Until recent years, I've kept my physics hobby separate from the post-trib book. I've not seen harm in sharing this hobby aside from readers thinking I'm a nut and thus affecting the post-trib message I share along with others. Confident I'm not nutty at all in my physics views, I treat the opposition, the evolutionist establishment, as the nuts. I'm not trying to convert them to Jesus in these sections below, but prefer to portray them as God's chief enemies in the last days, which acts as a warning to any of them who are actually listening.

This page will become a book as I add chapters. Check in from time to time to see new additions.

1 -- All Gas Atoms Repel Each Other

You can guess correctly that, shortly after Darwin, evolutionists were conspiring in their inner circles to develop the evolution of the cosmos apart from a Creator. They may not have been writing books yet, but these discussions culminated in the "big bang," which, at the time, was understood very simplistically as compared to the many complications that developed due to problems. In it's simplest form, they envisioned an explosion from a single point that flung atomic material into space.

Their trick was to convince the not-so-Christian parts of society into believing that exploded material came together into stars. Therefore, you should be able to glean that they chose, with utmost need, the theory that all atoms attract each other, otherwise the atoms that formed in the big bang would never come together to form stars. To this day, evolutionists, though they know better, have maintained the false fact that all gas atoms attract. I'm going to show you how they know that theory to be incorrect, yet they remain silent on the "error," because it's a fundamental need for the viability of cosmic evolution.

What does it mean to be able to prove atomic physicists of being wrong in this way? It means they are brazen liars for the purpose of murdering God. In the same way that political forces seek to retain political power, at any cost to their reputations, in order to continue to indoctrinate the masses into a Godless world view, ditto for evolutionists is ALL fields of science. They conspire together. They know the game. The game is to keep control of educational channels in order to brainwash the youth, and then to brainwash the middle aged when the youth become middle aged, and then to continue to deceive them to their graves. This is the end-time war culminating in God's big bang, the shaking of the planet on a day that takes them by surprise.

It's for the sake of allowing evil to promote itself for God's big showdown that He remains mainly invisible to Christians. The showdown explains why He's chosen not to talk to us straight-forwardly so that we hear him in plain English at anytime we ask Him a question. For the sake of the Great Surprise, we are called to live by faith on the evidences of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, which, instead of speaking in an audible voice for the most part, "speaks" in different ways that are not evidences, to our enemies, of His existence. God doesn't want His enemies to know that He is the I AM. It's just that He chose this way. He wants to see what people will do who do not believe in Him, that they might be judged properly by what they do. For evolutionists, the end will be very bitter, for they have sought to murder God forever, and thus, forever will be their terrible reward.

Evolutionists in physics KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that air atoms weigh down on the ground. And they know that air atoms (or gas atoms of any type) weigh down on the bottom of a sealed jar. In the meantime, they KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that the weight of air is THE VERY THING that causes air pressure. The more atoms in the jar, the more they weigh, and the more they create pressure.

Again: they know that air pressure is a direct result of the weight of gas atoms. If you want to know for sure that they lie to us, you need to think about this and get it into your head. Let me help you. You can build on it after I tell you what they won't.

No matter how high you go into the air, the air pressure at that point exactly matches the weight of the air above that point. For example, if you go halfway up into the air, the air pressure will be formed by the weight of air higher than that midway point, and the air beneath that midway point plays exactly zero role in forming the air pressure at that midway point. This cannot be true if atoms attract each other. It can be true ONLY IF ATOMS INTER-REPEL. Do you see those lovely capitals? You have entered the truth zone. You can now make monkeys of evolutionists.

Go ahead. Try to explain how inter-attracting atoms can weigh down on each other. You can't do it. If atoms don't weigh down on each other, they cannot form air pressure. If all the atoms above the midpoint of the atmosphere don't TRANSFER their weights to each other, they cannot form the particular air pressure at that midway point that they are known to produce. I know that their view of air-pressure formation can work in theory, but as their view CANNOT explain the PARTICULAR pressure formed at all levels of the atmosphere, their theory is wrong. Nice try but no cigar.

Their concocted view is that, while air atoms attract each other, they are flying about in random directions, forever banging off of each other without losing "total velocity." If one atom loses some velocity in a crash, the other atom increases in velocity by exactly as much as the other lost it. Neither atom goes unscathed in endless crashes at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour. This is their nutty, law-breaking view, and you have been their victim if you have believed them.

In the least, you should have asked the question: is it really true that objects continuously striking one another never lose velocities? If you are keen enough not to have swallowed that claim, then you should also realize that atoms making millions of strikes each second should come to rest in less than one second. Did that ever occur to you? Or did you simply trust the bogus science such that you didn't ask questions? One day, I started to ask, and I started to wonder, and I discovered nutbars in the science of physics.

It's sheer simplicity to understand their definition of air pressure: it's the crash pressure. The crash force of air atoms form the air pressure, the crashes against your hand or against your air-pressure gauge. Their problem is, they are complete wackos to take and teach the position that the crash force of atoms at ground level matches exactly the 14.7 pounds per square inch caused by air weight. Or, at any particular height in the air, the crash force of ever-crashing atoms exactly matches the weight of the air down to that point.

What are the chances that the crash-force pressure should always equal the pressure of air weight? Can't you glean that there is no crash-force pressure, no crashing of atoms at all? It's not needed. Air pressure can be explained by mutually-repelling air atoms. Right? Yes, of course. You can't argue with that premise. It's not a nutty premise. The trick is to explain how or why air atoms repel each other, but even if you or I cannot, it's a certain fact that they do repel because it's the only option where air pressure is not atom-crash pressure...what I call the bang-bang theory.

They know the truth, that air pressure is the weight alone, yet thy retain their view. It's not a mere mistake. It is deliberate falsification in order to keep big-bang cosmology alive. Expect them not to tell you that bang-bang pressure isn't needed to explain air pressure. But we can take this further than the air to all gases in all situations: NONE OF THEM are under bang-bang pressure. Is this a small "discovery" in physics? No, it's huge. Gas pressure by atomic repulsion is HUGE simply because it's the TRUTH.

However, in sealed containers, i.e. not in the open air, gas pressure it not sourced in atomic repulsion alone, but in electron repulsion too, as I'll explain when I get there. Atmospheric pressure always matches the weight of the air, and never anything else thrown into the bag, but, in sealed containers, the same weight of air/gas can be increased or decreased in pressure such that it does not match the weight of the gas. In the open air, the pressure always matches the weight because you cannot increase the pressure by pumping air into the atmosphere.

They will tell you that a column of air one-inch square, from ground to atmospheric ceiling, has weight of about 14.7 pounds. And they will also tell you that air pressure at the ground in about 14.7 pounds per square inch. But what they will never explain to you, lest you get wise to their crash fantasy, is how air atoms could cause air pressure by their weights. They confess that air weight translates to air pressure, but they will never tell you the mechanics of how so. But I am about to, be happy.

But first, just so that you have it straight in your mind, grasp the fact that objects not in contact, but flying in the air, cannot transfer their weights to the ground. For example, imagine two armies shooting cannon balls at each other, all balls flying past one another, some making contact, some not. None of those balls can transfer their weights to the ground until they land upon it. They all have anti-gravity capability by the force of being shot out of the cannons. They defy gravity for a time, but air atoms, though pulled by gravity, constantly defy gravitational pull to the ground. How can you explain that, if atoms are not racing around and crashing, as in that cannon-ball scenario?

Bigger question than you may realize: why do the cannon balls fall to the ground, but not the air atoms? What are we going to say, that cannon balls can't bounce off the ground in order to return into the air, while air atoms can? Why would we be duped into thinking that air atoms bounce off the ground and return into the air with every bounce forever and ever?

If Indian-rubber balls lose bounce with every bounce, shouldn't atoms do the same? Yes, indeed they should, but as the ones next to the ground supposedly strike the ground millions of times per second, they should cease bouncing almost instantly; they should decrease in velocity with each bounce. Tinker about that. Is it really true that atoms can lose no velocity when making collisions, or is this a fantasy of the evolutionists to keep the world from the inter-repelling gas atom?

Air atoms are all pulled by gravity, ALL THE TIME, yet something keeps them from being pulled to the ground. How do they maintain their positions in the air? That something would be obvious to physics students, even before landing a job in a physics company, had they not become brainwashed into the eternal-motion theory of atoms. You are led to believe that atoms retain sufficient motion to overcome gravity, and that sunlight's heat in the air helps to keep that motion going non-stop. Unless you write down their answers in your exams, you're going to flunk your physics course. If you write down in your exams that air atoms resist gravity by inter-repelling each other, you're going to be marked as a rebel with a wild and harmful imagination.

FACT: any two objects that repel each other are in literal contact at a distance by their repulsion forces. If we slip two ring magnets over a wooden peg such that they repel each other, the top magnet will hover over the bottom magnet. There are videos at youtube showing this. At this page, you can see that, the higher the hovering ring magnets, the further they are from each other, which is exactly how air atoms position each other. The higher the air atoms, the further apart they are. Why? To answer that question, figure out why the higher the ring magnet, the more distance there is to the one beneath it.

The answer is so simple that any physics buff can see it straight-away, yet evolutionists frauds refuse to tell you that gas atoms operate in the same way exactly. The lower the ring magnet, the more the weight of higher magnets weighs down upon it, through REPULSION-CONTACT. Ya see, air atoms cannot be pulled to the ground because they all repel each other upward, away from gravity. Air atoms have no need of forever-speed because even stationary magnets, or stationary air atoms, can "float" in space. You witnessed it with your own eyes in the webpage above. HOVERING ELECTROMAGNETIC OBJECTS. They are real, not fantasy.

So, atomic inter-repulsion explains how air atoms can transfer their weight, from miles up, all the way to the ground. Not an iota of their combined weight fails to reach the ground. As they repel each other in all directions, their downward weight gets transferred in ALL DIRECTIONS, and this is the true mechanics of air pressure.

This is simplicity. The closer that magnetic objects are to one another when repelling each other, the greater the force of repulsion between them. Therefore, the more atoms there are above any point in the atmosphere, the closer the atoms will be pushed toward one another by the combined weight, wherefore they will repel one another with more force the closer to the ground they are, and "more repulsion force" is is in reality the synonym of "greater air pressure," for the repulsion force of gas atoms is the cause of the air pressure. Now you know.

There are no speedy atoms that break the laws of physics. All moving atoms tend to the stationary position due to their mutual repulsion forces. Remove all wind, and air atoms become motionless. Isn't it wonderful that we don't need to become dizzy when imagining the air? It can be at peace. We can feel it when there's no wind.

Let's go back to the big bang. There's an imaginary explosion with protons and electrons, every proton exactly the same, and every electron exactly the same, which is how you can know, and should know, that this is imaginary, not reality. How can an explosion form zillions of particles all exactly the same? Are we stupid? Are we nutcrackers? Explosions destroy, not create exact replicas down to the very last electron.

We can imagine these protons and electrons screeching through space, away from the explosion point, and thus, the further they get from the explosion point, the further apart they all become. How in tarnation will protons attract electrons when they are all an eighth of a mile apart? Before long, they will be a mile apart, then ten miles. How far apart will they be after a million years? How could they attract each other when so far away??? The only way to form atoms in this scenario is either in the imagination of a very stupid person, or in the imagination of a God-hating rebel. Take your pick. You'll probably realize that the truth is the latter option, because nobody can be that stupid.

The rebels skip the above when teaching students about the big bang. They start at the premise that, eventually, somehow, atoms formed and attracted one another to form proto-stars, then full-blown stars. But, stupids, how could atoms attract one another when at vast distances from one another? Aren't you evolutionists ashamed of yourselves?

Oh no, suddenly, the big bang becomes impossible even in their imaginations, if they admit that gas atoms repel one another. It's such a dire threat to everything they have been proud of, everything they've loved, that they will resist atomic repulsion with every physics fantasy they have come to own. If you care to, spread this message. Talk to leading online scientists about it. Force them to think about the impossibility of inter-attracting atoms being incapable of forming / explaining the measurements of atmospheric weights. Start the process.

One can conduct a mental experiment to prove that atoms transfer their weights to the surface of a weight scale. If we take a liter of air in a jar with bottom side of four square inches, verses another jar with the same amount of air but having a bottom side of seven square inches, both jars will register the same total weight of air when placed on a weight scale (assume the scale is in a vacuum). You now challenge the evolutionist to explain why the jar with seven square inches at its bottom doesn't weigh more than the other jar? After all, he's going to claim that the jar with the bigger bottom gets more atomic bang in the downward direction. That is, his bang-bang theory predicts that it gets more pressure in the downward direction, yet the air weight remains the same...because this weight is NOT a function of bang-bang atoms forever in motion.

Hopefully, the evolutionist will admit that atoms striking the sides and top of the jars will not produce downward force. You now have him in a headlock, or, if you're an evolutionist, I have you in a head lock. It's time to wash out your brain of disprovable ideas claimed as facts from big-bang nutbars. Consider yourself a victim, and move on, not trusting a word they say.

The big-bang theory necessitates particles to screech in nothingness at great velocities with nothing to slow them down. The greater the forward momentum, the harder for particles to move laterally toward one another while flying forward. See that? Plus, there is just as much attraction / repulsion force pulling each electron, proton or atom to its right as there is to its left, meaning it's not going to move laterally in any direction in order to accumulate atoms into stars. But of course, in the imagination of a God killer, anything must become possible for the big bang. If they need to scratch our eyes out with their fingernails, they are definitely up to the dirty deed.

Entering 3.68 psi at the calculator below informs us that 3.68 psi air pressure exists at 34,275 feet above our feet, or 6.5 miles. As air pressure is proportional to air weight, it means that one-quarter of all atmospheric air volume exists above 6.5 miles. This one-quarter air volume produces one-quarter of the psi that exists at the ground:
https://www.mide.com/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator

2 -- There's Only One Theory of Gravity

Evolutionists don't have any idea what gravity is, because they remain deliberately ignorant of its true nature of gravity, because they want atoms to attract each other. The only real way to explain that the atmosphere grows in volume in warmer weather is by the repulsive power of gravity. REPULSION RULES. And it kills cosmic evolution.

Isaac Newton becomes suspect as part of the proto-evolutionary circle that brought Darwinism to bear. Newton was the president of the Royal Society, a science society in Britain. It doesn't appear coincidental that evolutionists held to Newton's theory of gravity, where all atoms have a gravity force, and thus all atoms attract each other. It appears that Newton was involved in science or social circles kicking the big-bang theory around, asking how possibly stars could form from a cosmic explosion. Newton may have heard that certain scientists of his day were leaning toward atoms all attracting each other. He then canned that idea for his definition of gravity, defined as all the atoms in the earth pulling us down to the ground.

But, the problem is, nobody can explain this gravity force by that all-atoms-have-gravity model. The best they have done was to invent a graviton particle existing in every atom, but this fails because like forces repel each other. If the graviton were negative or positive, all gravitons would repel each other. Therefore, the nutbars state: gravity is DIFFERENT. Yes, but, anyone can claim that Santa Claus is different for sliding down chimney shafts. Where's the proof that he does? Where's the logic? If he's to fat to fit down the chimney, maybe the graviton soot has no place in the atom.

Maybe we should check out electromagnetic gravity force instead. I can make the case that it exists without problems. The only "problem" is that it contradicts established science, and the only "proof" against it is faulty, establishment "science." If you are prepared to argue that electromagnetic gravity force cannot be true because it is opposed by such-and-such, you had best prove such-and-such true before you use it as the club, otherwise its abuse.

I maintain a viable theory of gravity, the only option left if theirs is incorrect. I didn't invent it; it's been out there for a long time: gravity is a negative, electromagnetic force. This is perfectly viable, if someone can explain how it can work. What beef could evolutionists have against electromagnetic gravity? Easy: the big bang won't work if gravity is electromagnetic. Unless all atoms possess their own gravity force, the big bang won't work. Now you know why they stuck to Newtonian gravity.

Fact: the earth is filled with free electrons from the sun where the earth has heat. Science knows that, where there is heat, there are freed electrons. Therefore, the earth radiates negative force, outward in all directions. They can't detect it on any negativity-detecting equipment because they manufactured it in the midst of that negativity. That is, thy set the equipment to zero negativity while it was immersed in the negativity, and they therefore can't detect that negativity with their equipment.

But, as you must realize if you are an honest-with-self person, the earthy negativity must exist because all heat sources have freed electrons, and electrons undeniably emit a negative force. When the whole earth's free electrons together emit negative force, it's going to reach beyond the earth's surface, into the air, and out into space.

I don't want you to think that gravity source is mainly in solar electrons in the air. That's nothing. The vast presence of gravity-producing electrons is in the earth's rocks as their heated conditions. It's important to know that gravity force is not from the electrons that rock protons have captured, but in the FREE electrons between rock atoms, in the atomic spaces of the atoms. The latter constitute the rock's heat.

It's true that captured electrons, those surrounding all protons, emit negativity, but this can be ignored, for the purpose of explaining gravity, because the positivity of protons counters and cancels the negativity.

Ask a physicist what happens to an atom if you bring a negatively-charged thing near to it. Or, better yet, go for the jugular by asking whether that negatively-charged thing will tend to detach some of the atom's captured electrons? He's going to say, yes, negative charge will free captured electrons and produce positively-charged atoms. Where will the detached electrons go, do you think? Will they go, FREE? Ahh, the magic word, FREE electrons emitting negative energy.

But wait. If protons counter all negative charge of their electrons, shouldn't the same be true when the captured ones go free? Yes, but that's not the end of the story. Electromagnet force gets four times stronger when it's twice as close to an object, such as your body. Therefore, this discussion discovers that the gravity force needs to be higher in the earth's rocks than where the captured electrons go free. For, where they go free, there's no net-negative charge emitting up into the atmosphere.

But then how do the freed electrons get closer to the atmosphere in order to create a net-negative charge on the atoms of our bodies? EASY, they repel each other, through the atomic spaces of the rocks, in all directions, and one of those directions is up toward our bodies. In the meantime, as the electrons seep upward through the rocks, the atoms from which they were freed are left far behind underneath them...such that the positive force from the protons of those atoms do not emit as much positive force on our bodies as the rising electrons do, and hence there is a net-negative charge on our bodies.

Plus, as the free electrons put distance between the atoms they abandon, their net-negative energy as a whole lot -- the gravity force -- only helps to repel electrons upward. Two negative forces repel electrons upward: 1) the whole gravity lot, and, 2) the rising electrons directly underneath other rising ones.

Now you're ready to understand how gravity attracts all atoms by the negative force that it is. You don't want to mess this up by allowing yourself to be tricked by love for Newtonian gravity. You need to be willing to break-up with that too-fat, over-rated phantom. Evolutionists spent much time making you fall deeply in love with it such that you would never abandon her. Evolutionists decree many sins, but our betraying Newtonian gravity was made a cardinal sin. Einsteinian gravity is unworthy for mention, total crock to make you deny electromagnetic gravity as the only other option, besides Newtonian gravity.

While holding the evolutionist at his jugular with both your hands, give him a rude shake while asking: what happens to atoms when they lose captured electrons? Answer: the atoms become net-positive in charge. For sure? Yes, for sure. Now get him into a headlock, and tell him you'll break his neck unless he answers the following question correctly: will the net-positive atoms be attracted to the negativity in the earth?

The evolutionist will see where you're going with this question, and so he won't want to answer it, because, in this context, it opens the door wide to the possibility that earth gravity, merely a negative radiation, attracts ALL atoms by making ALL atoms net-positive. Is gravity so simple as that? Yes, for sure. FOR SURE. So why didn't the smart-ass big bangers figure this out? They probably did, but swept it into their trash bin lest anyone on the outside discover it.

Did I confuse the reader? Where's the confusion? I don't want to go forward without you, so here it is again: gravity repels electrons in the atoms of your body, and consequently attracts all atoms in your body. This is more certain than the answer to two plus two. Gravity blows away some of your electrons, then grabs hold of you. Aren't you glad? Doesn't it make you happy to finally know what gravity is? Crawl out of the chimney soot, and breath fresh air.

When you bring the negative end of a magnet near a piece of steel, the negative force repels the captured electrons to the far side of each steel atom, the side furthest from the magnet. Consequently, the sides of all steel atoms nearest the magnet are made net-positive in charge, meaning that the magnet first makes the steel net-positive toward itself, and simultaneously grabs and attracts the metal to itself. Ditto for gravity force, though I think gravity force removes some captured electrons permanently from all atoms (unless they are far up in the sky or outer space, where gravity force is weaker).

Why don't they want electromagnetic gravity? Because it's a negatively-charged pool, and the big bang doesn't have one. Outer space, as they see its early history, was never filled with negative pools because it needs pools of free electrons, yet electrons repel each other so that pool formation is exactly the opposite of what free electrons in space will form. Only when the free electrons are much trapped in atomic materials, such as planetary rocks and stellar atoms, can a negative pool form. But if they put star formation before gravity formation, the big bang can't even begin let alone evolve into life forms. Therefore, their gravity cannot be negatively charged. Negative gravity is the rightful death of big-bang "science."

It gets worse for them, because stellar atoms can't trap pools of free electrons unless stellar gravity pulls stellar atoms tightly to itself. Gravity needs to exist first, before the stellar atoms are pulled down by it, yet gravity can't exist without stellar atoms releasing captured electrons...meaning that both need to exist simultaneously, which is a thing that only God could pull off because He's not restricted to random events. He has hands by which to work things, make them do what He wants them to do. The big-bang is nothing but a WORSE-THAN-STUPID EXPLOSION without the ability to order events. How stupid is mindlessness? Evolutionists married a WORSE-THAN-STUPID EXPLOSION. Any regrets yet, stupids? There will be, woe, there will be.

Their time to repent is now. Get sanity, get God into your soul with Jesus as your New Path. You won't regret it, and then it'll be your turn to expose evolutionism. Who better to expose it but one who's been in its camp for decades, you the trained but regretful evolutionist.

3 -- The Magnificent Electron

The evolutionist goofs, worse than goofs, need Newtonian gravity to make it physics-possible for the creation of the universe from a Godless big bang. They absolutely need to explain how suns formed from explosive matter screeching at unimaginable speeds through space, with all particles ever-growing in distance from one another. For when an exploitation takes place from a single point, all exploded matter goes out such that the material spreads out. How could it ever come together in that scenario?

You understand this, of course. When a grenade explodes, the further you are from it, the less likely you'll be hit with metal because metal pieces spread out with distance from the grenade. The big bangers, deceivers, don't tell you this when explaining the formation of stars. They start with a gravitational pool that has already formed in some spot in space, that attracts all particles to itself while protons attract electrons to form hydrogen atoms, the stuff of stars. This is why they need Newtonian gravity, the deceivers, the insidious liars, because it attracts electrons, they think, as well as protons.

Although we can prove that gravity repels electrons, they won't show you the evidence. For obvious reason, because the big bang is of utmost importance, and they will deceive you to keep the big bang alive, because against all odds, they deceived the whole world successfully, for many decades now and running. Shame on the world for not assaulting the big bang until its proponents are shamed everytime they open their arrogant mouths. They consider themselves the kings of the science castle, and will take you to court if you try to put Creation science into the classroom. These are the demons who put the kindling into the fire that is now burning down the whole forest, society.

Even if they admitted that gravity repels electrons, they would maintain the big bang by saying that electrons and protons first attracted each other into forming the hydrogen atom, and, in the meantime, or, after ward, gravity pools formed all over space, each one forming a single star by pulling in the atoms. But what they don't show you, when showing a drawing of the gravity pool with a proto-sun forming, is how the pool formed, or how the pool can attract atoms that are screeching at fantastic speeds many miles apart?

How far apart would those exploded atoms be? I don't know, because only the evolutionists are wacko enough to figure it out. But they're not telling, even though they tried to figure it out, because it makes the formation of stars impossible by merely the wee-wee-wee attraction force between a proton and an electron. How small is that force over just one mile? You can't even imagine how small. Non-existent would be the truth. Even if the protons and electrons were not traveling at fantastic speeds; even if they were dead still, they still wouldn't be able to attract over a mile of distance, but imagine how many miles apart they are in the big-bang scenario. Cosmic evolutionists are mad dogs wearing science masks. They plant invented fantasies on invented pillars of science, and they abuse true physics in the meantime to make it fit big-bang needs.

How many miles apart would atoms be a million years after the explosion? Not two inches. Not two feet? You see, on the one hand, they need lots of time to make big-bang formation of the universe look palatable to you, yet that time is the very thing that grows large the impossibility of the matter. The more time they put between the explosion and the formation of gravity pools, the more problematic the theory becomes, because it depends first on electrons and protons attracting each other from vast distances. How many miles apart would these particles be after 10 million years of travel at the fantastic speeds the "scientists" calculate? It doesn't matter, because only a lunatic thinks it was close enough for atomic particles to attract each other and bond.

You should know right off that they are lunatics when they claim that all of the material in the universe came forth from a little pin-prick of a circle. Hahahaha, who are they trying to kid? Only lunatic anti-Christs would take that position as scientific. If you have been guilty of imagining all the material in the universe inside a dot the size of a pin head, or even the size of a crop circle, shame on you. If you think evolutionists are somehow holy-wise far beyond our mental faculties, because they can fathom all of that material in a small dot with a serious look on their faces, great shame on you. They're laughing at you when not talking seriously in your face.

According to their own version of gravity, a cosmic gravity pool needs atoms to form, because they claim that gravity is sourced, and exists, in atoms. The whole earth's gravity, they claim, is an accumulation of gravity force coming out of every atom that makes up the earth. Your body is part of that outgoing gravity force, they claim, that holds the moon in orbit. But if atoms are needed to form the gravity pool that forms stars, how did the atoms come together in the first place to form the gravity pool? This is where the liars lose the foundation for their big bang. They don't have any means to form the gravity pool, and so they just draw a picture of it already existing, and expect you to not ask any questions as to how it got there.

Do pieces of a grenade form a pool of metal pieces? Imagine a grenade exploding in a vacuum where no gravity exists? How will the pieces end up close to one another when their directions are ever-further apart? There's nothing in their cosmos existing to re-direct them toward one another. There's no air to make them curve. Newtonian physics doesn't allow objects in motion, in a vacuum, to curve.

A person on a moving bicycle overcomes some (not all) of the pull of gravity, with forward motion. As long as the bike maintains a certain speed, or faster, even if the rider is doing a sharp curve with body weight to one side of the center, vertical line above the bike, gravity is not strong enough to pull to the ground the rider. This occurs at slow speeds in the midst of full-blown earth gravity, a force far greater than a single atomic particle. The problem is, the fierce motion of the exploded atomic particles more than counters any attractive forces from neighboring particles. Attraction forces are going to be in the negative, and there's nothing to slow the particles.

For example, a cannon ball. It is attracted to gravity when it slows by friction through the air. But if shot in a vacuum, and if shot at a certain speed parallel with the ground, it would not fall to earth gravity, but would continue to move parallel with the ground, which we call a satellite in orbit. If the cannon ball is shot any faster than the speed needed to maintain an orbit, it will spiral out of orbit. The faster it goes past orbital speed, the more it counters gravity force such that this force becomes negative, as if it doesn't exist. The ball's motion has counteracted all gravity force, and then some.

Therefore, the fantastic speeds of atomic particles in the big-bang scenario has them all countering any gravity pool that may have formed, even if one forms by the artistic hand of an evolutionist bent on deceiving both the general public and science minded individuals. It doesn't matter if the gravity pool is moving as fast as the particles it's supposedly attracting. We can't use the argument of relativity, arguing that neither the pool nor the particles are moving (in relation to one another) if they are moving at the same speed. The moon overcomes all earth gravity at it's current speed even though it's always at the same distance (more or less) from the earth's gravity.

If the earth were flat, the moon would travel parallel with the ground at its current speed and current distance from the ground. However, one can play a trick here, claiming that the moon, or any orbiting satellite, is forever falling to the earth while simultaneously moving slightly away from the earth at a 90-degree angle (where zero degrees is a line from satellite to earth core). The two, they say, combine to maintain a circular path. In the former theory, the moon is not falling at all, but is rather locked in limbo while EXACTLY overcoming, not more and not less, the gravity between the two bodies.

It's not going to be easy to prove which theory is the correct one, unless we can get hold of a flat planet in a vacuum for to do an experiment, but reason tells that any object in motion can fully overcome gravity by the force behind that motion, with zero fall possible. It could be true that a bullet shot horizontally will maintain a perfect-horizontal line for some distance, until the air slows it sufficient for gravity to bring it on a downward curve.

If astronomy is correct about "escape velocity," then they prove that motion can overcome gravity permanently once a certain speed is achieved. Escape velocity has to do with objects moving AWAY from gravity. In this theory, once a rocket accelerates upward to a certain speed, the engines can be turned off, but the rocket, instead of slowing and eventually falling to gravity, will maintain the same speed forever, especially as gravity force upon the rocket weakens as it moves away from gravity.

I'm just saying, big-bang atomic particles cannot attract each other at the fantastic speeds "scientists" imagine for them. Even if they convince you that there exists a micro-iota of attraction, yet the particles are increasing distance between themselves, far more than one foot with each passing second. There's no way that the micro-iota of attraction can bring two particles even a millimeter closer together per second.

Does anyone ask how the big-bang model could arrange for electrons to orbit protons? Can't you see from this claim alone that science is filled with nutbars? At least they make for some good entertainment, lots of laughs. Don't let this attitude of mine discourage you, evolutionist, from seeking ways to make the big-bang viable, for the more you seek, the more you'll realize you've been duped by science abusers, unless you're one of them but won't realize it.

I'm very sure that evolutionists keep a well-guarded secret: they have evidence that gravity repels electrons, but don't want you to know it. If gravity repels electrons, then gravity is a negative-charge force.

You never hear them explaining how atoms contain a gravity force, because their erroneous atomic model, concocted with the wand of science abuse, is already too complicated that they throw in a gravity particle into each atom. If there's no gravity particle in atoms, what possibly could be within them that causes gravity from a non-electromagnetic source? It defies. It mocks the evolutionist. It's crying out, "you're crazy, stop this."

They don't heed the warnings. The must concoct an atomic model lending viability to big-bang creation. Anything short of this is disallowed. They concocted an erroneous hydrogen atom as the "simplest" atom, just one proton with one orbiting electron. They use this tool to explain star formation from the big bang, for stars are mostly hydrogen. The simpler the atom, the faster it can form in the big-bang timeline, and so they beg you to believe with them that hydrogen atoms formed first of all, and made stars that then made orbiting planets. And that's how they roll. And you're going to say something like, "well that makes sense," not realizing that their simple hydrogen atom does not exist. No atoms can have orbiting electrons, first of all, and hydrogen atoms have the most electrons of any atom; I can, and I have, served good evidence for it.

The orbiting electron is one of the biggest goof jobs of modern science. Just use your common sense with what little you know on orbit formation, and orbit maintenance. Just think of how foolish and lacking in insight Elon Musk is, who knows the intricacies of putting satellites in orbit...at just the right speed at just the right distance at just the right angle of motion. Yet he thinks that all atoms have orbiting electrons. Just tinker about that. Modern science teaches that atoms can lose electrons, but then regain them instantly in orbit as if orbit formation were more natural than extremely unlikely. I shake my head.

Why does nobody ask whether electrons can be captured by protons in a different way aside from orbital capture? Just think of how weak the electron capture is if merely in orbit, where any slight jolt (a lot less than the bash of a hammer to a nail) to the atom would knock electrons out of orbit. For, orbits are delicate, where the orbiting object is in perfect balance between its speed and an attraction force. A hammer is a lot bigger than an electron. Imagine the moon as a hammer, bashing one of Musk's satellites at a 200 miles per hour. Can that satellite remain in orbit? Are we nuts?

Everything you see in material things is electrons. You can't see protons buried under electron atmospheres surrounding all atoms. All you can see is the light reflecting off of the outer layers of the atoms' captured electrons. When you zing a nail with a hammer, you strike countless electrons. If they were in orbit, they would be knocked out, and would never regain those orbits by any means. The atoms would be permanently deprived of orbiting electrons. Just use your head and confess that I'm correct. I'll help you move on to physics sanity.

No matter how you imagine the big-bang scenario causing protons and electrons to draw nearer to each other, how are we going to explain that every atom in existence got orbiting electrons? As the formation of an orbiting body from random forces is a near-miracle, shouldn't there be a zillion protons in space today that failed to capture an electron in orbit versus the very few that succeeded? Shouldn't there be many-more times lone electrons in space than the few that ended up in orbit? Yes, and the prediction is: there should be many-many-many times the number of protons that captured electrons in the ordinary way versus orbital captures. See sanity yet? The ORDINARY WAY. It doesn't help the big bang, but it's the true way. What are you going to choose?

Where are those protons with ordinary-way captures of electrons? Everywhere. All atoms in the universe have electrons under ordinary-way capture, same as how a magnet captures iron filings, straight-on stuck to the magnet, no orbiting filings. STRAIGHT-ON STUCK by the glue of protonic attraction. What don't we understand about this? Yet, you will never hear the goofballs so much as mention this ordinary-way capture of electrons. They must be afraid of it, probably because their orbiting electron is a vital need for the big bang. I can show that their kinetic theory of atoms -- atoms forever in motion without losing total velocities -- is a false theory concocted on behalf of their big-bang theory. It seems they are so dizzy in love with forever-motion that they wanted electrons forever in orbital motion. That's how they rolled: whatever the big bang needs, the big bang gets. The big bang birthed forever-motion, and so the creators of the big bang sanctified forever-motion in everything.

There are only two ways for the air/gas in a balloon to form the balloon: 1) all gas atoms repel each other and thus force some of their numbers against the balloon material, to blow-up the balloon; 2) all gas atoms attract each other but are forever flying about so as to knock against the balloon material. The first theory has atoms pushing, and the second has atoms knocking. The latter has atoms attracting each other, and because the big bang can conceivably form suns when atoms attract each other, and especially as suns can never form by random processes (with a God in play) if atoms repel each other, the big-bang wizards chose the knocking-atom theory over the atom-push reality. DO YOU GET THIS?

They CHOSE the theory that remains faithful to the big bang, because they were its inventors. Like husband and wife. Part of the inventions is the concocting of an atomic model that complies, for if someone else slips in with an atomic model that does not make the big-bang process possible, they shoot it down as if it were the mortal enemy.

It's not me who has the problem of explaining how atoms can keep the same total velocities when it's known that objects in collision, in the macro world, lose total velocities with every collision. They trick you into believing that atoms cannot lose motion energy, and thus they cannot lose total velocities. What they fail to tell you is that energy absorbed in collisions goes toward slowing the objects. That's right. The energy is not destroyed when objects slow down in collisions, but is absorbed. The absorption process results in slower speeds. What don't we understand about this?

Example: two identical cannon balls colliding head-on at the same speed will, if we ignore/eliminate bounce physics, stop dead in their tracks. Where did the energy go that both had? It transferred into each other. One ball stops the other because each one strikes the other with as much force as it took to put the ball in motion in the first place. Where y force puts the ball in motion from a motionless position, y force striking it in the opposite direction will make the ball cease motion again. It's a no-brainer that the goofs don't want you to know. They want you to think that the energy transferring from one ball will keep the second ball moving at the same speed. SHAMELESS TRICKSTERS. Grown men telling lies to the children on behalf of their crusade to murder God and relegate Jesus to an eternal grave.

In reality, cannon balls will bounce a little off of one another when they strike head on (assuming they don't break into pieces), but this has to do with how atoms react collectively when collision energy flows across them, and all materials react differently, some with small bounce, and others with larger. I believe that atoms do have some bounce capability, but, as we can prove in the macro world, it doesn't matter how much bounce-back colliding objects have, they yet transfer energy into each other that serves to slow them down, with each collision.

If you can imagine gas atoms colliding at a thousand miles per hour while not knocking their mutual electrons out of orbit, then, you, dear reader, are a goofball. There's no hope for you in achieving physics sanity. Does someone need to tell you that an electron in orbit is held by such a tiny force that a crash at a thousand miles per hour of the much-larger protons will destroy the atoms wholesale for lack of orbiting electrons (after the crash)? You don't need to conduct a real experiment to know this certainty. How will the protons get their electrons back into orbit??? Are free electrons just hanging around in the vicinity at just the right speed, at just the right angle at just the right distance, to enter orbital circles? You know the answer, and so join me in the quest for physics sanity by scrapping the orbiting electron.

Can you imagine something flying across the air in front of your nose at a thousand miles per hour? How fast would that be? Can iron filings remain on two magnets when colliding at that speed? Yet the filings are held much more tightly to those magnets than orbiting electrons to protons. The moral of this story is: don't be a goofball, get smart. I'm helping you out here.

When two objects, such as two magnets, collide, they release many captured electrons from their outer surfaces. Some electrons in the interior of the magnets get knocked off of protons, but are trapped in the atomic spaces, and so those spaces get hotter, for freed electrons are the true definition of heat. The electrons that go free from the outer surfaces of colliding objects create, in the air, what we call the heat of friction. Scrape any surface of any material, and electrons going free is what defines frictional heat.

Electrons are easy to dislodge from the outer layers of atoms, and harder to dislodge where they are situated closer to the protonic surface. You don't need an experiment to know this certainty. The closer the electrons are to the attractive force of the proton, the more-tightly they are held. SANITY.

You may be asking how ALL gas atoms could attract each other, or how they could ALL repel each other. Or, you may be thinking, aren't some gas atoms neutral in charge in their ordinary existence? In the theory of ever-colliding gas atoms, the goofs need ALL atoms to attract each other to explain liquid formation. If their atoms slow down enough, the goofs tell us, they attract each other with sufficient force to bond i.e. to form liquid droplets. Otherwise, if they are faster, their motion energy prevents them from attracting strongly enough to meet and bond. They claim that, the hotter the gas, the faster the gas atoms. Oops. They just admitted that atoms near the big-bang explosion were going to fast to attract each other into a bond. Oops.

But, in fact, they don't admit this. You need to fish it out from their theories. I learned well what they believe when I was developing my atomic model, not my pet model, but when seeking what the atomic reality is, as best as I could grasp it. I didn't invent a fully-developed pet model only to fetch the proof afterward. I took it one step at a time using the respectable, reliable laws of, and discoveries in, physics. I set side all of the ridiculous claims such as orbiting electrons, and sought the real way in which electrons are attached to protons. One step at a time, and with no big-bang monster to feed and keep alive, I knew I had a huge advantage over those goofs.

It's possible that some scientists today will deny that all gas atoms attract. But this is because nobody has made it a bone of contention as to whether all atoms attract or not. That is, its not big-bang dangerous to claim that not all gas atoms attract, because people don't generally connect that idea to big-bang viability. But when we force that connection, the evolutionists need to stand their ground with mutually-attracting atoms, especially hydrogen atoms.

In the beginning, evolutionists had to conclude that the only way for clouds to form is when water molecules cooled with elevation from the ground, and, therefore, the molecules slowed sufficient that they could attract each other into a bond. Or, no matter what object you take out of the freezer, water molecules will form on its outer surface because, they say, water molecules SLOW DOWN when approaching the cold surface, making it possible to form atomic-sized droplets to begin with, and visible water accumulation with time.

In this theory, ALL atoms MUST attract, for if the atoms of the cold object repel water molecules, how could the theory explain water formation on cold objects? And so, you see, their erroneous theory, made for the big bang, demands that all atoms attract each other, all solid and gas atoms both. For condensation can form on any material, and as such, the solids must attract the water molecules, or evolutionists are out in the rapids without a paddle as goes their kinetic theory. At least, I don't know of any cold material that doesn't form condensation; there could be one or two odd-ball materials made in a lab. Anything taken out of the freezer gets soaked in water.

In their theory, the only way for gas atoms to bond begins when a first gas atom passes near a surface. However, I'm talking about a gas in a sealed container having no wind. The physics fact is, gas atoms do not bond ANYWHERE within the gas, no matter how slow they become. That is, it's known that liquid formation does not occur in a gas body, signalling that gas atoms repel each other.

You may have heard that cloud/rain droplets form on the surface of atmospheric dust. That makes sense, but wind can also knock water molecules together, and there is yet a third means, when water molecules reach their top-most elevation and form their ceiling there. That is, water molecules rising upward toward the ceiling collide with water molecules at the ceiling, and thus they bond. But they do not collide as per the bang-bang model of atoms, but because rising electrons in the air give water molecules lift from under their arses. See that? It's called SANITY.

Yes, it's true. Gravity pulls water molecules downward, yet they can rise when the air is warm enough because the atmosphere has a continual flow of rising electrons that get underneath atoms, to give provide them lift. With height, the density of these flowing electrons decreases, meaning that the lift power on atoms and molecules decreases with height. When the lift power comes down such that it equals the downward pull of gravity (upon atoms and molecules), the water-cloud ceiling forms at that height (though wind currents can spread the ceiling upward yet more), for lack of further lift power. In the evening, as air cools throughout, gravity gets the bigger advantage over the flow of rising electrons, wherefore water droplets / molecules come downward to form dew.

The bang-bang theory can't properly explain this up-and-down motion of water, though the bang-bangers fool you with a fine-sounding method using a buoyancy principle. The problem is, there is no buoyancy principle applicable to single atomic particles, because they are not air balloons. They say that an air balloon gets it's lift from a BODY of atoms underneath the balloon, in what is correctly a function of buoyancy, but they don't tell you that there can be no body of gas atoms lifting single atom. You need either a single atom to lift a single atom, or a body of smaller electrons, but, in their bang-bang theory of atoms, there are no atoms that give lift more than they push atoms downward. Their bang-bang theory has atoms striking upward under atoms as much as it has atoms striking downward on the tops of atoms, and so no net lift can be achieved.

THEREFORE, I declare to you that hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, and water molecules rise in the atmosphere from the lift afforded by rising electrons, for there is nothing else that can give those particles lift. Hydrogen atoms rise the highest, and form the highest ceiling, not because they are the lightest, but because they are the largest of all atoms. The larger the atom, the larger the body of electrons giving it lift. The goofs have it backward, claiming that H atoms, which they want you to practically worship, are the smallest.

Anyone who assails their H atom is guilty of blasphemy. It's their god, creator of the suns which birthed the planets which birthed the apes. But I have proven with indisputable evidence that H atoms are the largest of all. They thus have the most captured electrons, explaining why the combustion of hydrogen nets more heat than any other combustible material. The more captured electrons that atoms are forced to release (they don't do it willingly), the more heat they release.

It's easy to discover the cause of the release of electrons from H atoms, when O atoms invade the electron clouds of H atoms, when H and O atoms bond, when they are attracted electrically to each other, by a spark or other concentrated heat source.

You can't have the captured electrons of O atoms invade into the captured electrons of H atoms without the O's electrons, in the invasion zone, going free into the air. The invasion zone increases in electron density for obvious reason, but as the H atom is already fully loaded with electrons prior to the invasion, the invaders get repelled away by each other. For increased density (they are closer together) forms increased mutual repulsion forces, because repulsion force grows stronger when electromagnetic objects are closer together. There's no place for the invaders to repel each other away but into the space outside of the atoms. HEAT ENERGY at your service, the freed electrons.

What happens when we mix H and O atoms in a sealed container, and then give it a spark from the inside? The bang-bangers have no explanation for the explosive/enormous heat energy that comes forth. The container bursts open, and the air outside of the container is blown away. Bang-bangers have only one explanation: the atoms become fiercely fast, for that is their definition of high heat. But how did the atoms become fiercely fast just because a spark took place in their midst?

The spark, because it's made of freed electrons emitting from one atom or both, changes the electromagnetic charges of one or both atoms, causing O and H to attract and bond. Even if bang-bangers try to explain this situation by saying that the attraction force creates enormous speeds for the atoms, they then have the problem of explaining how the bond takes place, since the atoms were already going too fast to bond before the spark takes place.

? Therefore, if the spark makes the atoms travel at many times their speeds prior to the spark, it's impossible for the O and H atoms to bond, according to their own theory of bang-bang atomic physics. They will need to invent some means to explain the bond in spite of their theory predicting impossibility.

The reality is that, when some O and H atoms bond, they release electrons sufficient to change the charges of neighboring O and H atoms so that they too attract and release some of their electrons, and so a chain reaction is set up that releases enormous numbers of freed electrons within the sealed container. As they repel each other, they burst the container and push outward into the air in what we call an explosion. That is the true definition of heat energy, the repulsion forces of freed electrons. They push things.

When a gas is compressed in a sealed container, liquid forms only on the container surface, proving that gas atoms do not attract each other, otherwise, droplets would form within the gas body as well as upon the container walls. What do you think the gas looks like when liquid formation requires a non-gaseous surface? This is the key to discovering how gas atoms are situated in the gas. I bring you sanity, brainwashed ones. Cleanse yourselves with realities, not with the foam-at-the-mouth of the evolutionist killers of God.

We have only one option. As gas atoms cannot collide millions of times per second without coming essentially to a near stop after one second alone (as they slow each other down per collision), the fact must be that all gas atoms repel each other. And why not? What is wrong or impossible about this theory? Are we afraid to violate the big bang? Not I. If it seems unlikely that all gas atoms should repel, there must be a cause behind it. Every gas must be given to the fate. What do all gases have in common that could be the common denominator causing all gas atoms to repel? It's atmospheric heat. It's everywhere, even in atomic spaces of liquids and solids, but especially surrounding every gas atom.

What could atmospheric heat be, do you think, once you've rightly slaughtered to death the bang-bang theory of heat? The wonderful thing is, once you deny one of their theories, there's often only one other option...otherwise I wouldn't be bringing you the good news. It makes it easy for me to find the realities just by clobbering to death all of their fantasies. If atoms can't attract, voila, we discover instantly that they repel. It's that easy. No geniuses needed. If banging atoms can't define heat, we look to a material. What material always exists wherever their is heat? NO GENIUSES NEEDED, only honest people who care not for the big bang.

They define heat as the collisions of atoms. But if those collisions do not exist, we need another definition, and the only other option is easy to discover, because it's known in physics that free electrons exist in every heat source known to man. Therefore, it's easy to discover that free electrons define heat. As electrons are small enough to invade the atomic spaces of solids and liquids, and as they repel each other no matter where they exist, that's why solids, liquids and gases grow larger with increasing heat. It's such a no-brainer to arrive at this definition of heat, and the fact that the goofballs won't even mention this theory to you is a testament to how badly they need atomic attraction for their big-bang pet.

If we can come up with an alternative theory of heat aside from their bang-bang theory of atoms, then heat becomes a MATERIAL all its own, for there is no other alternative. The idea that heat is a material was the going science fact prior to the formation of the bang-bang model, but, in those days, science had not yet discovered the electron, and did not yet know that there existed particles that repel each other to explain the expansion of materials filled with heat material.

But even after the discovery of repelling electrons, evolutionists denied the science establishment the concept of heat as the material of electrons. They kept that idea hush, apparently, for I know of no controversy in science where there arose a faction of scientists clamoring on behalf of the electron theory of heat. That movement is long overdue. It's time to make goofs of the goofballs.

They tell us that gas atoms are flying well over a thousand miles per hour, ON AVERAGE. Some gas atoms fly faster, and others slower, but, the point is, they can't have some gas atoms at 1,200 miles per hour while the average is 1,800. Whatever they deem the average, the slowest ones need to be close to it, because they are all in continual collisions with the faster atoms. If any atom gets slowed, it's likely that, after two more collisions at most, maybe three, it's going to become faster. As these collisions occur so fast in time, it's actually impossible to have slow atoms versus fast. Can you fish that out? They are generally going to be ALL at the same speed, don't let them fool you.

Just tinker about it. If faster atoms speed slower ones when they collide, and slower ones slow faster ones when they collide, the atoms in a single jar are going to be all at the same speed in short order, before your next blink. The faster one can't make the slower one faster than itself, and the slower one can't make the faster one slower than itself. Therefore, every collision of two atoms results in both atoms becoming closer to the middle speed between them, and the same will be true in the next collision, and the next, until they are all going at the same speed before you can say, GOOFBALL. Therefore, even if we entertain their fantasy that atoms never suffer total-velocity loss, there can be no slow atoms by which to form liquid droplets in any sealed container. Yet, liquids can be formed by compressing any gas, even where the gas is at the same temperature as the outer air (i.e. no slow down of gas atoms by colder air on the outside).

The physics fact is: at any compression level (gas-pressure point), only so much liquid forms on the container walls. You can wait a week, but no more liquid forms...until the gas pressure is increased. The more the pressure is increased, the more liquid formation, wherefore it can't be true that liquid formation is from slower gas atoms, because, no matter what the gas pressure, there are always going to be slow atoms in that gas, in their view. If slow atoms formed the initial liquid, then there's got to be more slow atoms in the gas that should continue to form liquid long after gas compression.

Or, let's ask: why should compression of the gas slow atoms so that more liquid results? Each time the gas is compressed a little more, a little more liquid results. They would need to argue that compression causes some atoms to slow down. However, compression only forces the atoms closer together, not affecting their speeds. There should be no difference in the specific change of atom velocities, during collisions, just because the atoms travel further, or less far, prior to collisions. Therefore, if gas compression cannot explain why gas atoms slow down, an alternative explanation for liquid formation is needed. It can be explained only by gas atoms under mutual repulsion.

A sealed jar of air sitting still consists of motionless air atoms all at equal distances, because all are repelling each other as far apart as possible. Some of them are repelled onto the container walls, wherefore some air atoms are bonded to the atoms of the container. Those air atoms on the container walls are forced to bond with each other too, by the same push of gas atoms in the gas body. We can't see the bonded air atoms forming liquid when the air is at room temperature, because the layer of liquid is too thin for the eye to see.

Visible droplets can be seen only when the air is compressed enough, or, alternatively, when more air is pumped into the container. In both cases, we increase the air-atom density, causing atoms to repel more of each other against the container surface. The fact of the matter is as simple to explain as that. No zig-zagging atoms.

But what about water forming on cold objects while the air is at a constant pressure, with no increase in gas pressure needed? Yes, but the process that forms water in the open air is not the same as air gas turning into air liquid in a sealed, pressurized container. In the open air, free electrons (heat material) rush into the cold object, because heat always flows from hot to cold regions, never vice-versa. The colder the object, the faster and longer that free electrons flow into it. They push water molecules in their path against the surface of the cold object. This is a wind of free electrons, totally different than what goes on in a compressed gas.

4 -- Sane Gravity

In keeping with my definition of gravity as a negatively-charged force from the heat of the earth, or from the heat of the sun, or from the heat of the moon, you might like to say: aha, John, if heat makes negative gravity force, why doesn't the can of frozen orange juice grow more negatively charged when filled with more heat? It probably does. How do you know it doesn't? I don't think modern instruments could detect the increase in negative charge between a frozen can of juice versus a can of juice at 200 degree F. But, truth be told, I'll bet that molten metal shows some detectable negative charge.

We can't say that gravity is a force from negatively-charged rocks because gravity attracts rocks, meaning that rocks need to be positively charged in order to be attracted by negative gravity. Besides, there's nothing in the earth that could make rocks negatively charged aside from interior heat, and so the conclusion is that heat is the negative charge all on its own. The heat within the atomic spaces of the rocks is earth gravity.

This is a revolutionary "discovery" (others figured it out long before I did) that shouldn't merely turn modern physics upside-down, but should toss it into the trash can. We need to start all over, with the facts this time. This discovery not only reveals the true nature of gravity, but affirms that heat is made of free electrons, a double revolutionary discovery.

It even tells us the source of gravity, in the captured electrons of the earth's atoms. So long as they're captured by protonic attraction, electrons are STORED energy, not yet heat. But when released from protons, they become heat because they can then abide in atomic spaces, and there they do their thing to heat rocks, even to a molten condition. Logically, the largest gravity forces radiate from molten rocks, yet even non-molten rocks have some gravity force. All free electrons offer a gravity force.

You can't detect the negative force of ordinary air if you build an electron detector in ordinary air, and set it to zero in the air. For when you set it to zero, the negative energy is already included in that zero reading. If you want to build the best electron detector, you need to build it in a space absent of free electrons, at absolute-zero temperature. Or, if we build a detector in the air, we need to heat the air to see whether the needle moves from the zero setting.

A magnet is an electron detector. For example: "The current flowing in the wire gives rise to a magnetic field around it which exerts a force on the compass needle (which itself is a tiny magnet) kept nearby and deflects it." What's in a moving electrical flow that affects the magnet? Heat. Yes, as electrons flow atom-to-atom in the wire, some come off and become heat, at which point they throw off some negative energy toward everything nearby.

But the goofballs tell us that electrical current is non-orbiting, freed electrons flying through the wire, such idiots I just can't express that enough. They envision the orbiting electrons of metal atoms flying away down the wire, through the vast space...that they imagine in every solid material. They'll tell you insanities such as: the wire is more than 99-percent space. LUNATICS.

No, but the negative end of a magnet(s) at the electrical plant forces the outer layers of captured electrons to flow down the wire, atom-to-atom. They transfer from the outer layers of one atom to the outer layers of the next atom. It can't be any other way. I'm "smart" on this subject only because there's no other option. It's easy to understand what's happening when there's no other option. That nick in the electric wire, that never goes away, means that atoms are not flowing, not changing positions. It means that only the electrons flow.

The deeper captured electrons are held more tightly to protons, and so at some point within the atom, the electrons will not flow unless the magnet at the electric plant is made larger / stronger...or by using a different metal that allows deeper electrons to flow. Most materials won't allow any electron flow. Why not? The point is, electrons flowing from one atom to the next can't help but become quasi-free as they flow, and this sets up a negative charge from the wire, but also makes the metal atoms more positive in charge, as can be expected if they lose captured electrons. These charges affect a magnet, and the negative force creates gravity force, because gravity force is just negative force.

We don't know of any attractive-at-a-distance force aside from electromagnetism. For anyone to say that gravity is a force based on something besides electromagnetism is unjustified until electromagnetism is ruled out. Newtonian gravity was formed before the discovery of electrons, and I say that evolutionist goons worming their way into science establishments, or forming them in the first place, rejected electromagnetic gravity because they loved, and perhaps invented, the concept of every atom has gravity force. When's the last time you heard a discussion on whether gravity could possibly be a negative charge?

One thing I know, I can't take science "facts" as facts just because science tells of them. Why should I believe that the south pole is a magnetic pole? Just because science likes the idea? What if it was invented to counter the idea that gravity is a negative charge? Have you ever heard anyone telling that a compass needle at the tip of South America, or in Australia, is attracted by the south pole? What if that's a bogus claim? Just because one compass needle gets attracted to the north-polar region doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite end of the needle is being attracted by the earth's south pole.

If you stand over the north pole so that one end of the needle points into the ground below your feet, the other end will point into the sky, i.e. not because it's attracted by the sky, but because it happens to be on the opposite end of the needle-half that points down. You can make one half of the needle plastic, and it will point to the south pole when the steel half points to the north. The plastic is not being attracted by the south pole, is it?

I'm saying this because someone could argue that, if the south pole is negatively charged, people should weigh more at the south pole if indeed gravity is a negative charge pulling our body atoms. As nobody has reported, to my knowledge, that people weigh more at the south pole, I tend to think that the south pole is not magnetic at all. One way to prove it is to hold a compass when standing over the south pole. If the positive end of the magnet points down to the ground, then, yes, that proves that the south pole is a negatively-charged part of the planet. But if someone at random, unimportant to science, makes the claim that a needle points down at the south pole, he/she could be a plant, a trick from the establishment to "prove" that the earth is indeed a two-poled magnet.

You see, science falsely claims that the earth is a two-poled magnet redirecting the solar wind from striking the planet, curving it around the planet at a great height above it, higher than the atmosphere. I realized that this was a false claim when I realized that the electrons in the solar wind are the source of atmospheric heat. That is, solar electrons stream into our air, and fill it as the standard heat you appreciate daily. But as the goons didn't want people to realize that free electrons define heat, I think they invented the concept that the earth is a two-poled magnet that sends the solar wind away. End of discussion on whether heat is defined as electrons, for if they can't come from the sun, then atmospheric heat can't be defined as electrons.

Do you see how important it is to bang-bang science to deny solar wind into the atmosphere? They are stinking cheats. Even if the earth is indeed a two-poled magnet, the solar wind yet gets in, guaranteed.

Knowing that I'm correct in defining heat as sourced mainly from solar electrons, and much less from electrons streaming out of the earth's rocks, I KNOW AS FACT that solar-wind electrons are not redirected away by earth magnetism. Besides, if one pole repels electrons, the other pole is expected to attract them, but this is not what the goofballs claim. Instead, they offer some magical force from the earth magnet that repels them ALL away. They don't lie for nothing, at a risk. They lie for their dear causes.

Solar electrons get concentrated in the air on the sun-side of the planet. Only after entering the air do they get curbed, on the morning and afternoon sides of the planet, by the upward rise of atmospheric electrons, as earth gravity repels them upward. In short, earth gravity pushes them away, back into space.

If something didn't get rid of the daily electrons coming into the air, the earth would fry in a week or less. All night long, electrons rise into space wherever it's night, 24 hours per day, every day, because it's always night somewhere. God has fixed this situation well for sustaining life. It's a beautiful piece of handiwork.

The goons are afraid that, if they admit the entry of solar electrons into the air, something needs to get rid of them, and because they feel sick thinking that a gamut of fellow physicists might discover negatively-charged gravity, the goons had decided to claim falsely that the electrons do not enter the air. End of story, don't even think about it, and, especially, don't even try to figure out what might repel them back into space, because gravity is about the only option.

I proved that gravity repels electrons by calling Sylvania, asking whether their bulbs have vacuums. I was told that their 25-watt bulbs still do. I bought a couple, and covered one in melted wax. After the wax hardened, I plugged in the bulb, but the wax melted (in the first minute) only at the top. The contents of the bulb, according to the goofs, cannot explain that result. And these goofs can create a vacuum better than in a light bulb, it they want to discover whether electrons rise within it (I'm joking). They already know that electrons rise from filaments and all other heat sources.

That's right. The electrons streaming out of the bulb's filament rose straight up, and they passed through the glass of the bulb, and then through the wax, melting it because free electrons define heat. And they did not go downward en-masse, as we would expect if gravity attracts electrons. See that? Proof that gravity repels them, they went UP en-masse. Sure, they filled the whole bulb in less-hot temperatures, because they also repel each other in all directions. But if you touch the bottom side of a bulb with a finger versus the top of the bulb, ouch, you'll realize how gravity has power to repel most of the filament's electrons upward.

And you can prove the same thing if you heat a metal rod passing through concrete, or some other material that doesn't allow air to touch the rod. The heat will rise through the rod in far-greater quantities than goes downward. What more evidence does one need to prove that electrons are propelled upward, and that they define heat? And if they are propelled upward, what do we suppose is propelling them if not gravity?

As gravity acts with straight-down force upon atoms, then, if some material goes straight up, we realize that gravity force is responsible for that too. It's a simple case of attraction verses repulsion. ELECTROMAGNETIC GRAVITY. Hello? All we need to do is discover why all atoms are positively charged.

Their model, called the "kinetic theory of heat," predicts that heat should move up a rod as much as it should move downward or sideways. It's as simple as that to mortify the going theory with a fatal stab. This is not a mere challenge, but is the kill itself. If faster atoms define higher heat, then applying a flame to metal should see heat transferring in all directions equally, but if the heat always goes up more than in any other directions, its the rightful murder of the kinetic theory.

Flames are stacked with freed electrons coming off of the combusted materials. When oxygen atoms bond with the atoms of combustibles, they both release electrons. Anyone who says differently doesn't know the mechanics of combustion. The kinetic theory needs to answer why combusted gases are extremely high in temperature. What makes the atoms speed up extremely fast, if indeed heat is defined as speeding atoms? I have no idea. I don't see a means, I don't see the mechanism.

If hydrogen and oxygen atoms combust, the only thing the atoms do is kiss and bond. It may be a hard kiss, but that's called a collision no matter how hard. The goofs tell us that atomic collisions neither speed nor slow total velocities, yet cold air and cold hydrogen produce extremely high-temperature flames and water vapor. How does the kinetic theory explain this enormous heat if the mere atomic collisions can't?

The electrons are witnessed, by the eyes, in the flames. They explain the enormous heat. When electrons EMIT (or eject) from atoms, whether from the filament's atoms or the hydrogen's, they create light waves in and through the electron aether, no photons needed. The electron aether is exactly the sea of atmospheric electrons that define atmospheric heat. Outside of the atmosphere, this electron sea is the cosmic solar wind.

The solar-wind electrons constitute the light-wave aether that Einstein said does not exist. And all of the evolutionists murdered the aether along with him. They didn't want you to know that the air is filled with electrons that serve to kill Einstein's photon. Light is a wave through free electrons, not a photon bullet. The sun's gravity repels its freed electrons, sending them outward in all directions, meaning the sun makes its own light-wave medium, and sends out one light wave per one emitted electron.

There's nothing in combustion to explain faster, racing atoms. The dumpsters might invent some explanation that sounds like a far-fetched stretch, or a brain-challenging piece of incomprehensible work (as they often serve up), but that's all they can do.

Liquid formation produces heat. Allow water molecules to merge and bond, and each molecule releases heat. Cause water to evaporate, and the unmerged water molecules take in exactly the amount of heat released when bonding. How can that be? Logically, they were as fully-loaded as possible with captured electrons prior to merger, and they go back to that fully-loaded condition after releasing some captured electrons during merger. The released ones become free, and once free from atoms, electrons act as heat. They cannot enter materials to heat and expand them unless they are first released from atoms.

Protons load electrons in stationary positions just as magnets load iron filings. No orbits needed. If you leave an atom alone in the dark, it's still. There's no motion in its electrons. But when you shine light on atoms, the electrons start to jossel like the waves of the ocean. This josseling emits light waves, called light reflection, through the electron aether.

At the outer surface of the atom, every atom, and to some depth into the atom, the many captured electrons HOVER in space because they repel each other while captured by protonic attraction. This means that there is space between outer electrons, and thus the outer atom, for any atom, is not concrete wall.

In other words, the hovering of electrons allows atoms to merge, as the electrons of one atom fit between the hovering electrons of another atom. At that point, the one proton ATTRACTS the electrons of the other atom, and thus the atoms bond in spite of their mutual repulsion forces when at a distance from one another. This second mechanism, mutual attraction, applies thanks only to the contact of atoms, otherwise it does not exist. The mutual attraction is stronger than the mutual repulsion unless the substance is above "critical temperature," as they call it, to be defined correctly as the mutual repulsion being stronger than the mutual bonding. Put simply, heat increases mutual repulsion, and can overcome the bonding attraction.

If gases are compressed into full liquid form under a piston that does not allow evaporation, and if this liquid is heated to its critical temperature or higher, the liquid atoms they won't stay bonded once compression is removed, but rather the substance will disintegrate quickly at the top, which is not the same process as evaporation. The latter is like erosion from within the liquid, when free electrons passing upward through the liquid knock surface atoms into the air, as electrons themselves pass into the air. But disintegration is when atoms repel each other electrically in spite of being forced to bond by a piston's compression.

Everybody knows that a heated gas increases in gas pressure even though there's no additional atoms added to it. What does this mean if it's impossible for the kinetic theory of heat to be the reality? It means that increasing the density of free electrons in a gas body causes the atoms to act as though they repel more strongly. See that? Inserting free electrons into a gas causes the atoms to move apart with more force. This gets tricky, for while I say that free electrons cause atoms to repel, it may not be true in the most literal sense. This is where my brain can't easily grasp the situation in order to make perfect sense of things.

As the density of electrons increases in a gas, they surround and compress atoms from all around it, because electrons repel each other in all directions. Therefore, they add themselves invasively to the sphere of the atom, and though they thus become part of the atom's captured electrons (within the attraction field of protons), they don't. That is, they do and they don't. That is, there's a line between the captured electrons and free electrons, and the latter always press in deeper toward the proton with increasing temperatures. That line could therefore move closer or further from the proton, but it then gets difficult to peg whether some, or none, of the free electrons become captured.

On the one hand, I've said that the invasion of free electrons lend the gas atoms their negative charge such that the atoms increase in negative charge toward one another. However, as this view conflicts (or at best complicates) my view of how gravity attracts atoms, it might be better to say that all gas atoms remain positively charged while the invasion of free electrons forced the atoms further apart so as to give appearances that the atoms are becoming more-highly negative by adopting (or capturing) the free electrons as their own.

Either way, it seems clear that the extra electrons on and all around atoms is what causes atoms to push outward in all directions in what we call higher gas pressure. Simplistically, I claim: ALL ATOMS REPEL EACH OTHER. If indeed they all remain positively charged while invaded by free electrons, gas atoms do literally repel each other, and they do so with or without heat particles (free electrons) in their midst. All atoms need to be positively charged in order to be attracted by gravity.

The trick is to find the best term / phrase to explain what happens when free electrons cause higher gas pressure, and "greater repulsion" of gas atoms is probably not be the best phrase. The simple reality must be that the greater repulsion of more-dense free electrons pushes gas atoms apart with more force, even if the atoms do not become negatively charged. I don't know what succinct name to give the action afforded by the electrons in making atoms push outward harder, and so I say that the atoms repel harder.

I think the explanation above for increased gas pressure is unassailable because the only thing that can enter a gas in a sealed container, when its temperature goes up, is electrons through the atomic spaces of the container. How else could those electrons cause the gas atoms to repel (ah, er, spread out) more strongly unless the atoms receive the effect of the negative charge of the free electrons? The atoms may not receive the negative charge, but they do receive the force of that charge. Remove the excess free electrons from the field of atoms, and atoms repel (ah, er, spread out) less strongly i.e. gas pressure goes down.

A difficult and apparent contradiction to explain starts with the claim of science that with the doubling of gas temperature (on the K scale), when the gas volume goes unchanged, gas pressure roughly doubles. The difficulty comes when cutting the volume of a gas in half or more barely changes the temperature. For example, if you have a gas at 30 psi, and increase the volume by two times so that the final pressure is 15 psi, the temperature of that gas goes down only by 1 degree F, even though the free-electron density in the gas has been cut in half. How can it be that cutting the heat material in half only moves the needle by one degree?

Before answering, see that I'm not making these numbers up: "Gas temperature is reduced whenever pressure is reduced. This temperature drop is about 1°F for each 15 psi pressure drop." I've been looking for those numbers for decades, and finally I've just-now found someone who has verified what I had found through experimentation: doubling gas volume barely changes the gas temperature. My experiment was back in the 1990s. It challenged my view of electrons = heat material because I expected a cutting in half in electron density by doubling the gas volume, but a reduction of just one degree can hardly be a cutting in half of heat density. This was a big problem, but convinced that free electrons define heat, I wrestled with it until a solution arrived.

How did that unexpected heat, twice as much as expected, get into the gas? I doubled the gas volume, forcing the free electrons in that space to use up twice the space, and they were expected to be half their density when filling twice the space. Instead, there was a drop of about one degree (to be viewed as virtually no drop in temperature), meaning they maintained their density, amounting to twice as much heat as was expected. The one degree was measured instantly upon doubling the gas volume, without time for heat on the outside of the container to penetrate the container walls to double the heat density. Where did the heat come from? Only one answer: from the atoms. Look to the atoms.

The writer above goes on to say that a drop in pressure by 150 psi, from 400 psi to 250, has a drop in 10 F, showing that the drop is constantly 1 degree per 15 psi in these high pressure ranges.

My explanation became thus: when free electrons press in on gas atoms, they squeeze and store some of their numbers upon them. They push the captured electrons, which hover in space above the proton, toward the protonic surface, and thus the free ones cram in on the protonic sphere. COMPACTED ENERGY STORAGE. When the gas volume is increased, relieving some pressure on the atoms from the whole body of free electrons, these stored electrons come forth into the gas body, preventing the temperature from decreasing much.

If you know the going physics, you may know that the goofs define both gas pressure and heat transfer as the same atomic collisions, with zero difference made between the two. They will differentiate only by saying that temperature is defined as the velocities of atoms, yet they say that heat transfer occurs at atomic collisions. Slow=cold atoms, they say, slow down, and therefore cool, any faster atoms they collide with.

Therefore, in a gas volume extended to twice as large, their prediction is half the collisions on the container's atoms, per second. In that case, if the gas is cold by comparison to the container and the air outside of it, it will take twice as long for the container to bring the gas to the container's temperature, because there are only half as many atomic strikes against that container from which to receive its heat. Their prediction is that, the lower the gas pressure (or gas density) in a sealed container, the slower the heat transfer into the gas. For a vacuum in the container, their prediction is zero heat transfer.

But, in reality, a thermometer stuck into a vacuum will register temperature changes as heat either enters the thermometer's liquid from the vacuum, or exits the thermometer's liquid into the vacuum. The thermometer makes liars out of these goofs, yet they refuse to repent and give glory to the free electron.

Although I haven't done the experiment, I predict that it's not true at all that a gas stretched to twice its volume will take twice as long to match the temperature of the container and the air outside of it. I predict that it's not true at all that a gas stretched to four times its volume will take four times as long to match the temperature of the container and the air outside of it, which is the prediction of the bang-bang model of gases. Even a container filled with a vacuum at zero degree will heat up roughly as fast as cold air at zero degree. That's because free electrons from the outer air come through the container walls and fill the vacuum without any problem. It takes a little longer to fill a vacuum to any particular temperature, but only because there's more space in a vacuum as compared to one filled with atoms. Now you know the truth about the true nature of heat.

There's more atoms in a gas than you may realize. They are on the order of a few atomic diameters apart, maybe only two, three or four diameters. One can plow easily through air, however, even though filled to this degree with atoms, because they have the best-possible "lubrication" existing between them: their inter-repulsive forces. You know that when you hold two inter-repelling magnets closely, there is easy slide between the two. Gas atoms and magnets at a distance from each other are LITERALLY in contact through repulsion force, yet friction occurs only when atoms physically contact atoms, in which case the electrons of atoms are sinking into each other.

Both captured and free electrons are moving down the wire in electrical flow, but the free electrons, stuffed in the atomic spaces of the metal atoms, are a hindrance to the flow. This is known because, the hotter the wire, the more resistance to electric flow. When there's zero free electrons in the atomic spaces, at absolute zero temperature, the metal becomes a super-conductor such that the electrons can keep-on flowing with no further push from a magnet. Therefore, this reveals that the captured electrons suffer no friction as they transfer atom-to-atom, because they hover, and because they suffer no friction from their mutual repulsion forces.

Friction slows things down when the electrons of atoms mesh together, when the atoms make momentary bonds as two objects rub together. The atoms of a marble rolled on the floor mesh momentarily with each floor atom as it passes by them. Each meshing causes some attraction between atoms, which slows the marble. Attraction force can slow things; ask the ball that you throw straight up. Therefore, in the theory of ever-colliding atoms, they are instead predicted to slow with each collision due to friction alone (i.e. not including the absorption of motion energy). Friction kills the bang-bang theory of atoms, but the goof wants you to believe there is no friction when atoms collide. Ask your piano about that, as you slide it across your floor.

Piano versus evolutionist dimwit, no contest. Thanks to gravity, the piano's atoms are dug into the atoms on the floor, and the attraction between them resists your sliding the piano. Therefore, when two moving atoms kiss as they make contact from opposing directions: FRICTION. It murders motion. What don't we understand about the facts? A ball bounces less high everytime it comes down and meshes with the atoms in the pavement. The atomic attraction at every bounce slows the ball's bounce. A rock skipped on water skips less far everytime it skips. The bang-bang theory of atoms is dead, and evolutionists are thus proven to be liars.

Not merely wrong, but liars, because they've known what I've just told you for at least a century, but have not yet repented from their bang-bang sin. Everything has friction, they say, when materials contact materials, but they deny friction for atomic collisions. INTOLERABLE SINNERS who teach good men to sin with them. They have brainwashed all scientists from the time that they were young students, and they have forced them to tow their lines. Cut the cords, be free of them.

The goofs contend that, when atoms bond, they don't come to a full stop, but vibrate at fantastic speeds. NUTBARS. Can you imagine two bonded, wee-wee-wee-wee air atoms vibrating at over a thousand miles per hour, and yet they do not detach from each other? NUTBARS, wicked bastards without a Father in heaven, who refuse to let go of their big-bang physics.

In their scheme, atomic vibrations mean that one atom travels over a thousand miles per hour inward toward the proton of a neighboring atom, then travels roughly in the opposite direction, outward from the same atom, at over a thousand miles per hour, repeatedly. Do you really think that the attraction force of one vibrating atom can hold another vibrating atom, even when both are travelling in opposite directions, each at over a thousand miles per hour? It's fierce energy enough when only one atom is moving away from another at that speed, but, in every second, there would be millions of instances when they both travel at that speed in OPPOSITE directions, and yet they still keep their bond???

Let me be-labor this. If, for example, gas atoms travelling at an average of 1,500 mph are incapable of forming a bond because the two bounce off of each other in collisions, we then reduce their speed to, say, 1,300 mph hour, when they are able to grab each other with sufficient force to form a bond. In this scenario, an atom crashes into another, and begins to bounce away at 1,300 mph, but the other atom prevents the bounce-away, and thus a bond takes place. This speed is not fast enough to bounce fully away to freedom.

The problem is, the two will vibrate each at 1,300 mph in opposite directions, in the first split second of the bond, which forms a force equivalent to one atom travelling at 2,600 mph in one direction. But if one atom striking another at 2,600 mph can't form a bond, due to bouncing away during bonding opportunities, how will bonded atoms keep their bond when that same level of force occurs as the two move away from each other in vibrations?

Besides, only a nutbar would claim that atoms can collide at that speed and keep a bond, for the attraction forces set up between atoms, during collisions, is utterly weak. And on top of that, atoms repel each other intrinsically. The reality is, atoms bond in soft contacts, but only when below their critical temperatures. Air atoms collide constantly in the wind, but they refuse to bond because they repel each other, and because they are far above their critical temperatures, even at the south pole.

When free electrons in a gas body compress each other into the captured electrons of atoms, the compressed ones are more dense (than in the gas body) because the protons are simultaneously attracting them. It seems that there are enough pushed-on (stored) electrons surrounding atoms to come off and double the free-electron density of the gas for each doubling in gas volume.

Keep in mind that free electrons are stored upon atoms beginning one degree above absolute-zero temperature. By the time a gas is at room temperature, that's a lot of stored electrons already.

Look at how the "experts" goof with the world, confusing everyone. When I ask google whether the north pole is positively charged, someone writes: "Generally, the south pole is termed positive, and the north negative." GENERALLY? What does that mean? Is it hard-and-fast science, or does "generally" mean, "maybe, maybe not"?

Someone else doesn't stand by the above, saying: "Magnets can also be divided into a negative and a positive pole based on the characteristics of the poles. However, these terms are colloquial. One could therefore assume that the North Pole is positively charged, and the South Pole is negatively charged." So what's this writer saying, that the north pole isn't really positive in charge? There's no evidence of it? Apparently, yes. But if there's no evidence of a charge either way, how can anyone be justified in calling the earth a magnet?

Here's someone else who sounds like an authority on the topic, yet he's passing off some typical word salad that you're not supposed to understand: "The Earth isn't negatively charged on one end. Magnetic fields aren't generated by an accumulation of charges in one place, they're generated by an alignment or a motion of charges in the same direction. A magnetic field doesn't repel + and attract -, it deflects both + and - in opposite directions along the field." Say whaaat? This writer sounds toxic, keep your distance.

The magnetic field this writer above is talking about is probably adopted from the pictures you'll see of iron filings making a circular shape on both sides of a magnet. I'm telling you, that shape is not the shape of a magnetic field. That round shape has nothing to do with the existence of a literal force field radiating from the magnet. That shape is simply the shape that iron filings happen to make when placed near the magnet, when they themselves become little magnets, thanks to the large magnet itself acting on the atoms of the filings. But that's another story. The point is, ignore those cosmic pictures you run across where the earth's magnetic field is drawn (yes by an artist) with the same curved shapes between north and south poles.

Let's go to someone else: "The North Pole is a geographic location, and it does not have any form of electrostatic charge (especially as it's essentially in the middle of a sea which makes it at earth potential). The Magnetic North Pole is some distance from the geographic North Pole, but that, too, does not carry an electrostatic charge." Oops, it sounds as though there's in-fighting in geophysics. Why is this writer in denial? Sea venturers have been using the compass for centuries, and now this guy comes along and says, nope, there's no charge at the north pole to attract the needle of a compass?

But for a really-big screw into your skull: "Believe it or not, that's the way it is. Earth's south magnetic pole is near Earth's geographic north. Earth's magnetic north pole is near Earth's geographic south. That's why the north pole of a compass points toward north because that's where Earth's south magnetic pole is located and they attract." Does anyone know what they're talking about, or are these inconsistencies from those who've tried to reconcile personal experiences with false evolutionist claims that they don't want to see or accuse as false?

I don't know how they assign a negative charge to the north pole, but if it's from a choice only, where they could have chosen either negative or positive, I submit to you that they chose the wrong one to guard against what I'm telling you about solar wind.

Nobody has a clue on whether the north pole of a magnet is negative or positive, in the sense of comparison to electrons assigned the negative charge versus positive for protons. The only way to know what charge the north pole has is to see whether it attracts or repels free electrons. How can we do that? It's not like evolutionists could carry a bag load of free electrons to the north pole to check it out.

I have a possible method to do just that: the south pole's average temperature is about -45C while the north pole's average is -20C. Both poles face the sun by exactly the same amount, six months out of each year. Both poles face the sun for six month by exactly the same angle. Therefore, one way to explain that the north pole is unexpectedly warmer is to suggest that it attracts solar-wind electrons while the south pole does not.

If the north pole has a positive charge, attracting solar wind electrons, it does not necessarily follow that the south pole is negatively charged, nor does it necessarily follow that the earth is a magnet.

It's known that thunderstorms have excess electrons that cause lightning bolts. It's known that lightning bolts can strike the ground due to the positive charge of the ground. But why should the ground be positive while the air is negative?

I'm sure the establishment knows that electrons are freed from water molecules when the latter bond. It's the same scenario described above for O atoms intruding into H atoms: the invaded parts of the electron atmospheres give up their electrons to the air. Same goes with the bonding of any atoms / molecules by processes not involving combustion. So, because thunderstorms have thick clouds, there's more water-molecule bonding, and consequently a larger release of electrons.

The point is that air atoms can be encircled with many-more times as many free electrons than rock atoms. The latter can only see the invasion of free electrons into their atomic spaces, and thus there's a limit to how many of them can crowd around the rock atoms. As such, rock atoms, including the atoms of all solids, could retain their positive charges that gravity gave them.

Rather than heat causing the expansion (in size) of solids by making the solid atoms more negatively charged, we could say that the invasion of free electrons is the thing causing material expansion without making the atoms more negatively charged. The forced entry of free electrons into atomic spaces of solids and liquids is just like pumping air into a balloon, which expands it. It's that simple.

I can now move again into the explanation as to why all atoms are attracted by gravity: gravity is a negative force or wind that blows some captured electrons off of every atom, leaving every atom positively charged. It's such a simple explanation, I should get a science prize for it. But the goofballs despise my Christianity, and for this reason God calls them worse than I do. Instead of granting me a science prize, they would cancel me for bashing their big-bang fantasy.

My point is that while rock atoms were made positively charged by gravity, it appears that they retain their positive charge with certainty while air atoms give the appearance of becoming more-negatively charged with increasing free electrons. The point of the point is that some rocks could be more positive than others, and this may be the case at the north pole. I suppose we might suggest that rocks with less atomic space retain more positive charge for rock atoms than is otherwise the case.

Just as evolutionists had dug-in, into the schools, their fellow warriors took over most of society's institutions, and began polluting the minds, starting much in the 1960's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg9vMfcA50