win this war. We know what possesses them, don't we? And they have fooled the Creationist with their atomic model.
If you shoot a billiard ball into one bank, it will slow down with each deflection off of a bank because the ball transfers some energy into the bank with each contact. This is not the destruction of energy, but the use of energy. The energy is used up at contact, and the ball slows down and finally stops. It would still stop if there were zero friction on the table surface.
If therefore the kinetic theory of atoms in erroneous, then neither can the atomic weights be accurate as told by science, because they are based on the kinetic theory. Sorry, this is dismal, for the weeping, that grown men who pride themselves on their superior intelligence can't get this simplicity correct. The truth must be that gas pressure is not the effect of kinetic energy, and I know of no other means to apply gas pressure on container walls but by the inter-repulsion of all gas atoms. I'm probably correct with this too, you see, because I was willing to challenge the goofs. If you are unwilling, then you have a misplaced respect for them, too-too bad for you. It's time to rebel. It's time to expose.
Their definition of heat is identical with their definition of pressure, the stupids, both defined as kinetic energy. How can they define heat and pressure by exactly the same thing when they are clearly not the same? I wouldn't call them stupid if the shoe didn't fit. When they double the gas pressure by compressing a gas with a piston, the kinetic energy of the gas is doubled, they say, but the temperature is not nearly doubled. What went wrong? If the piston doubles the volume of the gas, they say the kinetic energy is cut in half, explaining why the pressure is cut in half, yet the temperature barely goes down at all.
They say that increased temperature is defined as a faster and/or heavier atom. The more punch it packs when it strikes another atom, the "hotter" it is. Or, more accurate to what they teach: the total energy of a gas transferred to the container walls is what determines the temperature of the container walls. If the gas is heated, the number of atoms remains the same, but they all move faster, they say, and so upon contact with the walls, they speed up the atoms in the container, raising the temperature of the latter too. By their thinking, the temperature of the walls should double by doubling the number of atoms in the container, for the walls are now being bombarded by twice the particles.
Bare with me, though this is vanity. If we increase the gas temperature to 100 degrees and also double the number of atoms, there is now twice as much energy as compared to raising the temperature to 100 degrees alone without the extra atoms. The container is being bombarded by twice the atoms, but only the pressure doubles, not the temperature. How can this be, if temperature is defined as the total energy of a system's atoms?
To make this easier to understand, take one atom alone in the gas. Let's make that atom have a velocity that represents 100 degrees in their minds. It strikes one atom in the cooler wall, speeding it up. That one atom in the wall then strikes other wall atoms and so transfers its energy (= temperature) while it itself slows down (cools off). The total added energy in the walls is that which was received by the one gas atom. If we double to two gas atoms both moving at the equivalence of 100 degrees, it doubles the energy in the wall. So, when we cut a gas volume in half that starts off at 100 degrees, it should roughly double the heat in the container walls because there are twice as many atoms striking them. But the temperature of the container walls barely goes up at all.
We need a new theory on the definition of heat. The only alternative is that heat is a substance, yes, free electrons, but of course. They all stream in from the sun, but of course. Where was your head, evolutionist? Did you bury it somewhere along the line? I remember. You mocked the caloric theory of heat. It was devised and believed in before you replaced it with the kinetic energy of your big bang. The caloric theory was taught even before the electron was known, and then, when you found the electron, you failed to hail the caloricists. You instead went forward with a head-dense kineticism that failed the entire world to this day.
Okay, so we now envision free electrons in the gas. It's identical to envisioning atoms in the gas. Both sets of particles are equa-distant from one another because they take up such positions naturally by their inter-repulsion. The particles do not move about, but tend to the stationary. If nothing disturbs the gas, both sets of particles remain stationary.
The electrons are not attracted to the atoms, and vice-versa, because all atoms are fully loaded with electrons, making them exactly net-neutral in charge. To put it another way, the atoms can no longer attract free electrons because their compliment of captured electrons repels free electrons by as much force as the proton attracts them.
The trick is to discover how many times the gas needs to be compressed before all particles are twice as close to one another. This was easy to figure, fortunately. If we cut the gas volume in half in the up-down direction, we can envision the atoms coming twice as close only in the up-down direction (though this is not what literally takes place). Space has three directions (or dimensions). If we also cut the volume in half in the east-west direction, we can now say that the atoms are twice as close in the east-west direction too. But to get them twice as close in all directions, we need to cut the volume in half in the north-south direction too. That's three cuts of the volume in half, which amounts to 1/8 the original volume, in order to bring all particles twice as close to one another.
Unfortunately, I don't know whether the inverse-square law of magnetism is with a magnet and a nail, or with a magnet and a magnet. The inverse-square law says that magnetism increases by four times for a cutting of distance by two. If this refers to a magnet on a non-magnetic nail, shouldn't there be eight times (4 x 2) the increased force when a magnet is attracting or repelling another magnet of identical force? It's an important question because the particles in the gas above, when the volume is cut by eight times, exert eight times to pressure (or force) when they are twice as close. One might say that the electro-magnetic force of the gas atoms exerts four times the force while the same applies with the free electrons for a total of 4 x 2 = 8 times the force.
Or, if magnet against magnet provides eight times the repulsion force, then I'd expect atom against atom to provide eight times the force, for both have repulsion on one another. In that case, the free electrons exert zero, or nearly zero, force when they are brought twice as close. I considered this years ago, and concluded that the gas retains eight times the pressure even when the slightly-increased heat is permitted to leak out the container walls. In other words, this seemed like proof that the free electrons did not contribute (much) to gas pressure. Indeed, if a vacuum is cut to half its volume, I imagine that the pressure does not increase much at all due to bringing free electrons twice as close. I wonder why? To a certain extent, they are trapped in the container, leaking out only slowly (exactly as slowly as the heat loss, for they define heat loss).
It gives the impression that the density of free electrons, at room temperature, is not very high. At standard air pressure, gas atoms can be figured as being between two and a few diameters apart, but the tiny free electrons can be some 50 diameters apart to explain why they don't exhibit much gas pressure. If atoms were two of their diameters apart when measuring from their centers, while their centers were brought twice as close per an eight-fold decrease in volume, their outer edges would make contact already, which would turn them to liquid. Only a few atoms would liquefy, because, when they do, they merge deeper, thus opening more space in the gas, allowing the other atoms to separate a little. In order to liquefy a few more, the gas needs a little more compression. In other words, any gas that starts to liquefy after a 10- or 12-fold decrease in volume has its atoms not much more separated than two diameters.
The depth of merger (in liquid form) can be gleaned by how much greater in weight a volume of liquid is as compared to the same volume of the gas. Easy enough. If the weight difference is 1,000 times, then there has got to be 1,000 times more atoms in the liquid.
Rough calculations show that there are some 800 times as many hydrogen atoms per volume of its liquid versus an equal volume of its gas. If on a piece of paper two dots one inch apart represented the centers of two atoms three diameters apart (atoms = .25 inch in dia), the dots would need to be little less than 1/8 inch apart to get an 800-fold increase in atoms. As I've come to view mergers, the maximum merger, in this particular scale, would be to a point where the atomic centers are 1/8 inch apart. That is, two atoms measuring a quarter inch in diameter should have their centers draw to one eighth of an inch or more apart, but not less, when turning to liquid.
Water is described as H2O, meaning that two volumes of hydrogen mix with roughly one equal volume of oxygen to produce water gas, and it happens that two equal volumes of water gas is formed with that combination. As you can see, atomic mergers of H with O well explains the loss of one volume. As evolutionists wrongly think that both H and O volumes have an equal number of atoms, they wrongly view the water atom as two hydrogen atoms per one oxygen.
The truth is, there are 16 times as many O atoms in a volume as there are H atoms, because the one gas weighs 16 times more than the other. One volume of H mixes with half a volume of O to make one volume of water, meaning that there are eight O atoms merged into each H atom to form one water molecule. It's known that water vapor weighs nine times as much as H gas. This underscores how much larger the H atom is than O atoms.
It becomes clear that water molecules are exactly as distant from one another as H atoms are in their gas. That is, as the 1.5 volumes unite to make one volume, the water molecules retain the density (same number of particles throughout) of the H gas; the only change is that the O atoms slip into the H atoms. The water molecules repel one another by the same force as the H atoms repel themselves, for "one volume" is defined as having the same pressure. If they have the same pressure, in other words, while the number of H atoms does not change in the reaction, then the resulting water vapor has molecules repelling one another by as much as the H atoms repelled one another prior to the reaction. It begs us to define what it is that causes atomic inter-repulsion.
Repulsion is a hard nut to crack without much training and learning. I don't think I have the smarts to figure whether the individual hydrogen atom has 16 times, versus some other number, the repulsion force of an individual oxygen atom. All I can say is that 16 times as many O atoms gets the same pressure as an equal volume of H atoms. Nor can I know whether specific repulsion force is proportional to, or based on, atomic size. If it is, then I must conclude that all eight O atoms are fully submerged into one H atom so that a water molecule has the look of one H atom, but with eight O protons buried within it all around the H proton. When an atom is fully submerged, it has lost all of its own captured electrons (see "merge" two updates ago for the reason of electron shedding during mergers).
Unfortunately for the average reader that can't follow this, I've got to add a few more points for anyone taking me seriously. I've got to discuss my theory on how molecules unmerge in reverting to gas atoms, and why they repel in the first place.
If we produce an atom in a vacuum and apart from gravity, the proton will logically load electrons only to the point where the outward negative energy equals the outward positive energy from the proton. Fortunately, this is simplicity itself and can be a sure piece of factual information. This atom is the fully-loaded atom having a net-neutral force in all directions, simplicity itself, it just must be true in the real world. There may be things in the atom I don't know of, but, surely, it loads with electrons only to the net-neutral point, for this is defined as being incapable of attracting any more electrons.
Next, we add gravity to this atom, and it blows away all outer electrons that are held to the proton with less force than the force of gravity blowing them away. It's more simplicity, a sure thing. The end result is that all atoms are net-positive toward one another, and as such they will repel. Voila, this is the definition of gas pressure at zero heat and at low temperatures at least. We haven't yet added heat to this atom.
Heat is defined correctly as the electron material filling all of space, not including the captured electrons on every atom. In order for heat to be heat, it has to have the ability to enter the atomic spaces of a substance, but captured electrons cannot do that because they are held by the proton. You can touch as many captured electrons as you wish, by touching any substance, which would kill you if they all rushed into your skin suddenly. But electrons don't go in (unless you rub the substance to release some frictional heat).
It's easy to figure the type of event taking place when we take the one atom above that has been made net-neutral by gravity, and surround it with free electrons = heat. You can view free electrons as heat particles, it's all the same. The heat particles inter-repel in all directions, and as such they have the ability to invade the outer realm of captured electrons, and press down into the atom from all around. I don't expect the free electrons to contact the captured electrons on the outer layer, due to their inter-repulsion, yet they do press the layer inward. It's possible, therefore for the heat particles to add themselves to the atom, and thus make it more toward the negative in charge. For this reason, I have wondered whether all gas atoms inter-repel due to being made net-negative by heat. I was unable to find the knowledge needed to make an informed decision, but, I now realize, I was ignoring a fact right before my nose.
That is, one thing is certain, that if atoms at absolute-zero temperature are net positive while atoms at room temperature are net negative, then there will be a point in temperature between absolute zero and room temperature where atoms are net-neutral in charge. This would make atoms unable to inter-repel, meaning that they would no longer create gas pressure. I have never read that gases cease to create gas pressure at a certain temperature, or that their pressures become weaker as that certain temperature is approached. Therefore, I do now declare what I should have years ago, that gas atoms are always net-positive. I was taking the position that heat made them net-negative, stupid me.
Next, there is the issue of "critical temperature," a phrase used by physicists that needs a definition better than the one they give it. Theirs is to say that a gas above a certain temperature will revert instantly to a gas if the gas is first compressed into a liquid, then released from compression. That is, the liquid does not evaporate away, as it would below critical temperature, but instantly disintegrates away. What is taking place is absolutely clear to me.
It is clear that water evaporates away because liquid atoms are bonded to one another. Something needs to unbond them, which, in the case of evaporation, is the upward flow of heat particles through the liquid, which dislodges atoms at the liquid surface, forcing them into the air as gas atoms. It is easy to figure why liquid atoms come to attract and bond even though the same atoms repel when in gas form. Once gas atoms are merged by a force -- be it the compression force or the dew process or the process of condensation due to temperature swings (take something out of the freezer and watch water form on it) -- their protons will attract the electrons of other protons. For as long as atoms are merged, one proton is attracting the electrons of another proton, and because all electrons are bonded to protons, atomic merger forced protons closer to one another...until some other force or agent or law stops the deepening of the merger.
I got a little technical above, in case you got to wondering things on your own. In short, merged atoms attract one another more strongly than they repel one another due to their inter-repulsion. Their inter-repulsion is not canceled when they merge, but rather the force of merger supersedes (or more than counters) the inter-repulsion force.
Previously, I thought wrong that, as the liquid is heated toward the critical temperature, liquid atoms became increasing negative until, at critical temperature, their inter-repulsion became stronger than their merger attraction, explaining excellently why liquids at critical temperature instantly disintegrate into gases. But, now, because it seems more correct to view gas atoms as positively charged, that explanation won't do, for, now, with increasing temperature, atoms are made less positive and therefore less-strongly repulsive toward one another. I need a new reason for the disintegration process.
The only idea I have been able to come up with for atomic separation (unmerger) by added heat is where heat particles get sufficiently numerous between the protons of merged atoms to force them apart. Once fully apart, all bond attraction is canceled, and the inter-repulsion of atoms is all that remains. This is the explanation I've had to explain the reverting of water vapor, for example, to separated H and O atoms, with added heat. Yes, raise the temperature of steam enough, and the H atoms separate from the O atoms. As I understand it, it happens to every known substance: raise its heat, and the material reverts to its original gaseous constituents. Somehow, heat separates merged atoms, whether they are chemically-reacted molecules or liquid atoms/molecules.
I can understand why dew forces gas atoms into liquid atoms. The water vapor descends in the cool of the night, because there are less heat particles giving it lift. The lift on a gas atom is countered to a degree by gravity. The heat particles give lift while gravity pulls down. As the sun shines, heat particles win out, but as it cools by night, gravity starts to win. Gravity pulls water-vapor atoms against the top of a leaf (never the bottom), or against the top of your car (never the side of bottom), forcing them to accumulate as liquid.
I can understand why temperature swings cause the metal on my car -- top, side and bottom -- to become soaked in liquid. When the metal is cold while air suddenly gets much warmer, heat particles in the air rush into the atomic spaces of the metal (or of the paint on the metal), and these electrons thus push (force) water-vapor atoms against the metal, forming droplets called condensation.
What I cannot understand well is why a single spark or flame in the presence of hydrogen and oxygen atoms causes them to merge in forming water vapor. This is the secret behind energy production by combustion; we don't known how it works. Water vapor can be formed without a spark or match by simply bringing the mixed H and O gases to a certain, kindling temperature. How possibly could added heat particles all around the atoms cause them to merge? We can glean that a spark and a flame is nothing meaningful, in this picture, aside from their production of sufficient heat particles to cause a chain-reaction explosion that is the combustion process of hydrogen and hydro(gen)carbons (= fuel).
Ignite one side of the gas, and the whole gas explodes because the heat formation from the one side causes the burning of adjacent gas. Heat surrounding some gases, along with oxygen, causes merger = combustion. Combustion is defined simply as the merger of atoms, and their resulting release of some captured electrons as heat. It's that simple. But heat surrounding the same combustible gases, when they are in the presence of other gases aside from oxygen, will not merge atoms to combust.
The secret to combustion is therefore in the oxygen. It is a catalyst, in some unknown way, to the merger of gas atoms where gas atoms naturally want to repel one another. What forces hydrogen atoms and hydrocarbon molecules, or iron atoms for that matter, to merge with oxygen? Rust, they say, is "slow combustion" (not a chain reaction).
While dwelling on this, I pondered whether oxygen is unique amongst the elements for having a near-negative charge. Just a little more heat added, and it becomes negative, thus able to merge, from a distance, with all positively-charged atoms (without some outside factor forcing a merger to take place). I never developed another explanation, as a second one was elusive. Nor could I come up with a reason that oxygen atoms should be less positive than other atoms.
I can imagine the separation of merged atoms better when they are partially submerged into one another, but it gets harder when envisioning one atom fully-submerged into a much-larger atom. I can easily understand increasing heat getting between partially-merged atoms and separating them gradually...until all merger is eradicated at a certain temperature. Every different type of molecule has its own temperature point where unmerger (they call it, dissociation) takes place. But if one atom is fully submerged, heat particles need to invade very deep into the larger atom to pry the smaller ones out. The deeper the merger, the greater the heat loss from the merger.
A scientist with the charts telling the heats of dissociation for all the compounds / molecules could work with this to unravel some secrets on specific depths of mergers. The heat of dissociation is always equal to the heat of molecule formation. Scientists know that the amount of heat released by merger is exactly the amount taken back by unmerger. Their problem is, they have no idea why...because they don't view electrons as heat. The stupids abandon themselves to explaining why atomic merger should cause liquid atoms to vibrate faster (hotter), and, similarly, they need to explain why gas atoms, once unmerged, bounce around slower (cooler). Forget it, their kineticism is bogus.
Heat is a gas-like substance having a negative charge, an upward flow due to gravity, and an ever-spreading property (all directions) due to its inter-repulsion of itself. Heat invades everything in all directions. No atomic substance can stop its spread; otherwise there would be the perfect insulator. Heat enters atomic spaces and grows the material in size. That's how a thermometer works, by expansion of a material due to heat gain...or contraction due to heat loss.
Heat makes everything grow larger, but adds no weight because it is a weightless substance. The fools did away with the idea of heat as a substance precisely because they noted that heated objects did not gain weight. They wrongly assumed that heat weighed something, and thus fooled themselves. But a particle repelled by gravity has no weight. Had the stupids been true to themselves, they would have discovered that gravity repels something, but they didn't want that. They wanted the graviton instead, a unique kind of attraction force having no counter repulsion on anything. There's nothing like it known, nor can they prove that gravity is not an electromagnetic force. I can prove that it is, and they can't prove that it isn't. Put your chips in my theory, therefore. They can't explain rising atoms; negative gravity can.
Why do water molecules and droplets only rise so high in the sky? The evolutionist has no logical solution. They rise by sunshine by day, and fall to earth by the cool of night. They can only reach a height in which their upward lift from free electrons equals the pull of gravity upon them. Lift can continue by day only to a certain height (ignoring wind) because particles above a sphere spread out due to increased space with height above a sphere. The spreading out of heat particles, with height, is a decrease in their density, and thus they give each atom and droplet decreasing lift with height. Sooner or later, the decreasing power of lift will equal the pull of gravity on atoms and droplets. No atom is predicted to leave the earth's atmosphere thanks to this decrease in heat-particle density with height.
But the situation would be far different if we entertain the belief of evolutionists, that the proto-earth was a hot cloud cooled into a hot blob with gravity. With so much heat at that time, not to mention the far-hotter and fiercer solar wind from the sun, all hydrogen on earth, and consequently all water, could have been bye-bye from the planet. It's hard to say whether it would have escaped, depending on how hot / dense and fast the solar wind was. In any case, evolutionists cannot view gravity as the negative force from solar and planetary heat, because the beginning of their solar system was much hotter, and therefore solar gravity on the earth would have been stronger. In the meantime, earth's gravity on the moon would have been stronger. It's already difficult enough to explain, without a God, the perfect orbits of nine planets and their many moons without ever-changing gravitational forces, due to ever-cooling planetary bodies, thrown into the picture. So, they chose a constant gravity source, constant regardless of changing heat levels, based on the amount of a body's mass (more mass = stronger gravity).
If, for example, the earth blob was in orbit for a few million years when the sun was five or ten times hotter than it is now, then the prediction is that the evolving earth blob would spiral out of orbit, further from the sun, as the sun cooled to provide lower gravity force. There would never be hope of regaining orbit for any of the out-spiralling planets. That's why evolutionists are loath to see gravity sourced in solar heat. They therefore reject the truth on behalf of love for their god-murdering theory. Their theories are based on anti-religion.
God may have formed the planets mainly to expose to evolutionists that the sun didn't manage to capture earth in orbit by fat chance. That claim would seem far-more possible if there had only been one planet, earth, circling the sun. But with nine circling the same sun, only a scientific dodo bird would claim them from 1) fat-chance velocities coupled with 2) fat-chance masses coupled with 3) forces of gravity all formed by fat chance to the perfect specificity, i.e. exactly needed by 1) and 2). All three need to be a part of perfecting the orbit. This is the same dodo that calls us crazy for believing that a Creator formed the planets in orbit. Poor twisted soul.
I'm not trying to covert our enemies, but hoping to save some from them.
Genesis says that the earth was covered in water to begin with. How did it all get there? Did He create it first as water, or was there a vast atmosphere filled with hydrogen atoms that were ignited to form the water? Imagine how deep such an atmosphere would need to be to form even the waters now in the oceans and lakes. Suppose that God first heated the planet to get all hydrogen atoms to rise in the hot space above the ground. The rising electrons would lift the atoms to many 100s of miles into space, maybe 1000s. If ignited, it would flash with brightness, turn to water molecules, and sink lower toward the earth due to nine times the weight of hydrogen atoms. Clouds would remain much higher than clouds do today, until God allowed the planet to cool, at which point the clouds rained down their contents to cover the planet with a sea.
To explain why there were no contents to begin with, while the one sea covered the globe, we could say that God heated the planet to the point of making the entire surface molten, in which case the ground would become level all around, and harder during the rains of the vast water clouds. As water droplets hit the molten surface, they dissociate, and rob heat from the hot magma. The H and O atoms once again rise high in the sky, but, if there was no ignition of this hydrogen, it would accumulate plenty up there.
If God did not turn the planet to a molten mass right up to its surface, then we might guess that some hydrogen remained in the interior, trapped by cold surface rocks. In that case, we might expect a lot more hydrogen gas in our modern atmosphere, as it leaked out through historical volcanoes. But if the earth was molten to its surface, all hydrogen could pass through the magma in bubbles, until it reached, and ejected into, the atmosphere. That would predict little hydrogen left in the interior, which is what I think is the case today.
Again, if hydrogen ignites high up, and turns to water vapor that eventually rains down to molten rocks, the water will revert to H and O again, and thus rise back to the sky. Something up there must have acted as the igniter. I say that this was the O atoms themselves. When hydrogen is ignited, the heat makes the O atoms negatively charged so that they bond with hydrogen. In this bonding, they release much heat. So, they rob heat from the hot rocks, carry it up with them as captured electrons, then release that very heat when combustion occurs up in the sky. The heat then goes into outer space, repelled by gravity, never to return.
What causes O atoms up high to ignite hydrogen? Well, we need to find how O atoms become negatively charged. The fact that they are the agent of fuel ignition suggests that they are more negative than other atoms, and yet they must emit a net-positive force, or they would ignite hydrogen even without a spark or some other form of heat. What I mean is that when sufficient heat surrounds O atoms, they momentarily become net-negative, and thus suck up to H atoms.
In my view, atoms are made net-positive by gravity, but they are made less net-positive as they are lifted further from gravity, for that outward direction causes atoms to load with more electrons. If the atom could go high enough, it could become fully loaded, or net-neutral, but further height would not make it net-negative. It would remain neutral with further height. But if there is heat at such heights, that's what can make a fully-loaded atom net-negative. So, with enough height and heat together, H atoms can combust with O atoms. That situation doesn't occur today, but it may have prior to Creation because it well explains why the earth was covered in water.
At the 5th minute of the video below, you can see how evolutionists view the clumping of clouds from the big bang. "Clumping" implies attraction of clouds (= gas atoms) to one another, which is impossible if gas atoms inter-repel. To clarify, it is possible for gravity to be powerful enough to merge inter-repelling atoms, but it is impossible for inter-repelling atoms to merge in the first place to produce a gravity source. Without the gravity source, nothing acts to move atoms closer to one another. And, too bad for them, single atoms existed before gravity systems.
The video says that gas clouds accumulate to form suns. Just like that, the imposters create gravity for themselves. It also says that the clouds "contracted." Clouds alone in space cannot contract. They lie. The animators provide all their needs as facts of history, and it you argue with them, they will bark at and bite you.
In the 7th minute, it says that "gravity squeezed the [proto-stellar] gas together." What we don't hear is how the atoms came together in the first place to form the gravity. The hotter the clouds were, the less they could clump together. Big problem there. They have the beginning hottest of all, with gradual cooling, but always too hot for atoms to bond to one another. If they say that proto-stars cooled sufficiently to allow atoms to merge, then the proto-stars would be too cool to become stars. Sorry. But this doesn't stop them from tricking you with their false air of authority / superiority.
If even in the earth's atmosphere gas atoms refuse to bond under the powers of their own gravity, how would they have bonded in the hotter proto-suns? If even with the help of gravity to bring air atoms closer together they yet refuse to bond under the power of their own gravity, how will they bond in fiercely-hot, proto-sun clouds that don't yet have a central gravity source? So long as there is just a gas, the atoms will not come together, and the last thing the imposters want to advertise, in light of this problem, is that gas atoms inter-repel.
Cosmic clouds have no weight apart from a gravity source. Even though they assign each gas atom it's own graviton, this must be reckoned too weak to bring atoms together due to the spreading out that hot gases want to do instead. Sorry, but hot gases will not behave as evolutionists wish for them to behave. Gases are rebels. They spit in his face, as rightly they should, because he is violating them, and giving false testimony against them, to frame them into something in which they are not.
It should be clear that stars can form only when a central gravity source is firstly formed on their behalf. Where this gravity is strong enough, it can pull gas atoms together, even as gravity pulls water vapor to the ground. But water vapor in the air or in empty space will not pull itself to a central location to form a ball of water there. Sorry, thou blithering fools. You lie, and you know you lie.
Now, if every atom had a graviton, and all there was in space was a bunch or cloud of atoms, they would pull one another to their center, and they would form a ball of liquid there. This is what the evolutionist wants you to think. This is why that graviton is so important to him. Yet even though his theory is correct, that atoms having gravitons will form a ball of liquid at the center of a cloud, yet he leaves a fact out of that picture, the fact that gases spread out under some other force. This is why "blithering fool" describes him well on this one. He merely babbles when he emphasizes one thing while ignoring the very thing that contradicts and kills his emphasis. We can give you your graviton, thou fool, but something obviously counters its inter-atomic attraction force, even here in a cold atmosphere. How much more in a hot, proto-stellar situation?
The video above goes large into galaxies. This would be a good place to say that galaxies may be nothing but exploded stars in our own galaxy, and that there are no other galaxies i.e. our galaxy is the entire universe. First of all, evolutionists are not reliable in their claims, and so I am skeptical when they have a universe so large that it plays to their billions of years. I assume that photos of galaxies are not normal, but rather they hold the camera shutter open for long periods, perhaps all day long, to make virtually nothing but a near-invisible gas to look like it has bright, stellar stuff. In other words, what are really clouds are made to look like curved strands of billions of stars. Beware hoaxes from astronomy that serve evolution, for astronomy is filled with evolutionary fools.
Here's a short video showing how evolutionists brainwash the man on the street on the topic of stellar evolution. Notice that they even have the spin of the proto-star cloud, so logical looking, but is it logical? In every step shown, is it all feasible, or just hogwash? Do you really trust the evolutionist? No need to watch past the first minute; it's enough to show that they omit the natural inclination of a cloud to spread out rather than to form a blobular proto-star.
In the video below, there is presented an alternative view of the hydrogen gas cloud, where some outside force comes along to cause the gravity that they forms the proto-star. Note how the dishonesty includes "cold" clouds, because they know that hotter gas wants to spread out more. So, they contradict their own hot universe in this case. How can it be cold when the cloud is so close in time to the big bang that causes the cloud's kinetic energy, which they define as heat? Note how the outside force kicks in the gravitational collpase of the gas cloud, and how it's stated as a fact, screwing with your mind as when a fiend has no shame.
In these cold clouds, the heat doesn't arrive until after the gravity formation, which causes fusion, they say, such a big word for the imposters. There is no such thing as fusion; it is more likely that protons in the sun are destroyed, causing heat. No need to watch past the first minute, just note how the outside force, which supposedly gives birth to the star, is left unidentified. Big problem there. And, once again, no mention that clouds tend to disperse. All they want you to believe is that proto-star clouds grow smaller rather than larger, accumulating at their center, where they form gravity by their atomic mass. Phooey!
What's in an Atom?
The video below shows the atomic model as dingbats see it, who make dingbats after their kind. One it gets to the H atom, you will see why "dingbat" is the perfect term. He shows a single proton, and then says that a single electron is needed to make the H atom neutral. But, stupid, the proton sends positive charge in all directions, and one teensy electron, which can only be at one place at any one time, is incapable of countering that charge in all directions. One electron can only cancel positive charge in an outward line through itself. There are millions of other directions. Ahh, this is why he assigns the one electron an equal force to the proton, so that he can say that the one electron repels all other electrons by as much force as the one proton attracts them. And to make this picture seem all the better, he orbits the electron around the proton so fast that it's to be viewed as occupying every side all at once.
If you are normal, you realize that they assign this teensy thing the same charge level as the proton because they have a needy reason for wanting one proton to one electron. They could just as easily have had two electrons per proton each with half the charge level of the proton, or 1000 electrons sitting around (not orbiting) on the proton each with 1000th the charge level of the proton. Why did they choose one electron per proton? Because, where they say that the metal atoms have dozens of protons at the core, it would become a chaotic nightmare to have hundreds or thousands of orbiting electrons, for they are bound to crash more often the more of them there are. So, they minimize the chances of crashes, and hope that crashes don't even come to your mind.
In their theory, electrons are not permitted to repel one another away, which is why the imposters have them moving so fast, so that they will not hamper one another with their inter-repulsion. No hampering is allowed in something so fragile as an orbit, and especially no crashing. Ugh, what idiots. Do away with the orbits altogether, and come to your senses.
In the third minute, you can see how they used neutrons, a sheer invention, to act as the glue to hold more than one proton together. Ugh, what idiots. Do away with multiple protons at the cores, and come to your senses. But they refuse. They have passed off nonsense as fine-sounding garbage for so long, they have fallen in love with themselves. To change the atom now is to go down in shame. Note how the neutron glue is passed off as fact. How can neutrons keep protons together? The ape (just copying his teachers) in the video doesn't even try to give hint. Just believe it, is his message. Be like me, dumber than a Neanderthal, more creative than a cartoonist.
In respect to his discussion on electron shells, he has a video proposing that there is no more room on a water molecule to merge any more atoms, yet hydrogen peroxide is called, H2O2. The way they put together their electron-shell picture is based on circular reasoning of a sort, where they give that maximum number of electrons per shell only as they need it in the first place. If the second shell with what they say has a maximum of eight electrons happened to need ten, they would have arranged for that picture. That's not science, but self-serving wackiness.
There are videos on the attitudes of electrons, and they are getting wild to the point where true orbits are being abandoned, yet the electrons retain constant, quasi-circular motions...in whatever fanciful shape the wacko desires who is too dull to realize that electrons cannot keep any specific track around a proton. This insistence that electrons must keep forever moving around an atomic core is the fatal illness of chemistry. It assures the end-game as shame, an exposure of the wackiness of science.
The now claim that they can see individual atoms using special microscopes or scanning instruments, but as these instruments do not reproduce pictures in normal light, they produce distortions. And because we cannot trust scientists, we can assume that they show us only the "pictures" that they deem to be fairly accurate or interesting, though they have no idea what is truly accurate. I have seen what they call atoms, in spherical shapes positioned in rows, but I have my doubts that these are atoms versus some structural make-up of the substance. The rows shown in this video (at the 3:56 point) have spherical shapes not merged with one another. How can that be a true picture of atoms? How can a solid substance be made of atoms not merged? Makes no sense.
Electron microscopes use electron beams. Zowie, that means light formed by the emitting of electrons, which is exactly my definition of all light. Their problem is that they view other types of light as formed by photons rather than electron emissions. I have never read up on how their electron beams can allow for more-minute details verses ordinary light. I assume that the difference between all light waves is simply the specific energy (velocity) of the emitted electron coupled possibly with the way in which an emission method releases electrons, whether they are spinning, or like curve balls, or sliders, or change-ups. There are different ways that a projectile can behave; ditto for the electron, we may assume. But the particular attitude is probably of little concern in how the light is reflected off the target being photographed. I assume that the trick is to fire the fastest-possible electrons so that the reflected light is as straight as possible. Ordinary light probably spreads out a tiny amount (curves around the edge of a rock, for example), which distorts the picture slightly toward blur.
If the reflected light of a flower spread out drastically so that it "curved" drastically around a rock (i.e. spread out after passing the rock), we would be able to see the flower behind the rock, whereas in reality we can't see anything behind a rock. And if the things further back from the flower were likewise visible to our eyes, along even with the rock, all things seen while looking at the rock would be combined, superimposed upon each other so that it would look like a confusing blur. Therefore, the straighter the light wave bouncing from any object, including the atom, the less blur, and therefore the crisper the scene. The question is, when they are showing those "atoms" as spheres in rows, is that the true picture of anything at all, or just some happen-chance image that could be construed as a row of atoms?
The electron scanner uses a filament to emit electrons (see 3:22 of this video). A filament is nothing but a metal wire heated, same as that of a light bulb. Scientists know that filaments release electrons, yet refuse to acknowledge that all light is formed by electron emission. If electrons were orbiting at wild speeds around the filament's atoms, think of their crazy attitudes when released? Talk about curve balls. How would that produce a clean-crisp reflection off of any target? Forget it. Madmen rule science.
If you want a nice straight reflection off of a target substance in order to see its atomic detail, you want electrons emitted in the straightest lines possible. Have I got that right?
The reality is that electrons in a hot filament are bouncing about in their atoms, causing outward, sideways, and inward jolts, but all in straight lines (no drastic attitude problems) as is the general tendency of any moving thing. Some jolting causes some electrons to go free as heat (I call this an emission as opposed to a jolt where the electron does not go free). Light waves from a filament are produced in all directions, as we can clearly witness when seeing the brightness of a light bulb from any location in the room. It's got to be one light wave per one outward jolt, as well as one light wave per one emission. There cannot be any other explanation such as more than one wave per jolt.
The more powerful (i.e. faster) the jolt, the straighter the light wave that strikes the target, and the stronger the jolts formed in the target atoms. The only waves that count in an electron microscope / scanner are those that go toward the target, and these waves set the electrons in the target atoms to bounce about and do their own jolting. The stronger the latter's jolts, the straighter (crisper) the light wave going back to the "camera" that records the image.
The video shows that the electrons freed from the filament are sped up by placing a negative, electric charge behind them. That is, the electric charge repels electrons, sending them faster toward the target. They are photographing atoms with excited, bouncing-around electrons.
At 4:04 of the video above, the implication is that the electrons are fired all the way to the target, but this seems absolutely wrong to me. The madmen have assumed that the electrons reach the target. That's an awfully long way for a teensy electron to travel under merely some electrical repulsion force. There is a vast forest of free electrons (the light-wave ether) in the path between filament and target, all of which resist the passage of a moving electron. A single water molecule fired into water is not going to travel through water molecules but a small fraction of an inch in distance, but the energy wave from that same molecule will go further. The same should apply to an electron fired into a sea of electrons.
At 4:14, they show an electromagnetic lens through which they believe electrons are passing. The lens changes their direction, they say. But might this lens change the direction of light waves rather than electron projectiles. My guess: probably not. In that case, I would say that the electrons are projected at least until they pass though the electromagnet lens (which is not really a lens, but we get it), though the video doesn't tell how close this lens is to the filament.
Still in the 4th minute, we learn that the "camera" possesses an electron detector. It detects the electrons flying off the target material. I have no problem with electrons emitting from the target material from bombardment of light waves alone; it's not necessary to fling electron projectiles into the target to cause the target's atoms to emit some of its electrons. It's well known that light waves free electrons from targets (called photoelectricity).
It says that the scanner has the purpose of counting the electrons flying off a small part of the target, and from many counting sessions throughout the target's surface, it creates many small "pictures" (of the target) that are then put together as one whole picture. This is not a photograph at all, but what we learn is that the brighter areas on the target as a whole have the greatest number of emitted electrons. That's not even surprising. But it should help them to come to the truth about atoms, if they have the courage to admit that they have been way wrong for a century and counting.
The video disappoints by not speaking to pictures in the microworld. It also shares the stupidity of electron shells, and adds that x-rays are formed, coming off the target due to its bombardment by electrons emitted from the filament. These are strong bombardments, in other words. There are two videos out there showing 100 images formed by an electron scanning devise, but they do not show the atomic world, just things like fly heads and other large items. Could this reveal that scientists are uncertain on whether they can actually see clearly the neighborhood of the atom?
The short video below shows what they claim to be a single hydrogen atom. We must first ask whether it's a trick. If it's not merely a painting, and if they actually took this "photograph" of a hydrogen atom, then we need to ask how many other photos were taken, and whether they all always showed roughly the same thing, or whether they had many different scenes yet chose the one in the video because it looks like an atom having an orbit. Actually, it shows no such thing as an orbit necessarily. It just shows a round ring positioned around a nucleus, and the ring is fat enough to be a thick layer of countless captured surface electrons.
The video below has what claims to be rows of gold atoms. Once again, the objects are spherical in shape, and are all unmerged. It leads the viewer to believe that there are invisible electron orbits that hold (bond) the spheres beside one another. It's exactly to be expected in a hoax / fabrication, or when they find such a picture anywhere in the microworld and then pass it off wrongly as a picture of atoms. Note the white areas in the image to the top and bottom of the spheres. If the latter are gold atoms, then the white sections must be a picture of individual atoms too. But they don't have the same buttony look.
In the video below, it reads: "Watch as atoms of gold particles move under elevated temperatures in a TEM using a Protochips Aduro holder. Near the end 2 gold particles actually merge to form 1." The scene is not believable by those who see orbiting electrons. The video owner adds extra information in his comments section: "This real time video shows two gold nanoparticles that are on the surface of larger iron oxide particles at 900 °C. At this temperature the gold is very mobile, and the two particles coalesce into one larger nanoparticle. This demonstrates the stability of the Protochips Aduro platform at high temperatures. This video is in real time and taken on a JEOL ARM200F (200 kV, Cs aberration correction) transmission electron microscope at JEOL in Akishima, Japan." The scene looks like the thing I claim: that as soon as merger begins between two atoms, attraction between the two leads to merger. Yet here we see what looks like total merger between large particles (i.e. each with many atoms):
The two objects are moving slightly, and they are moving toward one another. When merger has gotten only slightly under way, the small one disappears. However, if one looks closely (especially when slowing the video), it disappears while moving toward the large object, as though getting swallowed by it. If this is true, why shouldn't visible particles of gold do the same? Makes no sense.
Judging by the 5-nanometer scale at the bottom left, the rows seen in the larger of the two particles look less than 10 atoms wide. Those rows look much like the rows in the pictures of others who claim that they are made of individual atoms.
In 1909, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden conducted experiments with thin sheets of gold. Their professor, Ernest Rutherford, expected to find results consistent with Thomson's atomic model. It wasn't until 1911 that Rutherford correctly interpreted the experiment's results which implied the presence of a very small nucleus of positive charge at the center of gold atoms. This led to the development of the Rutherford model of the atom. Immediately after Rutherford published his results, Antonius Van den Broek made the intuitive proposal that the atomic number of an atom is the total number of units of charge present in its nucleus.
I'm baffled. It appears that Broek and crew were in a hurry to turn the positive core of atoms into multiple protons. Why such stupidity? Why not view every type of atom with only one proton? It simply attracts electrons like a magnet attracts iron filings (no orbiting required).
I simply cannot understand. They were willing to believe that the center of an atom was a positively-charged "magnet," and they knew that electrons were negatively charged, and they knew from magnetic studies that positive attracted negative. Why, then, did they not propose that electrons build up on the protonic surface? Or, why am I not finding such a logical picture when I read on these matters? Why did JJ Thomson (discovered the electron with proof) and Rutherford quickly opt for the orbit model before anyone could say, impossible?
After electrons start to pile on the protonic surface, they become the nuclear source of outward negative energy to other electrons being pulled in. Eventually, this negative force will be strong enough to keep some incoming electrons from making contact with the electrons already on the protonic surface...even while the proton insists on capturing them. The result is that incoming electrons begin to hover over the ones piled on the surface.
It may be a simplification to say that all hovering electrons form individual layers, but that's roughly the picture that's got to form. They may not be clean, straight layers, but "layer" is a good term to use to help draw the picture. Every electron layer hovers at a greater distance from the layer below it than the layer below it hovers from the layer below it. Sorry for the way that was said, but at least you can't make a mistake on what's being said. The further out from the core of the proton, the higher the hover for any layer because the outward negative energy increases with distance from the core. To put it another way, the higher the layer, the more the number of electrons below it to repel the layer outward. What's the problem?
In case it doesn't dawn on you, no hovering electron is in contact with an electron to either of its sides, for all electrons inter-repel, and as such they make space between themselves. It all means that there is enough space between the outer electrons for the electrons of another atom to move into. That's atomic merger. What's the problem? Why insist on orbiting electrons to create for a merger situation? Why did the discoverers of electrons and protons move instantly / automatically to the orbiting electron? What was really behind this gross need?
It appears that yours truly is the one who has discovered the correct atomic model. Not so fast. It seems impossible that something so simple and logical was not advanced by trained scientists in the past. Yet I have never come across an article telling of such a person. Has there been, and is there still, a cover-up?
In Thomson's discovery of the electron: "His experiments suggested not only that cathode rays [electron beams] were over 1,000 times lighter than the hydrogen atom, but also that their mass was the same in whichever type of atom they came from. He concluded that the rays were composed of very light, negatively charged particles which were a universal building block of atoms." "1,000 times lighter than the hydrogen atom" is poorly worded, for the electron has no weight. Thomson could only measure its mass, not weight. He discovered them while shooting them, and inspecting things, he was able to calculate their relative mass. It didn't mean that they had weight, sorry.
As soon as they discovered that electrons came forth from heated filaments, surely they thought of tracking where the electrons go within a bulb evacuated of air. Surely they saw that the electrons move upwards. Surely they must have realized that electrons are repelled by gravity. Surely they conducted experiments to help decide whether the heat at the top of a light bulb was due to rising electrons versus rising air? They were well able to cover a light bulb with melted wax, and to take all air out of it. After the wax hardened, they could see with their own eyes that the heat from the filament melted a small hole through the wax only to the direct top of the filament, but did not melt the wax anywhere else on the bulb. I know, because I did that experiment (25-watt bulb from Silvania, vacuum interior), and it did burn a small hole (less than an inch, my best recollection) through the wax where I said it did.
There is nothing within the bulb to dictate that all the electrons should move straight upward. It is like being a stupid dog to conclude that the wax is melted by rising heat rather than rising electrons streaming from the filament. The wiser, normal man without an evolutionary agenda will realize that heat and electrons are one. That one, simple experiment tells JJ Thomson that gravity repels electrons, that heat is caused by electron contact with materials, and that gravity is the heat within the earth. Look at all that glory he missed out on for being fascinated with the orbiting electron. What a great price the stupids paid. On top of that, they steered science wrong to this day, aided and abetted by similar stupids who would rather see the explanation of star formation from the big bang than to allow the truth of atomic physics to prosper. Thomson was well acquainted with vacuums, making his own.
What could the rising heat in the vacuum be if not the electrons? There are not enough atoms in a vacuum to cause an upward draft of gas, but this is exactly what evolutionists will try to say in explaining that hole in the wax. Even then, he has the problem of explaining why heated gas should rise as opposed to sinking? He knows that heated gas rises, but he doesn't know why. So, let him explain, just let him try, why heated gas should rise, but he will fail. In his view of heat in the bulb, it's the few air atoms that the vacuum pump could not remove. So we ask him: what is heat in the bulb?
It's faster air atoms, he says.
How are they made faster, we ask. From the hot filament, he says. The vibrations of the metal atoms in the heated filament make the air atoms in the bulb go faster, he says.
Why should faster air atoms all travel to the top of the bulb? He has no answer. If he tries to answer to one who knows the truth, he will be defeated. He's in checkmate. He might try to fool mere college students, telling that hotter air rises in cooler air, but that's not good enough. Why does hotter air rise in cooler air? He has no answer. He really does not. He cannot explain why faster air atoms should rise. But I know: its because rising electrons push air up with them, and in the meantime the electrons make the rising air hotter.
When one of the few air atoms in the bulb is the first one to come crashing into contact with that small, hot filament, why should it rise instead of bouncing off faster in some other direction? If the first one doesn't rise, and neither the second, nor third, or if there is no reason for any atom to rise, neither is there an upward draft of hot air in existence that could take the first crasher atom up with it. You can't argue that the upward draft of air takes the faster air atoms up with it if the upward draft can't form in the first place. The kinetic theory of heat cannot explain the formation of the hot, upward draft. But rising electrons exactly do.
Besides, who in their right mind would argue for the existence of an air draft in a vacuum?
Star formation from the big bang is impossible even with Newton's gravity definition, but where gravity is a negative charge, ouch, the evolutionist is beyond repair. There is nothing to bring H atoms together in a proto-sun if they don't possess a little piece of Newton's gravity. And a negatively-charged, planetary gravity source cannot form unless many atoms first come together as the planet. Gravity is formed from the release of electrons from interior atoms.
The freed electrons must be trapped in the interior for them to become a gravity source. If electrons were to leak from atoms in space for any reason, the electrons would just go back to the atoms, or spread out into space, rather than form a gravity source. The atoms must be at least partially destroyed in the formation of gravity, or, for some other reason other than destruction, the atoms must give up their electrons without taking them back. If the evolutionist tries to create such a gravity force in outer space prior to the formation of stars, he's out of luck. Without a gravity source, he can't have star formation. He's defeated at the second step only of the big bang. First step: big bang. Second step: no star formation possible. Evolutionists are dark magicians, tending toward demonism.
Just look at how the following statement completely ignores the logical truth of the true atom, and jumps directly from the discovery of the proton to the orbiting electron: "Rutherford carried out some experiments which led to a change in ideas around the atom. His new model described the atom as a tiny, dense, positively charged core called a nucleus surrounded by lighter, negatively charged electrons. Another way of thinking about this model was that the atom was seen to be like a mini solar system where the electrons orbit the nucleus like planets orbiting around the sun." It's as though they want us to believe that the discovery of the proton necessitates orbiting electrons, no other possibility can exist. This is smooth demonism. The purpose is sinister, because the alternative isn't even mentioned, anywhere, so far as I can see or even find by seeking.
The article from which the quote above comes is, "Models of the Atom." It's a terrible title because it gives only the plum-pudding and orbital models. Nothing about the truth, however, not even a hint that protons might attract electrons in normal attraction. Normal attraction: the simple and straight attraction of a particle so that it comes to rest on the proton, just as a rock falling from the sky rolls along the ground and then comes to a stop due to gravity force. Protonic force is just like gravity force.
Why are evolutionists avoiding the truth about atoms? They came up with a ridiculous explanation of to explain the emission of colored light by atoms. Every atom reflects a combination of colors of light that amount to one color picked up by our eye. Another animal's eye might see it in a different color. The color of light is not a function of the atom, but of the eye. To the atom, color is merely the force of the reflected light wave. I can see no other factor, but surprise me. As a secondary or correlating function of color, there is the frequency of the waves. It stands to reason that the more-forceful the waves striking an atom, the more frequent the waves reflected. Normal light frequency: the number of light waves per unit time. Can't get simpler than that.
So, a weak wave striking an atom produces light jolts in the electron atmospheres of atoms. You know this because it's too logical to be wrong. The weak jolts send out weak light, and may look black to our eye because it's invisible (eye can't detect any color). If the waves are weak that strike the atom, you'd expect that the electrons are not jolting upward very often, and that's low frequency. Scientists define low frequency as invisible light.
The jolts in atoms come with every degree of forcefulness, at random, up to a maximum. This means that some jolts are weak, others stronger, and others strongest. Each jolt one has its own color. The whole of the combinations determines the color seen by the eye. Can you dig it? Imagine if physics class was this easy and comprehensible all of the time. Imagine if you could have a sane outlook on the physics world around us. You really don't want to know how the orbital freaks explain the mechanics of light color. You really shouldn't want to be insane.
It is not true that atoms give off only certain colors peculiar to themselves and no others. Shine a red light on your white wall, and the wall reflects red light. Shine a blue light on the same wall, and the wall atoms reflect blue light. It seems that the exact combination of light jolts, both their frequencies and specific forces, from the light source is repeated in the wall atoms, but only on a white wall. Shine a red light on a blue wall, and the light shouldn't be identical to what it looks like on a white wall. It's not really a blue wall, unless it's in white light. In red light, the blue wall becomes something else.
If the source of the red light is a white light through a red glass, we learn that the red material in the glass subdues the white light, turning it into a weaker red light. This suggests that incoming white-light waves are diminished to a degree in the atoms of the red pigment in the glass. My explanation might be that the red pigment has a strong protonic attraction on its captured electrons that doesn't allow the latter to jolt as freely as would a material reflecting a white light. Or, I might say that the red pigment has shallow electron atmospheres wherein the upper electron layers are held stronger to the proton than atoms having deeper electron atmospheres. In other words, atoms may be able to absorb a bucket of visible light and redistribute it all as two buckets of weaker light.
If we call color, reflected light, then light coming off a mirror, for example, should be called deflected to make the distinction. Reflected (or scattered) light goes in all directions, deflected goes in only one direction, like a puck deflected off the boards.
Why do water, glass and silver all have deflective properties, such a mystery. Why does glass have almost no reflected color? How possibly can light waves pass practically unhindered through glass?
There's a lot of room for science to have a lot of discovery fun here, with a new atomic model, but, alas, they have chosen to pass off wackiness for truth, and are not predicted to get into the truth, for fools they will be to Armageddon. As fools they will die in their sins. In demons have they trusted, and with demons they will go to their final resting places. Their universe will suffer a black heat death; they will come to rest, and the world will never hear from them again. I'm not being hard on them; God will be. I'm the one with the warning. Needless to say, there is still time to repent, and God himself gives a wicked person a long time to repent. An evil God wouldn't give them another day to live for transgressing his will, always remember that, thou wicked, mocking atheist. Look at yourself in the mirror, and tell yourself what you see. A mite. You are a mite, small and nasty.
When one discovers why glass, clear plastic, and water do not reflect color, one might also have the color mechanism better understood. The photon freaks don't have transparency understood when they say that photons pass through glass without striking a proton or an electron. That's what a nincompoop says. Other materials are less dense (more space) than glass, yet they are not transparent. What's in a glass? A police force directing photons around the glass' atomic material to assure that they get through to our eyes? How possibly can they get through a half-inch of material without striking anything?
Forget the photon. Light is a wave. Clearly, a light wave can pass through the electron atmospheres of glass without suffering distortion. Rephrase: the light wave does get distorted as it passes, I think, because it curves with the shapes of electron atmospheres, but it exits the glass in the same direction (generally) as it entered. Even if this is almost correct, it doesn't tell us why light can transfer through these particular atoms but not most others.
I might imagine light through glass following the outer edges of electron atmospheres, where electrons are held with the least protonic attraction. Or, on the other hand, light can pass better where the electrons are held more strongly. I see the water molecule as stuffed heavily with protons, yet light passes by them in a body of water or ice. Clearly, no wave can pass through the electron areas of atoms if the electrons are orbiting. But if the electrons form a sea of stationary particles, then a wave may pass through. I win, they lose. Where is my prize for all my work? Why did I even bother with this work? I wonder. Did God help me from the start? Does he have a plot through me for this cause too?
I'm reading Wikipedia's article on transparency, but, as expected, it never tells how light gets through. There is a wide mish-mash of mash that sounds so high and lofty, but never does it get to what the reader wants to know from the start. This is the stuff of magicians, tricks and deception. The article is useless, trust me.
Light is defined as waves of energy passing through free electrons. Atoms have captured electrons interspersed with protons. If the protons are set in long, straight lines, then the area between the rows are themselves long, straight rows of captured electrons...i.e. like a simplified highway for light waves to traverse. It makes sense that light may pass where the captured electrons are most like free electrons (not held tight to protonic gravity). The center line of the long, straight rows of captured electrons is where the edges of atoms reside, where electrons are held the weakest. It may be that, even if the rows are aligned on an angle through the glass, the waves exit at the same angle as they enter the opposite side. We know that waves slant / angle while passing through water, only to correct themselves when exiting the water. Transparent materials seem miraculous to me, give glory to God, though wicked atheist.
Wikipedia; "That is, one object might reflect green light while absorbing all other frequencies of visible light." This is rubbish, because one may shine a red light on a green paint, and cause the green paint to reflect red light. Sometimes we are dealing with mere children in scientific discussions. Chances are that a green paint is reflecting many colors that together look green to our eyes when a white light (such as the sun) is shone upon it. Shine a different color of light on the same green paint to alter what the paint reflects. It will reflect even the color that the scientist claims it doesn't reflect (because it absorbs it). This fact does major damage to their electron-shell rubbish.
Air is transparent too. It should be clear that light is not a photon that must pass through 50 miles of air without striking proton or electron. If it does strike even one, it is bounced into some random direction so that it can never arrive in a straight line to our eyes. Forget it; Einstein was a child, a product of the quacks he socialized with. And there are millions of miles of solar-wind particles that photons must evade too. Just forget it.
It becomes clear that light waves pass around (yes, a curved path) the electron clouds of oxygen, nitrogen and other transparent atoms, thereby skirting the protons, and then exit on their far sides in the direction that they entered the atoms. Do you see how easy this science is to understand? No matter how many atoms of the atmosphere the waves strike, they pass though to our eyes. God did this too, or we wouldn't have a very nice time in life if the air were opaque, give glory to God, though rotten-fink evolutionists, or hot smoke is your destiny.
This the best that Wikipedia's transparency article does: "A molecule cannot absorb the energy of the photon and the photon continues on its path. This results in transmission (provided no other absorption mechanisms are active)." "Transmission" here refers to transparency; the photon transmits through the material. Ya, wunderbar, but how? How about a small sample of its path, and what everyone wants to know: how does bullet-photon avoid all the stuff in the material??? Don't tell me it has steering capability? Maybe it has eyes. I mock you. You lie, thou fruitless tree.
Just because some high-powered light (ultra-violet) does not get through glass is no reason to say that glass absorbs such waves. It's possible that some waves ruin the path that allows transparency by weaker waves. But ruining the paths does not necessarily mean that the waves which ruin them do not get out of the glass. If that wave energy does get out with electron jolts or freed electrons, then it is incorrect to say that it is absorbed. If it's absorbed, it's to stay in the glass. Is that possible? Isn't that a little like destruction of energy?
It seems to me that a bombardment of a wave into the glass (or even the physical energy of a particle) must come out of the glass in one way or the other. It's not necessarily correct to say that a wave classified as ultra-violet must come out as ultra-violet. A rock tossed into water does not need to come out as a rock; it can come out as splashes of many different force levels totalling the physical energy of the rock. In the same way, a single, strong light wave may come out of a material as many small jolts. The energy of a jolt comes out when the jolting electron strikes an ether electron (i.e. a free electron in the air beside the material), transferring its energy to it.
When a light wave passes through glass, it transfers its energy to an ether electron sitting immediately off the other side of the glass. The wave then continues through the electron ether whether there is an a eye to catch it or not. Light energy exists everywhere even when no one sees it.
How do you suppose a material absorbs (stops) a photon? If it hits a nucleus, it bounces off, we may assume, and keeps on bouncing around until it gets out of the material. It doesn't happen that way, but that's the prediction for a photon striking a protonic core. Or, if the photon comes to an electron, the electron catches it, and then throws it away. So they say. That doesn't sound like the absorption of energy either.
Same article by Wikipedia: "When a light wave of a given frequency strikes a material with particles having the same or (resonant) vibrational frequencies [no such thing], then those particles will absorb the energy of the light wave and transform it into thermal energy of vibrational motion." So, they don't destroy light energy after all, but convert it to vibrations, which can be construed as my definition of electron jolts. And the definition of the jolts is myriads of different light waves, of different forcefulness (which they call "frequencies"). They invented resonant frequency as though materials possess that particular forcefulness or they do not. They do not use "frequency" as the number of waves / jolts per unit time, but as the color or forcefulness of the wave.
If sunlight hits a wall but does not reflect its ultra-violet light, does that mean that the sun's ultra-violet was absorbed in the wall? What absorbs it? What sucks it up so that it never comes out the wall? Or, does it come out in an assortment of weaker light waves? Ahh, easy logic prevails, so long as we are willing to be rebellious, breaking all of their unjustified laws. In their view, the ultra-violet is absorbed but comes out as vibrations, but they do not realize that the vibrations are the reflected / scattered light. They have the wrong atomic model to work with that doesn't always provide them with answers, and at times misleads them into the ridiculous or the hypocritical (violating their own laws).
They seem to think that an ultra-violet ray is unchangeable; it either gets absorbed or deflected away as an ultra-violet ray. Ditto for all the colors. And when it doesn't work due to the conservation-of-energy law, they convert absorbed light to vibrations and even heat. You can pound a wall with a sledge hammer, and its energy comes out as many small atomic vibrations. Why shouldn't the same happen with a light wave, entering as one bombardment but coming out as many electron vibrations?
Clearly, the vibrations from a sledge hammer to a wall do not cause the electrons to emit light or change the color of the wall's light. We can be sure that a sledge will get the electrons into motion so that they bounce and jolt about. So what is it that light waves possess to cause the "excited" electrons to emit light? Such a great question. And I haven't the answer. It's a thing I've pondered for years, with no answer in sight. Just think of how mild the physical force of light is, and yet they get light on walls while jack hammers or crashing dump trucks do not.
The incredible speed of the orbiting / circling electron has one of its purposes to satisfy the fools that it's everywhere on the atom at the same time. It's negative energy is said to perfectly counter the protonic energy in all directions at once. It's completely unsatisfactory that a single electron per proton should serve this function, but that's what they teach. Even by the atheistic backdrop of their big bang, you know the circling electron is the wrong model, because you know it's a stretch to believe that unintelligence force will get the electron built with exactly the charge of the proton, only in reverse charge. It is extremely hard to explain what this charge is. Go ahead and try to explain the mechanics of attraction; you will fail. No one has succeeded.
One thing we know, the proton is not going to attract an electron so that it circles forever around it. It's not only a super fat chance for it to enter an orbit (atheists base a lot on unlikely fat-chance), but it's destructive to the atom. For example, imagine a simple H atom coming near to another one for a merger. It's not always going to end up as neat as the little pictures the fools draw for us. If their electrons are circling, then they are likely to crash into the H proton as they draw near, destroying the orbits. It's just completely stupid, which is why we can guess correctly that they had a secret reason for insisting that this is the true model. I can glean that they cared not for truth, but rather wanted an atomic model with speed energy, to conform to their kinetic model of atoms, to conform also to the physical energy of the big bang.
This is what has got to be behind the speedy electron, but there is more, for as they were developing the orbiting electron, they were also poised to invent the super-fast photon that interacts with the speedy electron (light particles were nothing new as a concept at the time). Try to imagine the two making contact in any and all random directions, and you should fail to see a healthy atomic model. They want you to believe that it's normal for a photon to strike an electron; they don't want you tinkering with what crashes would look like. They don't want you to think that contact is a crash at all. But it is a wild crash due to their incredible speeds. Nothing can remain stable in such a situation. The fools had gone utterly stupid for a secret reason. To minimize the damage, the photon was made incredibly small, and they tinkered with passing it off as having zero mass. That's not science, but rather it's inventing whatever necessary to pass off an unstable model as a stable one.
It doesn't matter how the electron circles the proton. It doesn't matter how they pawn off the orbital shape or electron velocities. A continual circling is a literal orbit. They cannot get away by saying it's not an orbit. Another fatality of the orbit model is the lightness of the electron. We know that if the earth were to orbit faster, it would need to be made heavier in order to counter the faster spin, if it's to remain in a perfect orbit. But the atomic imposters have the electron's orbital period much faster than once per year, much faster than the periods of artificial satellites, and yet they also toss in a very light electron. They even believed, when Thomson discovered the electron, that its mass was many times smaller than that of a hydrogen proton, and yet they flung that little thing in orbit at incredibly-fast speeds so that it's doing zillions of orbits per minute. You have every reason to deny this atomic model. You also have every reason to acknowledge that the scientists are mad for a false theory for a secret reason(s) they have not admitted to. Or, maybe a few of their numbers had let it slip into the public domain, I wouldn't know.
These bozos could calculate how fast the electron had to orbit if it had the same mass as a proton. At any distance from the proton whatsoever, they could calculate how slowly such a heavy electron needed to be in order to retain a perfect orbit. They would tell you that the orbital period had to be slow, very slow, and yet they have a much-smaller electron whizzing at incredible speeds. This is not science; this is the organized crime of mass deception, with your own tax dollars to fund it. The secret purpose is to kill God, wipe him off the face of the earth as though he were some sort of disease. And that's why they will suffer a hot and loud Big Bang.
You see, they chose kinetic energy for their atomic model. This energy, they said, could not be destroyed, and so they derive it in the big bang. The energy of the big bang still causes atoms to race around to this day, they say, and they fool us into believing that atoms in contact never slow down as a whole. This view is so precious to them that they let it stick to their other errors. It was able to explain heat in such a way as to deny a negative gravity source. If they did not have the kinetic theory of heat, the only alternative is a heat substance having no weight, and this pointed dangerously to a negatively-charged gravity, underscoring why they had to have the kinetic theory as an absolute / colossal need.
Yes, if heat is a substance, then science will, and has, concluded that it has no weight. This then blows the graviton theory to where it belongs, and necessitates another gravity theory, one that has both attraction and repulsion. That's how it dangerously points to a negative charge for gravity. For where gravity attracts atoms but repels heat substance, the scientists were bound to realize that heat substance is the negative electron. They probably had that all figured out, but they killed anyone (perhaps literally too) who advanced it. Heat substance is their worst enemy, which you would discover if you had the scientific clout to propose it today in a threatening-to-them way. You will be burnt to a crisp, unless by some miracle many decide to support you because they realize the problems with the leading view. It would be a game-changer.
Someone with clout, please help yourself, feel free to borrow from "my" views. You don't need to mention me if you're ashamed of my Christian views, but, at least, don't make me puke by taking credit for the ideas for yourself.
Where gravity attracts atoms but repels heat substance, gravity must be viewed as attracting either the proton or the electrons. If one refuses to take that position, they would need to claim that gravity is not electromagnetic, yet both attracts and repels. That's how dangerous it is to evolutionists. If it both attracts and repels, there is every reason to assume that it's electromagnetic. From that point, it's just an easy matter of deciding what in the earth could be providing it.
If, therefore, the discovery that heat is a substance necessitates that gravity attracts either the proton or the electrons of an atom, the best choice by far is that it repels electrons. The only thing that repels electrons is electrons. What sort of electron pool can there be in planets to cause this negatively-charged gravity? It's not hard to realize.
Sometime in the ballpark of 1992, I was driving with my family through Kansas to the Grand Canyon. While driving through that state in the sunny heat of a midday in September, it dawned on me that heat particles were repelled by gravity. Heat rises because it's repelled upward. Surely, that simple idea had occurred to many others, yet it's a guarded secret; you never hear about it. The plots of evolutionists are all stacked up against it should anyone decide to push it. The plots will begin with ridicule. So, go ahead and ridicule, but in the end, you lose.
After returning home from the Grand Canyon, I started to tinker with the discovery on repelled heat particles, and all my conclusions are as described in this update as well as two updates ago, though there are some complicated things that I haven't mentioned, from investigations I did not finish. What I did finish was more than enough to prove that I'm correct while they are wildly incorrect.
One could argue that gravity can yet be from gravitons even while not attracting heat substance. Or, they could argue that non-attraction of heat is not necessarily repulsion of heat. They could argue that the heat particle simply has no graviton by which to be attracted. In such a case, all experimentation will focus on the reason for rising heat. Is it or is it not due to gravity's repulsion?
This is easy to prove. I happen to have done lots of plumbing work with copper tubing. I have a good sense of how heat rises in copper tubing and fittings. Every plumber knows to add the torch flame to the tube at the underside of the fitting, because heat rises up the copper tube into the fitting. It become very clear that heat in a metal rises more than it moves in any other direction, and, I guarantee, it is the same for a tube in a vacuum, in case the fool wants to give credit for rising heat in metal to rising air around the metal. That is what the kinetic fool will claim even before conducting the experiment. He's willing to fool you because he's willing to fool himself on behalf of the big-bang view of heat and ever-in-motion particles.
So, ask: what causes heat to rise in metal? There you have metal atoms, solid, bonded, unmovable, and yet this heat is going up with a force, passing the metal atoms. It's as though a substance in the metal is passing through the atomic spaces.
The kineticist will argue that metal atoms are made to vibrate faster when the torch is added to metal. But then lets put a torch to the center of a flat plate of steel standing up. Why does the heat go up a lot more than sideways or downward just because the atoms at the center hot spot are made to vibrate faster? Big problem there; there is no answer. The correct answer: heat substance is repelled by gravity. The heat substance in the flame, the electrons, are forced into the metal, and they then rise. It's just so simple, so uncomplicated.
This discussion necessitates a mention of electricity through metals. That too is the passage of electrons through the metal. And there are two ways to transfer energy through a wire. Heat in metal is the passage of FREE electrons through the atomic spaces. Electricity is the forcing along of CAPTURED electrons, atom to atom, making them run down the metal, all the more reason that they cannot be orbiting. Try to imagine electrons in orbit going atom to atom down a wire. If we suddenly force the captured electrons to go from a 14 gauge wire into a much thinner filament wire, the electrons will be set free in the air. We talked about that with the light bulb and wax. The electrons rise to the top of the bulb.
The third form of energy transfer down a wire is the wave acting at the speed of light. That's how internet / phone data travels, not by the physical transfer of electrons, but waves through the captured electrons. Some materials allow this better than others. A wave should never be viewed as a particle-like thing in flight. A wave should always be viewed as the domino effect from one electron to another. A little jolt continues, electron to electron, a long ways down the wire. It needs to get amplified from time to time. The jolts need to be produced by a literal magnet, not a baseball bat. In the same way, light waves are formed by an electromagnetic jolt from an atom.
There is something special about the magnetic jolt that cannot be reproduced by a mere physical jolt. The magnet is a miracle that no one has yet explained other than to say it attracts and repels.
Did the fools ever ask what possibly could cause a photon to travel at 186,000 miles per second? And they never allow it to slow down no matter how many electrons it strikes, even though the law of physics demands that particles slow down upon contact. Surely the forces in our sun cannot propel a particle at the speed of light. I don't care how small it's made, there is nothing in the sun exploding so powerfully that it sends things flying at that speed. And it there were, it's not going to send every particle flying out at exactly 186,000 mps.
You need to be a warlock of extreme magnitude to pass off this photon. You need to be with your head in the cesspool of satan. Einstein was a wacko to pass this thing off, but he wasn't alone. There was a conspiracy, the evolutionists. They resorted to their magical big bang. What else could create the photon? Nothing but the boom of big bang.
To understand how light can travel at 186,000 mps, you need to appeal to the electron ether, which Einstein rejected. It was his worst enemy because it allowed for a wave view of light that contradicted his photon. In his days, they had already claimed that the ether was weightless, but Einstein rebelled. Surely someone suggested that the ether was made of electrons, but I never have heard that idea one time from all my readings, as though it's to be covered up at all costs. THE ETHER HE REJECTED IS THE SOLAR WIND, shout it from the housetops.
To understand how light can travel at 186,000 mps, take a stick from the sun to the earth. You stand at the sun, and poke the stick. It will poke the earth the instant you poke it, minus the time wasted when the atoms in the stick are squeezed slightly together by the force of your poking. Generally, the poke at the earth will be instant. Therefore, when a single electron jolts harshly outward at the sun, toward the earth, there is an almost-instant striking of the earth by an electron at the end of a row of electrons in the solar wind.
Just imagine a row of electrons from the sun to your eye. One jolt starts a domino effect, and all electrons in the row are jolted, with each electron moving almost as instantly as it is jolted (some lag time). They are not in contact, as are the atoms of a long stick, but they do jolt one another through their inter-repulsion forces. Lag time is defined as the time it takes one electron to start moving toward your eye, from the time that the electron to its rear jolts it. The total lag time of the domino effect, from sun to earth, is eight minutes, they say, but I strongly disagree.
Lag time increases when the distance between electrons is further away, as for example the electrons nearer to the earth than nearer to the sun. In other words, light speed increases when electrons are nearer to one another. The stronger their inter-repulsion, the less the lag time; the closer they are, the stronger their inter-repulsion. That's easy to figure. But then, if light speed is faster near the sun, it takes less than eight minutes for light to reach us. Eight minutes is calculated at a constant speed of 186,000 mph, and that figure is based on a sun at 93 million miles from us.
I was able to find a reliable method of finding the solar distance, using eclipse lines, that put the sun at far less than 93 million miles. I have forgotten the distance that my method derived, but it was less than 10 million, maybe as low as five million. That's still a good clip away. It stands to reason that evolutionists will exaggerate the size of the solar system on behalf of their big bang. That's what I think the conspiracy included, the over-sized solar system.
I will not believe them if they say they can bounce a light beam off of venus and then record the bounce back at earth to discover the distance to venus. They can't make a light ray strong enough for such a thing. We know that a light beam, when it strikes a surface, gets very weak in all direction. Ditto for when it goes through the acidic venus atmosphere and off its surface, then back through the atmosphere.
An initial electron emission and jolt from the sun is fast enough that the repulsion force of each electron in the entire row of electrons (from sun to your eye on earth) does not go sideways during their jolts. Yes, the repulsion of each electron does go sideways at all times, but there is no extra sideways repulsion during the jolt process. The jolt process is very simple. Each electron simply moves a certain distance forward, or almost forward, and virtually no energy goes sideways, for if it did, the light wave would curve around the edge of objects.
If I lost you, let me explain in another way. Light waves are known to move forward only, and it's this that deceived Newton and others into thinking that light consists of a particle. It had me fooled too. I didn't want light to be a wave. I didn't understand waves at the time. Bullets I can understand. I'm explaining a wave now in very simple terms. My discovery to explain the straight-moving light wave: if an electromagnetic particle moves fast enough past another one, there will not be enough time to affect the one passed with electromagnetic force.
This discovery was from doing a mind experiment. If we roll a metal ball slowly past a magnet, the magnet can curve the ball to itself, and grab the ball. The faster the ball is rolled past the magnet, the less the ball curves toward the magnet. Eventually, the ball can be rolled fast enough that no curve exists. There's not enough time to allow electromagnetic force to act to any visible effect. In the same way, if an electron is shot fast enough past electrons to its sides, no added repulsion force will be affected upon them.
This throws a curve ball into Thomson's discovery of the electron. He believed that electrons were passing, and thus curving, through his electromagnetic field. He measured the amount of curvature of the electron beam in order to "weigh" the mass of the electron. But, if the speed of the electron wasn't maintained the same from test to test, the specific curve is expected to deviate based on the specific speed.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God
If you are stuck with dial-up service, using the Opera browser can help.
It has an Opera Turbo program (free with the free browser) that speeds download time.
Go into Opera's Settings, then click on "Browser"; you'll find the on/off Turbo button in there.
Table of Contents