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 months by exactly the same angles. 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

Energy is Repulsion, not the Ridiculous E=mc2

In Isaiah 40, we read that God never grows tired. There's no lack of oxygen to his muscles because he has no muscles. Thankfully, men get tired when doing vigorous things, like slashing swords around in warfare. Had not men become tired in war, many times more people would die in war. In this wicked theater, it's a good thing that God limited human intelligence.

Science tells us that there's an average 5,000 feet of sedimentation, on average, on Earth. What the evolutionist fools don't tell us, from geology, is that these sediments are lying on top of the pre-Flood world. Besides, the heat in the planet forced land masses upward to form highlands. These two things forced atmospheric oxygen higher, and some of it may have gone lost into space if gravity could not keep the highest oxygen atoms in.

The nature of air atoms on a sphere is that they spread out eight times for every doubling of distance from the surface of the sphere. That's because there's eight times the volume of space with a doubling of distance from the sphere's surface. Therefore, when the Flood forced air atoms upward, they thinned out. It means that the pre-Flood air was more dense. Oxygen atoms happen to be the body's fuel. It means that pre-Flood people were stronger, more robust, healthier. It means that birds now unable to fly, such as chickens, were probably flying without problem, with the thicker air.

I don't think that, when genesis says we're made in His image, that it refers to the shape of our bodies. I can't know for sure, but "image" here could mean our inners, our basic outlook and understanding of things and how we react to them. We can grasp the nature of God because we are like Him, and because we can glean His Creation. Wickedness is to shun the authority of God, to take ownership of our lives without thought of His ownership over us. As wicked people, we don't want the responsibilities God lays upon us for communal living in his "household," the world of people.

I am giddy about my atomic model. I like the fact that I have the correct model by far over evolutionist fools...who have fooled even the Creationists, shame on them. I can prove that evolutionists chose the wrong view of gas atoms, in which they race about without slowing down, ever colliding, and thus creating gas pressure by those collisions upon everything they collide against.

If you feel a little offended at my naming them as fools, you don't know how badly evolutionists have mangled atomic physics. You maybe had a clue, due to the insane complexities of their atomic model, but you didn't know where they were going wrong. Hear me out, and you will begin to see it. Their model is so inexcusable, and laughable at times, that "fools" is an understatement.

Anyone can prove that theory wrong with just a little thought. We are talking about God's Creation here. How did he make gas atoms to cause pressure? Not by he so-called "kinetic theory of atoms," the atom-to-atom collisions that the fools chose for their atomic model at the time that they were inventing their cosmic-evolutionary processes. They needed atoms to attract one another in order for stars to form from the big bang, and consequently the fools chose the bang-bang theory of gas atoms. These wicked people are going to be shamed, and Creationists need to wizen up, get out of their atomic-model camps.

The good news is that there is only one alternative to bang-bang atoms: all gas atoms repel one another electromagnetically. The better news is that there only one way for ALL gas atoms to repel one another, which then reveals that the fools chose the wrong view of heat, because the atomic-repulsion model requires heat to be a substance all of its own. Evolutionists are willfully blind to that model.

The even better news is that the only option for defining heat is solar electrons that enter our atmosphere. They repel one another. They are negatively charged, and lend their inter-repulsion to gas atoms. The higher the number of free electrons in the air, the hotter the air, the stronger the air atoms repel. You cannot disprove this theory except by arguing with the theories of the fools. That is, if you utilize the atomic theories of fools, you can "disprove" my atomic model, but you are then foolishly using falsifications, to begin with, to combat the truth of the matter.

Fist is first. We need only disprove that the bang-bang theory is erroneous, for this then proves the only alternative model. The bang-bang theory is proven wrong where even the fools admit that air atoms weigh down. They say that a column of air, from ground to atmospheric ceiling, weighs 14.7 pounds. But it cannot weigh down on the ground if 99.99999999 percent of them they are all flying around in the air, and all attracting each other in the meantime. Can you grasp that? It rates as one of the most important things you've ever heard in science, because it destroys the modern atomic model.

Does a bird or plane in flight weigh down on the ground? No. Well, yes it does, actually, but not straight down. The weight of a flying object does weigh down through air atoms, but spreads out in all directions in the downward direction. However, it can weigh down to the lowest surface (the ground) only if air atoms repel one another, for if they attract one another, air atoms cannot be in contact with one another.

Unless air atoms are in contact with one another, weight cannot transfer through them. Air atoms transfer their weights to all atoms beneath them, because they are in contact with one another through their repulsion forces. When one magnet repels another, though they are not in physical contact, they are yet in contact through their repulsion forces. I win. I have the correct atomic model, and the fools have made fools even of Creationists, shame. By force of their "expertise," the devil has fooled you through these crafty buffoons, the evolutionists.

This is so easy. Imagine one atom en route to colliding with another air atom. Neither are in contact with other atoms while in flight, and even when they contact, they do not produce a downward pressure more than they apply an upward pressure. They simply cannot transfer their individual weights to the ground whether they are in flight or undergoing collisions. The most they can do is create air pressure, yet nobody in science has the right to believe that gas weight equals gas pressure, for this can be shown to be false. You can increase or decrease gas pressure by adding or removing heat from a gas, but the weight remains the same.

The weight of a gas in a sealed container transfers to the bottom of the container, and then to a weight scale that the container sits upon. Why? Because, gas atoms are in contact through their inter-repulsion. They all sit on one another. They are NOT racing around in the jar. If you don't disturb the jar, the atoms are all locked into place by their mutual inter-repulsion. They sit idle in that locked position.

The more air atoms there are above one atom, the more weight that transfers to that one atom. If the atom is on a mountain peak, it will receive less weight from air weight than an atom at sea level. This is why air is more "squished," more compact, thicker, denser, at sea level. With height, air gets thinner due to less weight above it. There is your absolute proof that gas atoms, all of them, repel one another. Me lonely wins, the many fools lose, and the Creationist got duped for trusting that there's independence between atomic physics and evolutionism. No, the two are entwined. Wicked atomic physicists chose an atomic model that makes cosmic evolution more viable. Duh.

So, why don't we feel a whopping 14.7 pounds of air weight on every square inch of our bodies? As atomic repulsion goes in all directions equally, the weight of the air likewise applies weight pressure in all directions equally. Atmospheric pressure is exactly weight pressure, there is no difference, because its air is not confined in a sealed container. You can't compress the atmosphere with a piston. The pressure is due to the weight. But something must be countering the air weight, or we would become squished by its weight.

The fools deny that solar electrons enter the earth's atmosphere because people could then start to get the impression that heat is defined by them. After all, the electrons originate from the sun's "solar wind." Don't be an evolutionist idiot. These electrons do enter the air by force of the solar wind (a true wind), and when they enter our bodies, that's heat.

If solar-wind electrons did not exit the air, the air would become continually hotter, killing all life quickly. So, duh, something must be removing the solar-wind electrons as fast as they are coming in. And so, once you have the correct model of the gas atom, you can also have the correct view of gravity, defined in reality as the heat within the planet. Lonely me wins, the many fools lose.

The fools wish for gravity to be a graviton within every atom so that they can explain star formation from the big bang. But they didn't tell you they chose this view of gravity just to suit evolution, because they want you to believe they are true and good scientists. If they can convince you that every atom attracts every atom, then they can dupe you into thinking that stars formed from big-bang "dust" from this view of gravity.

Alas, where in reality the heat within the earth is from free electrons in the earth, it's negatively charged. Internal heat acts as a giant, negative charge repelling the free electrons in the atmosphere away into space. God has arranged the situation just so, that the number being repelled away on the afternoon and night sides of the planet are the number coming in from the solar wind on the sun side (noon region) of the planet. If this were not true, the earth would get hotter or colder, but it does neither.

Therefore, I submit to you another new realization, that the upward push on atmospheric electrons almost-exactly counters the downward weight of air such that we do not feel 14.7 pounds against every square inch of our bodies. One needs to be a genius to create such a situation. Alas: God = Genius. He wins greatly, the fools lose badly.

One truth leads to another. It means that something is happening in the earth's interior to continually free captured electrons from some interior material(s). In my estimation, the earth cannot have a net-negative charge unless protons are being crippled or altogether destroyed. They thus release their electrons, and the obliteration of some positive force from the crippled protons makes the planet net-negative. The fact there is a steady flow of heat through the earth, and out of the ground, proves the point. Electrons are leaving internal atoms, suggesting either a chemical reaction or a crippling of protons.

There is no such thing as atomic fusion, as the fools explain it, which is why they can't fuse atoms. They are fools because they see atomic nuclei having multiple protons, an impossibility. Trust your good senses: protons cannot cluster together due to their inter-repulsion. There is no glue that keeps them together, don't be an evolutionist idiot.

I have now, for the first time, realized the specific repulsion force from gravity: it's equal to the upward thrust granted to free, atmospheric electrons that rise into the undersides of oxygen and nitrogen atoms, such that this lifting of the atoms exactly counters the downward weight of the same oxygen / nitrogen atoms.

If the upward lift of rising free electrons counters all/most of air weight, then why does air in a sealed container weigh down on the weight scale? If a gram of air is in a sealed container weighing two pounds, the scale will register two pounds and one gram. Why does the air's weight register on the scale, if the heat in its midst is giving it lift sufficient to overcome the atomic weight? Because, in a sealed container, the upward FLOW of free electrons is almost wholly eradicated, because the container has a ceiling.

The heat flow in the container is as slow as the electrons penetrating through the container walls. Therefore, it's not the mere existence of free electrons in a gas that counters gas weight, but rather it's the upward FLOW. If the upward flow is cut off, the atoms will transfer their weights downward. In the open atmosphere, the upward electron flow always exists, night or day, summer and winter.

Solar electrons enter the earth's sun side region. The solar wind forces them to move toward the ground to some distance only. As they repel one another, the electrons push air atoms laterally, horizontal with the ground, and so these heat particles push air atoms laterally, creating air currents laterally, spreading the heat around. Nearer to the ground, gravity has the upper hand, forcing the electrons upward...until the solar-wind thrust downward exactly equals the upward thrust. At that collision point, the electrons in both up and down direction are forced laterally toward the morning and afternoon regions.

I've explained many times how the negative charge from internal heat is the true gravity source. The explanation: this negative charge, in the beginning, repelled away some captured electrons from EVERY earthly atom (the electrons never came back), and thus this internal negative charge once gave every atom a net-positive charge, meaning that gravity arranged to attract EVERY earthy atom. Gravity does not originate in every earthly and cosmic atom, as the big-bang fools prefer to believe.

How convenient of the fools to claim that the earth has an electromagnetic force that repels solar electrons away, yet they deny that this force is the gravity force too. How convenient for them to argue that solar-wind electrons are repelled around the earth ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE such that they cannot enter the air. These same fools will admit, though they don't want people to know about it if they can help it, that the air is filled with free electrons. It's why rubbed objects lose their charge i.e. they re-load with free electrons in the air.

Why do you think you never hear them stress that the air is PACKED/JAMMED with free electrons? Where do you think they come from? Why is it that EVERY heat source releases free electrons? Why don't the fools tell you that, mmmm, it looks like heat can be defined as free electrons. It's because the scientific establishment, physics, is devoted to the big bang, which event becomes impossible if heat is defined as free electrons, for that would make star formation impossible.

If free electrons in the midst of gases defines heat, then, obviously, gas pressure is formed by the free electrons, insinuating that the atoms REPEL one another, thanks to the free electrons in their midst. BIG BANG DEAD. The hotter the cosmos after the big bang, the more the hydrogen atoms would repel one another. The electrons from the big-bang explosion would force atoms further apart for millions of years. STAR FORMATION DEAD.

The nature of an explosion from a central point is that all forth-coming matter gets continuously further apart. Even if the protons and electrons could get together to form hydrogen atoms, while flying further apart, something needs to bring the atoms together to form stars. The only thing the fools can appeal to is all atoms having a gravity attraction for each other (= Newtonian gravity). That's why the fools clung to Newtonian gravity. Nobody can prove it to be the correct view of gravity, but evolutionists needed it such that it reigned factual in the halls of make-believe science. That is, for all who were at least smart enough to reject Einstein's lunatic view of gravity.

The weight of air proves that atoms exist as electromagnetic particles too small to see. The more heat we remove from the air, or any gas, the closer the atoms come to one another, meaning that all gas atoms lose inter-repulsion action with lost heat, and vice versa. Eventually, with lost heat, gas atoms make contact, at which point they attract each others' electrons, and bond. There's repulsion action here, from one process, versus attraction from another process. Only when the liquid temperature goes high enough do the liquid atoms separate by the repulsion process to become individual gas atoms again.

Once separated, there's a tug-of-war between atmospheric gas atoms and gravity. The atoms seek to repel each other into outer space, and would, if not for gravity holding them down to a degree. There's only one way I can figure for gravity to pull atoms down while gas atoms take on progressively more negative charge with increased heat: gravity repels some captured electrons from the undersides of atoms to the top sides, making all undersides net-positive in charge while all atomic tops are net-negative in charge. With the addition of heat, the sides of all atoms become net-negative in charge.

The addition of heat is a free-electron invasion all around atoms. As they seek to spread out by their inter-repulsion, free electrons compress themselves all around the atom, adding themselves to the captured electrons that surround all protons. The atom consequently grows in negative charge, including the bottom sides, meaning that, with added heat, the net-positive charge of atomic bottoms decreases with increased heat.

An atom is a barb. It's like a thorn because its captured electrons hover above the protonic surface. There can be no question that they hover above the protonic surface. If you think that electrons orbit protons, slap yourself, fool. YES, a FOOL you are if you believe that report. No bigger fools in science can exist, and so all physicists are fools. That's why they teach the current atomic model, because they have allowed themselves to become fools in the name of higher intelligence.

Imagine all the electrons in an electrical wire orbiting the metal atoms. Then, when you flick the light switch on, the fools tell you that the orbiting electrons fly through the atoms toward the light bulb. HAHAHA. And when you turn off the light switch, the electrons all start to orbit around whatever atoms they happen to end up at. FOOLS.

Flick-flick-flick the light switch a million times, and the fools want you to believe that electrons fly along the wire, then go back into orbit a million times in a row, as if forming an orbit were a naturality rather than a million-to-one fat chance.

The alternative to orbiting electrons is hovering electrons. The protons attract the electrons to its surfaces (they don't move, let alone orbit), but the inner electrons repel the outer electrons simultaneously such that the specific repulsion force outward from the proton becomes stronger than the attraction force to the proton. That's why the outer electrons are hovering further apart than the inner electrons. The distance of hovering electrons increases with distance from the proton.

This atom is a barb because the outer-electron sphere of one atom can enter the outer-electron sphere of another atom, thanks to the hovering. The two atoms bond when each proton attracts the compliment of capture electrons in both atoms. We can now realize why liquids turn into solids with decreased temperature. The liquid "barbs" sink more deeply into each other with decreased heat.

Yes, but of course. Every scientist knows that, with decreased temperatures, liquids and solids contract i.e. become smaller, meaning that atoms are going closer to one another. Those are not the best words to use, for atoms are already in contact at the first signs of a liquid. Therefore, with decreasing temperature, the protons of atom move nearer to one another, meaning that the electron sphere's merge more deeply into each other.

We learn something here. The fact that you can put your finger into a liquid and swirl it around means that the barbs are rolling on each other as the atoms maintain a bond. But when the liquid becomes a solid, the barbs are merged deeply enough that the atoms no longer roll on one another. It shows the expectation that, the deeper the hovering electrons -- the closer they are to the proton -- the less they can be moved due to the stronger protonic attraction upon them.

When a liquid first begins to solidify, you can take a sharp object to scratch it deeply, easily, meaning that the atoms can still roll on one another, but barely. With colder temperatures, the solids become harder to scratch, when hovering electrons have merged more deeply into hovering electrons of other atoms. At some point within the captured electrons, there's an "iron cage," so to speak. On the other hand, the outer-most electrons swirl about freely when anything touches or strikes atoms. We known this because mere sunlight, a very weak force, causes outer electrons to jump about excitedly.

Outer electrons are easily removed from atomic surfaces of solids in what is known as frictional heat. You can rub them off with your hand. It's known that electric current can be made by exactly that frictional heat. Why? Because heat and electricity are both sourced in electrons. When they enter your hand, free electrons are the heat material in your hand. When sunlight causes some outer electrons to jump out away from the atoms, that's heat too. It's why sunlight warms objects, duh. But Einstein was too stupidified by his contemporaries going the route of evolutionism. His photon is a fantasy because solar electrons are the light-wave aether. He saw that sunlight could eject captured electrons from atoms, but he was too stupidified to claim that electrons must be ejected from atoms in the sun with far-more ferocity than what he saw in his photo-electric experiments. A STUPID "GENIUS" was he. The aether was coming out of the sun, but he claimed (very prematurely) that there was no aether.

Where do you think the freed stellar electrons went, Einstein? Why were you too delinquent to realize that they streamed from the sun, or that they created the light-wave medium that you rejected on behalf of the photon? IDIOT. To this day, physics is laced with idiotic liars, buffoons. It's God who aims to make fools of them; I think it's a good idea if I try to help Him out.

Kineticism Part of the False Atomic Model

Every once in a while, I share my atomic model with readers on this platform. My job is to show comprehendable evidence to disprove the going theories on atomic models. I can't help but show my disgust for the going theories. If you've hated atomic physics, it's probably because it's all wrong, for that's what makes it so complicated, because the fools who build on wrong models need to "fix" errors when in reality every fix is just another monster with screws loose.

Liquid pressure attempts to merge liquid atoms deeper, yet there's some mysterious thing at work that will not permit liquids to be compressed, meaning that they refuse to merge much deeper into each other than a certain, basic limit. It seems to me that electrons in atoms of liquids, even though many of them hover with space between them, refuse to draw closer to each other even under great mechanical pressures...which is not my expectation, unless most of the atom is a solid item with only few hovering electrons.

It's possible that most of the captured electrons are in contact with each other in spite of their inter-repelling, as the proton forces them into contact, nearest the protonic surface. Perhaps there are relatively few layers of outer, hovering electrons, enough to allow for atomic mergers, but not very deeply.

My model is stacked with electrons from proton to proton. Let's not be so stupid as to think that a proton can capture only one electron. What kind of an idiot believes that? All of atomic physics. I kid you not, they are wholly reckless idiots opposing common logic like fools for punishment. People of the future will mock them.

The established model of a liquid or solid has virtually all space, meaning that it should be easy to squeeze a solid much smaller than its size at the freezing point. In reality, a solid is wall-to-wall, inter-repelling electrons, very near to each other, some in physical contact above the protonic surfaces. Protons are themselves under inter-repulsion. EVERYTHING in a liquid or solid counters liquid compression.

There is not a chance that electrons can orbit protons, not a chance that protons are clustered in atomic cores, not a chance that each electron has as much negative force as one proton has positive force. Those ideas are clearly bogus. How this model managed to become so entrenched is at the feet of big-bangers, more concerned with killing God than adopting logical realities.

They cannot explain the incompressibility of liquids with their demented, laughable idea that liquids are more than 99-percent space, and, to boot, they have captured electrons so distant apart that they can't effect much inter-repulsion force to counter mechanical compression. QUACKS. Plus, they don't see free electrons filling the spaces between atoms, or, if they do, they are never mentioned, otherwise you could get the idea that you're being lied to, or that these free electrons are the true nature of heat.

The only major thing in their atomic model to appeal to, for counteracting mechanical compression, is the colliding / vibrating of atoms. They think the average speed of racing / vibrating atoms is on the order of 1,000-2000 miles per hour (I don't care to know the exact figures for all materials).

If we push vibrating atoms closer to each other, they don't push back harder just because they get closer. But when one pushes inter-repelling items closer, they push back eight times stronger per cutting of distance in half. Not four times, but 4 x 2 = 8 times. A magnet attracts a nail four times stronger with a cutting of distance between them by two, but two magnets brought twice as close repel with 8 times more force (because both are magnets, but the nail isn't).

Racing / vibrating atoms are said to move in all directions, meaning that as many are moving toward the compressing machine are moving away from it, meaning that deep, mechanical compression of liquids, in that picture, ought to be possible with the push of a finger. To put this another way, atoms colliding/vibrating in all directions is tantamount to zero force in any direction because leftward collisions cancel rightward collisions, and upward collisions cancel downward collisions. ZERO force in any direction is the result, meaning that there's zero force toward anything seeking to compress a liquid or solid. And so if the solid is almost all space, duh, one should be able to sink a finger into a solid.

Plus, the dopes say that the atoms in the skin of your finger are vibrating outward such that they vibrate against any solid object you touch, and this alone counters the force of the solid atoms vibrating against the skin of your finger. You finger should therefore sink easily into solid steel, if the quacks are correct with their atomic model.

In a container with rubber balls bouncing all about continually, only the balls that actually strike the container will produce pressure, not the balls in the interior that are striking each other. It doesn't matter how big the container of a gas is. Whether it's at 20 psi when the container is small, or at 20 psi in a larger container, the larger one doesn't get higher pressure on the container walls just because there's more racing atoms in the container. Therefore, the liquid atoms not contacting a compression piston have no compression-countering ability. They are nothing but bitties vibrating in all directions without having reach to the piston because they don't inter-repel each other. There's nothing to stop the piston from cutting the liquid volume to less than half.

At absolute-zero temperature, their imaginary, vibrating atoms are vibrating at zero mph, yet one still can't compress a solid at that temperature, even though it's supposed to be more than 99-percent space. Instead, the colder the solid, the less it can be compressed, showing that atomic speeds have nothing to do with atomic resistance to compression.

The liars have nothing else to explain the near-incompressibility of liquids but the inter-repulsion of electrons. However, the fools have electrons so far apart that they would not push back by eight times the force until the liquid has been compressed to roughly half its initial volume. In that picture, a liquid should be amply compressible before it pushes back against the piston with whatever pressure the piston is provided with.

The fact that the liquid can barely be compressed speaks to electrons being very near to each other, possibly two, three or four electrons diameters apart. As soon as they are forced twice as close, they give eight times the push-back, and from there, with further liquid compression, the forces go up fast to 8 x 8 = 64 times the push back.

There's no pressure beyond air pressure in a sitting liquid prior to compression. Therefore, the nutbars need to confess that a liquid offering mere atmospheric pressure is able to counter thousands of psi from the piston. This is ridiculous from their standpoint because they define water pressure as merely the velocity of liquid atoms. When the piston is pressing with 100 psi, the liquid presses back with 100 psi. How could the vibrating atoms jump from air pressure (14.7 psi) to 100 psi with merely some compression against the liquid? How does piston compression make liquid atoms vibrate faster/harder??? It doesn't. The quacks have been lying to humanity for over a century.

But if gas pressure is from inter-repelling atoms, then 100 psi coming against the liquid can logically raise the water pressure from 14.7 to 100 psi. With just a minute amount of compression (i.e. the liquid is made slightly smaller in volume), the water pressure goes from 14.7 to 100, or to 1,000 if you come against it with 1,000 psi. I win, the buffoons lose. I beat them all with merely common sense available to anyone.

Shame Creationists, great shame, for trusting the wizards with atomic physics, for fearing to go against them, for shirking your responsibility to combat their obvious falsifications.

The closer one seeks to bring inter-repelling bitties, the more they fight back in compounding measure. Bring two electro-magnetic particles twice as close, and they inter-repel eight times harder. That's why the compression of a gas to 1/8th its volume builds to eight times the gas pressure. The atoms are twice as close (in all directions) when the gas is compressed to 1/8th its volume.

How strongly will a proton the size of a pea, when placed at the center of a football field, repel another proton at the center of an adjacent football field? HOW MUCH, come on, answer the question. Practically ZERO. And they see the orbiting electrons as far as the end zones from center field. How much will electrons, the size of mustards seeds, repel each other when a quarter field or more from each other? Practically ZERO. This is why the quacks may seek to convince you hat vibrational speeds of atoms is what resists mechanical compression of a liquid.

Why do they have so much space? Because they chose to go with a few orbiting electrons, per atom, rather than a full cloud of them completely surrounding every atomic core.

Again, in the kinetic theory of atoms, the only pressure against the piston are the atoms striking the piston; all other atoms in the liquid do not transfer energy to the piston because vibrational energy goes left as much it goes right, cancelling itself out for movement in any direction. Atomic motions cannot increase the liquid pressure while compressing the liquid, because the speeds of atoms do not increase when making the liquid body smaller by compression. Forcing the atoms closer together does not increase their speed, and, besides, a liquid can be compressed only so slightly that the atoms barely move closer together.

Yet, if the fools argue that it's the repulsion forces of atomic particles that resist liquid compression, the deceivers fail you by denying you the reality: repulsion forces in atoms is what cause gas pressure in the first place. See that? They don't want you to know that the repulsion forces in materials constitute pressures because that tends to give you the heads-up: racing atoms are not the cause of liquid and gas pressures. THEY LIE.

To compress a liquid, one needs to force all of its electrons, both free and captured, closer together in a confined container, and the electrons won't let that happen. Instead, the container wall will burst before it happens to any significant degree, or the piston system will break down if the container is made super-strong. Compression turns the liquid to solid, and compressing a solid squeezes heat out of it because the atomic spaces possess free electrons. Forcing atomic electrons closer together by mechanical compression causes electrons to repel electrons out of the solid, as heat (particles).

The reason that all the captured electrons can't be squeezed out as heat is because protons have them captured, and protons are much larger than the atomic spaces. The latter are small in comparison to an atom. Picture eight marbles merged into each other only slightly (not deep mergers); there's going to be some spaces between their merged areas. In a solid body, atomic spaces are connected such that they form curved tunnels extending from one side of the solid to the other. The relative sizes and shapes of tunnels (whether slightly curved or more twisted) determines how fast or slow heat (free electrons) can move through the solid.

Here's imaginary kinetics and some math devoted to it, to deceive you: "At 0 °C, the average speed of the water molecules slows down to approximately 565 m/s (1250 mph). At 100 °C, the average speed of the water molecules speeds up to approximately 660 m/s (1500 mph)." So, if the piston is one-inch square, there is one-square-inch of water atoms, in a teensy layer just one-atom thick, vibrating just 250 mph faster against the piston at any one time (even when the piston is moving), yet the gigantic factory press can't squeeze the liquid back to its smaller size at melting temperature, even though the liquid is 99+ percent empty space??? What kind of an idiot believes that?

Imagine how much it should hurt to touch water if its vibrating surface can conquer a factory press doing many tons of pressure. Or, with atoms in your finger vibrating at 1,500 mph, a touch of it to your face should feel like Rocky's knock-out punch. You've been duped, people. Throw the bums out of the classrooms of your children. A liquid is a sea of electrons, each as little as one or two electron-diameters apart, on average.

How do quacks figure out how fast atoms fly? They first figure how much each atom weighs, which is to say they use the weight to determine its mass. Once they have their erroneous specific masses for all atoms, they figure how distant apart the atoms of gases are (when all at the same temperature and pressure). I don't know whether they have that latter part correctly figured or not, because I don't know how they do it. They then do a little math to figure how many atoms are striking one square inch of a container wall, and if the gas pressure is at 15 pounds per square inch, they do the easy math to figure how fast the atoms must be striking, on average, to produce 15 pounds per square inch. But if they haven't got the mass of atoms correctly figured, neither do they have the atomic speeds correct, and, besides, the atoms in a gas are not racing around as they think they are. Because you haven't the ability to disprove their figures for atomic masses, they confidently pass them off to you as facts.

There are more strikes against a container's walls predicted by kineticism when the volume of the gas is made smaller. However, the predicted level of pressure against the walls does not take place as expected. Doubling the number of atoms in any volume of gas does not predict twice as many collisions with the container walls (or against the pressure gauge). Yet, it's a fact that doubling the number of atoms in a gas gets roughly twice the gas pressure.

The reason that doubling the strikes, per unit time, is not predicted to double the pressure is because not all strikes hit the container walls at the same instant. For example, if we focus on one spot upon the container walls, a spot exactly the size of an atom, then, when we double the atoms in the container, that one spot gets more strikes per second, but it does not get twice as many strikes at any one instant. It gets strikes faster, but not at the same instant.

If you have twice as many machine-gun bullets hitting a tree per second, the pressure against the tree will be exactly the same as when one bullet strikes it with half as many bullets per second. The only way to double the pressure on the tree is to have two machine guns both hitting the tree at the same instant, but doubling the number of colliding atoms in a gas is not expected to double the pressure like two guns striking the tree at the same instant...because the extra gas atoms may or may nor strike the walls at the same time as the first batch of atoms. When pressure is applied by colliding particles, the pressure is NOT CONSTANT, but intermittent.

An "instant" is the time it takes to fulfill a collision, from start of collision to bounce-off. The next collision on the same spot will occur with half the time, when there are twice the atoms in the container, but the pressure level on the container, per instant amount of time, does not double. It's predicted to go up some, but not double, yet the fact is, twice the atoms in a container do double the pressure (when maintaining the same temperature in both cases). Why? BECAUSE, inter-repulsion forces from atoms is expected to double with twice the number of atoms in the container. One can prove it.

I can prove it because atoms are expected to repel each other 8 times more when they are twice as close. They are not twice as close when we double the number of atoms. We definitely double the number of atoms when we double the pressure because the gas weighs twice as much when we double the pressure. We have twice as much gas, and twice the pressure, yet we have not moved the atoms twice as close when doubling the number of atoms. How do I know?

To move atoms twice as close in ALL directions, one needs to compress the gas in half three times, to 1/8 its original volume. That situation is the very same as adding 8 times the gas to an unchanged volume. In both cases, the pressure goes up eight times.

When a piston cuts the volume of the gas in half by moving down into the container, it can be viewed as moving the atoms twice as close only in the up-down direction. The atoms don't really move twice as close only in the up-down direction, but for the sake of doing the calculation, we can view it that way. We then rightly understand that the atoms are not yet twice as close in the east-west and north-south directions.

We need to cut the gas in half, after the first cut, two more times, one in the east-west, and one in the north-south, directions before the atoms are ALL twice as close in all direction. Thus, after cutting the gas in half twice, the volume of the gas is reduced to four times the original volume, when there is four times the gas pressure, and after cutting the gas in half three times, the volume of the gas is reduced to eight times the original volume, when there is eight times the gas pressure.

Therefore, the pressure increases proportionally to the number of times the gas volume is cut in half, or proportionally to the number of times the gas material is doubled when not changing its volume. In short: it takes eight times the atom density to get atoms twice as close (in all directions). Therefore, gas pressure is a function of electromagnetic (repulsion) forces between atoms. I win, the fools lose. Why do they lose? Because they are fools. Because they have believed what they were taught without checking things out critically. A scientist who operates that way is a FOOL. You got a better word for him? The fools, even as they gloat over their superior intelligence, have let down all of humanity with a regime of false atomic / physics science.

What is Boiling Point?

Bubbling in a boiling liquid is what fast achieves the boiling point after countless rising rivers of electrons have played their role to loosen the atomic bonds in a liquid. The liquid is filled with invisible, rising rivers of electrons, and where they begin the most concentrated, at the heat source coming through the pot, they form visible bubbles. By their repulsion forces, they push liquid away, and bubbles appear.

The rapid passage of bubbles opens passages through the liquid from bottom to top of liquid. Contrary to what the goofs tell us, the bubbles are not filled with water vapor, but with free electrons, otherwise to be called, heat particles.

They know for a fact electrons stream out of a flame that heats the water pot, or from the electric stove element, yet they don't mention these electrons when describing the mechanics of boiling water. Nor do they tell you that electrons work their way through the pot holding the water, and then enter the water. You are left ignorant of that important detail, lest you realize that heat is a material all its own. THROW THE BUMS OUT.

The higher the temperature, the more dense these electrons, the more they prevent liquid compression. The harder the compression, the higher the liquid temperature, yet the liquid will freeze as it gets hotter under compression because the heat is being squeezed out of the liquid. That's because heat is a material, not the speed of vibrating atoms. The atoms do not vibrate. Get that out of your head.

I'm leaning toward the definition of boiling point as boil bubbles moving through a liquid with zero restriction. There are five things that restrict the passage through liquid of heat particles and bubbles: 1) air pressure; 2) water pressure; 3) atomic-bond strength; 4) depth of atomic mergers; 5) atomic hooking.

Boiling point arrives at equilibrium, when he heat ejected out the liquid equals the heat entering it. If we are heating a pot of water with flames, we can't get the temperature higher if we suddenly double or triple the flames against the pot. Instead, the boil bubbles grow larger and rise faster such that they maintain equilibrium between heat entering and exiting. This tends to convince me that all liquids, at boiling point, offer zero restriction to heat passage. Or, better yet, there is restriction due to all five factors above, yet the bubble velocities are fast enough to counter all five, such that there is net-zero restriction. If there is more than net-zero, then the liquid temperature should rise.

Here's an admission: "Flames are actually plasma, The hot gas of the flame contains positively charged ions and electrons,..." Ya-but, what happens to electrons when they strike the underside of a pot of water? Plus, it's deceptive to tell that flames have ions (charged gas-exhaust atoms) without telling that they almost-instantly re-load with electrons from the air, such that they are no longer ions as soon as they exit a flame. An atom that losses electrons is called an ion.

The fools wish to stress the ions so that they can define a flame as a plasma (atomic material) instead of defining it as a sea of freed electrons. When you ask for the definition of a flame, you want to know what its heat derives in, and it's not derived from the ions. You want to know what causes the light of a flame, and it's not the ions. When you see a flame, you are seeing the light that forms from the emission of electrons from atoms, but it's not the atoms that cause the light. Why don't they tell you that emissions part? Because, they have decided that light is not caused from electron emission. Instead, they invented photon emission because they didn't want a light-wave medium. The same electron medium from which the ions reload with electrons is the light-wave medium too. The light-wave medium exists between every air atom. It surrounds every air atom. It invades every atom because electrons spread out by their inter-repulsion.

When we cause some air atoms to lose captured electrons by some method (combustion does it), they instantly reload with them. Where did the free electrons come from? Not from the big bang. Where's the evidence that gravity attracts them? There isn't any.

They are proven to be repelled by gravity when they rise in materials much more than they spread in any other direction, and because they spread least downward. A metal rod encased in concrete, when heated from the middle, reveals heat rising through the rod far more than it does downward. Heat rises through liquids...which is impossible to explain via the kinetic theory. In that theory, there can be no buoyancy principle active, to explain heat rising in air or liquids.

Combustion of a fossil fuel causes O and H atoms to merge differently, independent of C atoms, so as to release some of their captured electrons. The same combustion process causes some O and C atoms to merge differently, separate from H atoms, to release even more captured electrons. Those are then FREE ELECTRONS, the stuff of heat particles. Nobody should care to know as a priority, when asking for the definition of a flame, that there's water and carbon oxides in the flame. That exhaust is not the flame. The exhaust happens to be in the flame momentarily, because it causes the flame, but the exhaust does not define the flame. The flame is defined as the freed electrons. They create both the light and the heat of the flame. Is that just a minor part of the flame, to be virtually ignored in favor of stressing ions? The God-despising magicians are up to their tricks again, making students for themselves even of Christians.

Bubbles in heater water begin small but increase in size with upward movement for obvious reason: they collide with rivers of electrons, and receive the electrons. Bubbles become buses with free electrons as their passengers. Bubbles will naturally take the paths of least resistance to the top, meaning they follow the rivers which have opened up the paths of least resistance.

The quacks do not allow for electrons in their bubbles. At least, when I've read their definition of boil bubbles, they are pure gas. The way they explain bubble formation, the liquid gets so hot next to the heat source that they vibrate extra hard such as to force gases (unmerged liquid atoms) to form at the bottom of the liquid, in spite of both air pressure and water pressure being the most forceful at the bottom.

If we entertain the kinetic theory when seeking to explain the boiling point, we're out of luck. As they define hotter water as water vibrating harder/faster, and as they define temperature as the rate of vibration, they have got to explain why water at its boiling point cannot vibrate harder even when the heat source is doubled or tripled or quadrupled. I don't see an explanation. The liars claim that liquid molecules/atoms are flying off the liquid surface most numerously when the liquid body has molecules/atoms vibrating the hardest, but this doesn't explain why there is a limit to the hardness of the vibrations. Why should the vibrations go only to a certain hardness/velocity but not higher just because there's more surface molecules/atoms flying off into the air? I see no explanation.

So far as I know, a thermometer held near the heat source in a pot of water does not rise above the boiling point even when the heat source is quadrupled at the boiling point. The kinetic theory predicts that the water molecules near the heat source vibrate much harder when the heat is quadrupled. See that? It's a fake theory. Instead, the reason that the temperature doesn't climb when quadrupling the heat source is that the bubbles filled with heat particles get larger and faster-rising such as to remove as many particles at the surface as are coming in at the heat source. The boiling point must be the point of zero net-resistance to bubble flow.

One bubble opens the upward pathway through the liquid for the next bubble such that the next bubble doesn't need to do work to open the "door" upward, thanks to the previous bubble blasting the door wide open for it. The second bubble arrives to the doorway before the door starts to shut closed. It goes through the doorway freely, because the door is no longer in the way. That's the definition of boiling point.

If we entertain their kinetic theory on bubble formation, they would need to argue that the vibrational energy has reached its maximum at boiling point, yet I see no explanation as to why this should be merely due to vibrational energy forming larger and faster-rising bubbles. The vibrational energy of the heat source is far stronger than in the water, and as such the vibrational energy of the water between bubbles should increase steadily to far beyond the boiling-point temperature. We can't argue that the vibrational energy doesn't continue to rise in water just because more water molecules are being sent to the water surface per unit time. We can't make that argument because the two are different things. This is a case of the number of water molecules versus the speed of bashing, which is a struggle between DIFFERENT THINGS.

If the heat source is bashing the water molecules harder, the water molecules are predicted to bash each other harder too, regardless of how many water molecules are in the bubble buses. But I do have an explanation, where heat is a material all its own, when there are as many heat particles exiting the liquid as are entering: that's the maximum temperature of the liquid. PERFECT LOGIC. We now have numbers of electrons versus numbers of electrons, which is a struggle between the SAME THING.

Therefore, as the kinetic theory of liquids is a fantasy, I can report to you with utmost confidence that boil bubbles are to be defined as free-electron buses. It's possible that the bubbles take on some atoms, in gas form, as they bump into them all the way to the surface, but the original bubbles could not form by gas formation at the bottom of the liquid. Therefore, as they form from the high concentration there of free electrons, it makes perfect sense that bubbles grow in size by taking on more free electrons as buses drive to the surface.

Bubbles form due to the increasing fight, from increasing density of electrons, against the liquid atoms. These bitties have boxing gloves, punching outward in all directions, keeping the water from invading the bubbles. Or, better yet, the inter-repelling free electrons, though they are not in contact with each other in the bubble, form a wall to keep the water from invading...which could not be possible if the electrons were larger than the water molecules, if water molecules could squeeze between electrons.

Here's a google offering when asking for the definition of boiling point: "the temperature at which a liquid boils and turns to vapor." FALSE and inadequate. Vapors form long before boiling point, and this definition does not explain the reason for the boiling-point maximum. Naturally, the goofs will claim that boiling point is when there is as much kinetic energy leaving the liquid as is entering, but that's not good enough. WHY or HOW would that be so, that is the core question to answer.

To put the nails into the kinetic coffin, just recognize that the liquid at the surface can never be vibrating as hard as it is at the heat source. Therefore, it can never be true that as much vibrational energy is leaving the surface as is entering at the heat source.

In their theory, the kinetic energy within the bubbles has got to be higher than in the water body because the vapor in the bubbles is sourced directly at the heat source. The vapor molecules (that they envision in a bubble) are predicted to bash the water in contact with the bubbles, and as such the water outside of the bubbles should grow steadily higher until it reaches the vibrational energy within the bubbles. They can't claim that the vibrational energy in the bubbles can go only as high as 212 F degrees when the flame at the heat source is much higher. "A typical gas flame on a gas stove, using natural gas or propane, can reach temperatures between 1,960°C (3,560°F) and 1,980°C (3,600°F)." See the problem? There's nothing in this bashing-atom theory to keep the 3500 bashing energy way down at a mere 212. The prediction is that the bubbles should grow steadily larger, along with the rate of evaporation, until the bubbles have vapors at 3500 degrees, or until the water has fully evaporated, whichever comes first.

Another definition from the quacks: "Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, so that the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmosphere." That almost sounds to me like saying that the rising heat has reached the point of conquering all resistance to upward flow. However, this definition is false because rising heat must also conquer water pressure (gravity on water molecules) and the force of atomic bonding. Bubbles need to move past the bond strength of water molecules. Air pressure on the liquid is not the only thing restricting bubble passage. The pressure within the bubbles must therefore be higher than the air pressure above the water. Granted, there is very little water pressure in a pot of water a few inches deep.

As a liquid boils even with a vacuum above it, it must form bubbles even then. If the definition above were fully correct, there should be zero bubble formation (= zero pressure in a bubble = non-existent) when the space above water has zero air pressure.

I've tried it, go ahead and try it yourself: turn the gas flame on your stove up and down, or even off, when water is to a boil. As soon as you turn the flame hotter, the water boils faster, with more-rapid bubbles. No time is taken up, it's instant, as if the bubbles had already overcome all restriction to flow, prior to turning up the flame. Remove all flame, and the boil bubbles instantly vanish, which is not predicted by kineticism because the water is at the same temperature during the boil as it is for several seconds after turning off the flame. If the water can form vapor bubbles with the flame on, it should continue to form vapor bubbles, though smaller, for a minutes after the flame is turned off...unless the bubbles are filled with free electrons that are suddenly cut off from entering the water.

One can argue: for as long as the liquid creates restriction to free-electron flow, heat builds up in the water i.e. temperature must and can increase. Therefore, when liquid temperature gets to its maximum, the boiling point, it should mean that all restriction to heat flow has been conquered. However, that's only as per the bubbles, for the rivers of electrons worming between liquid atoms must yet be restricted at boiling point. When the bubbles are large and numerous enough, they transport to the surface, per unit time, as many electrons as are entering at the bottom through the pot. The electrons in the flame punch one another through the pot. Stop punching, and the bubbles disappear.

I don't known exactly when significant bubbles begin to form in water, but it could be as low as 180 F degrees. In such a case, when the flame is turned off at 212 degrees, bubbles of continuously smaller size should continue to form, according to the kinetic theory, until the liquid gets down to 180 degrees. But we do not see that taking place, not even close.

The perimeter of bubbles have an inward pressure equal to the outward water pressure, because, for as long as the heat-particle pressure in the bubble exceeds water pressure, the bubble will grow in size. But, "water pressure" here includes air pressure on the water surface, which is a lot more than water pressure alone in a few inches of water depth.

If we have a block of metal into a pot, it receives more heat than water does, per unit time, yet the boiling point of metal is far higher than water's. How can this compliment the kinetic theory, since the metals atoms are getting more bang than water, per unit time? The metal is far heavier than water, and thus, even after it turns to liquid, the metal resists heat passage through it far more than the weight of water. The weight of the metal liquid is synonymous with its liquid pressure. Higher concentrations of free electrons are needed in molten liquid to reach net-zero restriction to passage. Therefore, the pressure of bubbles in a heated liquid are NOT equal to the air pressure above the liquid, but to the combined weights of the air and the liquid, at the depth where the heat is applied.

The only acceptable definition of boiling point is when as much heat is leaving the liquid as is entering, and because we never hear that logical and unassailable definition, something must be amiss with the kinetic theory such that it can't explain the definition. Instead, they lie when insinuating that bubble-vapor pressure equals air pressure at boiling point.

In kineticism, the surface of a liquid can never be evaporating as much kinetic energy as is coming into the liquid at the heat source, for the heat source is viewed as the engine of kinetic energy such that there ought to always be more kinetic energy next to the heat source than at any other part of the liquid body into which the energy transfers and steadily builds. In kineticism, the water energy punches back toward the engine more so as the water temperature gets higher. This predicts a slowing of water heating with increased water temperature, but, in reality, heat passes up through a liquids more easily, and in greater amounts, with rising temperature. Why? Because gravity repels free electrons upward. There is nothing in kineticism to move either a hotter liquid or hotter gas upward more than in any other direction.

That's right. The fools like to appeal to the buoyancy principle to explain why hotter waters move up, and why hotter air moves up. The problem is, the liars understand fully that there is nothing in the motion of kinetic atoms to move them upward more than sideways and downward. There is no such thing as a buoyancy principle with kineticism in view.

I'm going to give you an alternative definition of buoyancy than modern science does. It says that buoyancy is due to more gas/liquid pressure under an item than above it, thus causing an net-upward lift. But this can be true only for objects, not single atoms. In the kinetic theory, where lone atoms/molecules fly or vibrate in all directions equally, there is ZERO net-upward lift on any atom/molecule. Full stop, wherefore KINETICISM IS FALSE.

We clearly see both hotter liquids and hotter gases rising. Gas atoms under inter-repulsion, or bonded liquid molecules under mutual attraction, are not able to rise unless some force causes them to do so, and that force is gravity repelling heat particles such that they create an upward current flow to carry atoms and molecules away with it.

I suggest an alternative definition of buoyancy that works in conjunction with the definition above. Both act simultaneously. My definition: gravity seeks to pull air or water under a balloon, or any object. If it's able, a balloon is forced upward by that process, but gravity cannot pull air or water under a balloon if its filled with cement. Only if the pull of gravity on the air or water is stronger than the pull of gravity on the balloon itself will air or water be forced under the balloon to displace it.

Now, then, achem. If we view a boiling liquid as one with vibrating water atoms transferring their kinetic energy to the air atoms above the water, there is nothing to lift the air atoms away from the water surface. The goofs will say that the heated air rises due to the buoyancy principle, but kineticism has no buoyancy principle when lone atoms are in view. We can see the speed of rising heat above boiling water by looking at the rising steam. But the kinetic theory has nothing to explain why the steam molecules are rising so fast. Only if heat is a substance all its own, which moves upward, can we explain what we see above the hot-liquid surface. Or above burning wood, where heat forces unburned wood (smoke) upward.

In kineticism, heat should spread evenly sideways, downward and upward. Admit it, and move on. Kineticism will become known as a corpse eventually, and you don't want to be caught as its guardian at that time. Instead, be the champion that spears it dead.

The guardians of the evolutionist dogmas will tell us that colder air is heavier, and thus it's expected to move in under warmer air to give the latter lift. But this is the buoyancy principle which does not apply to individual atoms. It applies only when there are objects to displace. The "colder" air atoms beside the pot weigh as much as the "warmer" atoms above the heated pot. The colder atoms are not in a package, but are individual "objects" all their own. A single "cold" atom (less speedy) does not have inclination, in the kinetic theory, to move in under a "warm" atom (more speedy) to displace it, to force it upward. Sorry. It doesn't work.

In fact, in both my model and the kinetic model, the hotter air above the pot is expected to move into the colder air beside the pot, because heat flows from hot to cold. Therefore, what causes the heated air to rise away from the liquid surface, if heat is pushing the cooler air away from the pot? There's only one thing left in the system to answer that question: the free electrons from the heat source.

Why is it that guardians of evolutionary buffoonery never mention the electrons that fill a hot-air balloon? Why do they always point out that hotter air is lighter per unit space, to explain why heat in a balloon causes it to rise? It's because the buffoons themselves have taught the guardians what to say, and they never want students to know that free electrons from the flame are entering the hot-air balloon.

I guarantee it, that if you take a sealed balloon filled to its max with air at just the right temperature so that it tends to neither rise nor fall, you can get it to rise simply by heating it up a little more. If you fill it to its max, it shouldn't become larger when heated a little more. Therefore, putting heat alone into the balloon will cause it to rise. Why? Not because the air atoms are speeding around a little faster, but because electrons are anti-gravity particles. C'mon, say it. It's liberating.

I can think of only one mechanism to cause gas atoms to remain bonded after liquid merger: protonic attraction in one atom holds the other atoms' electrons to itself. Two atoms mutually attract the same captured electrons in their mutually-merged sections (view as one merged region). Atoms are trapped in that bond until a heat flow comes along to unmerge them. In most cases probably, the larger the merged region, the more atomic (captured) electrons are involved, and thus the greater is the force that traps atoms into the bond.

Poor little water molecules at the water surface. A heat flow of electrons is knocking them apart, into the air, as evaporated water. When a bubble reaches the surface, I imagine a catastrophe on the atomic level, with many water molecules ripped apart and sent skyward. But did you ever notice that some boil bubbles become hemispheres floating on the water surface, but quickly grow smaller until they pop or disappear?

Yes, one can clearly see a water film acting as the perimeter of the boil bubble. This film must be the water molecules that the upward force of the bubble was unable to knock apart, into the air. Why do you think the hemisphere bubble disappears in about a second? Is it really filled solely with steam molecules, as the goofs maintain? What are we to think, that the steam molecules are entering the liquid surface, to explain why the half-bubble disappears in a second or less? After all, the steam molecules can't penetrate the film that is the crust of this half-bubble.

But if we say that the steam is going into the liquid body, we must ask why it's not also going into the film, for the latter is just as much water as is the water body. Why shouldn't the steam enter, or become part of, the film in order to grow the film's thickness, at least, if not its diameter? Why does the film grow rapidly smaller until the hemisphere is gone? Shouldn't kineticism predict that steam is coming out of the liquid surface, INTO this half-bubble. Uh, er, why yes. In that case, the bubble should grow larger until it pops.

I suggest that the half-bubbles are filled mainly with free electrons, and they easily pass through the water film. That's logical, explaining why the half-bubbles shrink. Get smart, spear kineticism dead today.

Seat the electron onto the throne it deserves. It is the energy particle. Almost nothing moves but for it. When free, it is the LIFE PARTICLE. It's not oxygen that gives energy to the body, but the electrons freed when oxygen merges with other atoms in the body. Why do you think your body gets hot when you exert your muscles? Free electrons have been released, more than when you don't use muscles. Your body heat: free electrons everywhere in your body. They push.

Why Really Are Sunspots Dark?

In the 6th minute of the video below, a graph of solar minimums and maximums is shown heating the earth, by-and-large progressively warmer, from the 1800s to the year 2,000, during the so-called "industrial revolution" that fake science had pinned on man-made "global warming" i.e. the "greenhouse effect." That bogus claim was so disrupted by true scientists that the fakes had to change "global warming" to "climate change," which conveniently allows for both cooler or warmer periods in any given region of the planet, though the fakes imply that these regions are unusually cooler or warmer due to gas emissions. Baloney. Plus, the chaos bogeyman can be conjured up by "climate change." For example, it's now responsible for the forest-fire, flood, or hurricane bogeyman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnVbT-tpot8

Note that there could be more deliberate, fake science where sunspot activity is being blamed for black-outs in Quebec. That's where the anti-Christ Liberals live who are apt to advertise as reliable whatever the globalists announce as fact. What one could expect of globalists seeking "population control" by mass-murder is their own wiping out of electrical grids for months at a time, blaming it on sunspot activity as well as a failure to obtain grid parts for repairs. I have read that the people responsible for electrical grids did/do not stockpile vital parts for repairs, very suspicious, is it not?

Plus, there could be an additional plot to blame China's military for a massive grid failures, and China may even accept media blame if it can discredit the blame yet see canada's population massacred with Liberal support. We are dealing with demonic, globalist lunatics, made very obvious in numerous ways. The only thing keeping globalists from using massive grid failures to kill off populations is the sudden loss of workers for their manufacturing plants, and the sudden loss of revenue for corporations. The workforce problem can be alleviated soon by vigorous robot manufacturing, yet the fact that smaller populations buy less products means that corporate bosses should oppose mass-murder-by-design.

The good news is, they probably won't try SUDDEN-mass-murder-by-design, but many think they are already giving the green light to SLOW-murder-by-design.

Preparation by media announcements for another possible fake-job is where they blame solar activity for knocking out satellites, in case they decide to knock out Internet communications at a critical time in which they need it. Which is worse, a grid or Internet failure? The preparation is where they "educate" us on the scare that solar flares can knock out satellites, but it can't be that hard to build satellite equipment to withstand merely some extra solar-flare energy. If they tell us that 40 satellites were damaged by solar flares, that number is a drop in the bucket. An announcement that the Internet was knocked out by a solar flare should be taken as a faked announcement. Solar-activity peak (for the last 11-year cycle) is roughly right now, in mid-2025, and the solar-wind wave, which is all over social media, should be arriving May 18 later this week. I expect no damage amid the hype.

A google offering: "Spain still investigating cause of blackout, but solar flare not blamed. Spain has not reached any conclusions about what caused a major power outage on April 28, contrary to online claims saying authorities are blaming them on solar flare activity, a theory space weather experts rejected as highly unlikely." This shows that, if EU globalists conduct a blackout for to blame it on sunspots, there are sunspot / technical experts who can counter the claim, frustrating the globalists...meaning that they could try to get certain experts on-board the plot to deviously affirm potential, solar-flare danger to satellites.

Doesn't the following appear like human plotting: "Eduardo Prieto, the director of operations for the grid, Red Electrica, said the systems had been stable, until two "disconnection" incidents within seconds of each other in the south-west, where Spain has substantial solar generation." As nobody can explain how the disconnections took place, two of them occurring together at two separate locations (in the south-west) looks man-made. The black-out did not occur at peak-power usage so that it doesn't seem likely that the grid was over-loaded. It did occur in late April, 2024, approaching solar-flare maximum, though the nearest solar flare, to that date, was in March.

The only one since was on May 13/14, this week. NASA has a youtube video on this one, but one cannot tell which visuals are computer-faked verses true, and as NASA doesn't indicate to the viewer which are being shown at any given time, the dialogue cannot be trusted. This flare was at the far edge of the sun, spewing NOT toward earth. The initial light burst didn't do any damage, but NASA's video scares the viewer, you see. And NASA is a globalist, psy-op provider. The video announced some "disruptions" in some radio/radar communications, but I'll assume that this is hype fodder because the video then says that there is future danger to satellites and GPS data (oh no, driverless cars will crash into your car). If two radio or airport systems are disrupted, the goons make you think it's widespread.

The NASA video (nothing worth watching) has a comment: "They made it look like everywhere blacked out but I live in Scotland and our power stayed on, only London had a power outage." Ya-but, maybe London was in on the psy-op, because it's a hub of climate-change / goonery activism.

The good news: "Minutes before the outage [not this week], Spain was running on 60.64% solar photovoltaic generation, with 12% wind and 11.6% nuclear." Therefore, whether over-reliance on green energy was the cause or not, it can yet be the accusation such that it thwarts thieves like mark carney in their rabid ambitions to advance green energy to the point of ZERO gas / CO2 emissions.

"...four nuclear power reactors at Almaraz, Asco and Vandellos were automatically shut down by the outage,..." I suppose it's automatic so that the reactors are not over-worked trying to make up for other systems shut down, but this only goes to show how bad an idea it is to depend on solar-panel electricity if it's not safe from shut-down, where nuclear reactors are the back-up systems instead of gas / coal plants.

The addition of gas-generated CO2 to the already-miniscule addition of CO2 from natural sources is so miniscule that any scientist with half a brain will tell you that there is no climate crisis based on the greenhouse effect. There is no climate-change crisis. The fact that sea levels are not rising or falling unordinarilly proves that there has been ZERO global warming.

What kind of an idiot makes the claim that a sunspot is black in color because it's a "colder" region than the rest of the sun? What kind of a jackass says that a sunspot, which is the center of an explosion from the solar "surface," is colder than the solar surface? The idiots have a problem: they wish to remain idiots forever, not confessing that light is a literal wave through the light-wave medium that is the solar wind. They are embarrassing, a blotch on education.

The sun spews freed electrons. These are the solar wind. They eject in all directions outward from the sun, and thus they constitute a cosmic sea, a medium through which light waves propagate. Light is therefore not made of photons proper. Instead, each ejected electron forms one light wave. On the one hand, an ejected electron is akin to a photon, because both are projectiles, yet the light wave is not a projectile, and the ejected electron is a projectile for a microscopic distance only. Afterward, it becomes part of the flowing solar wind.

Plus, the impossible speed of the photon is not nearly achieved by the speed of ejected electrons. The light wave can achieve the so-called "speed of light," but not the solar-ejected electrons. It takes a few days for the electrons ejected from the sun to arrive to earth as part of the solar-wind flow. They do not continue to emit light waves as they flow. Only when they eject from an atom do they create one wave each. LOGICAL. I see no other alternative for explaining light.

The black in sunspots can only be due to the absence of light waves coming toward earth. The upward-exploded sunspot material, which is always emitting electrons, falls back to the sun. If it falls faster away from earth than the ejection of its electrons toward earth, the ejected electrons cannot strike the outgoing neighboring solar-wind electrons, and thus no lights waves are formed toward earth. Sunspots are thus excellent evidence that light is a wave through solar-wind electrons.

Sunspots are formed when solar flares fall back to the sun. Solar flares viewed from their sides never form black material, but rather are bright because the black color can only be formed when solar-flare material moves directly opposite the direction toward earth. But if the idiots were correct with their idiotic claim that the black color is due to cooler material, then solar flares seen from their sides should have black color too. Due to flares going up and down at angles, some sunspots form from various regions to the sides of its dead-center region (which faces earth dead-on).

Sunspots that last weeks cannot be single flares, but many flares continuous forming at the same but rotating location. Beware: many "photos" of sunspots can be mere computer animations, because NASA is a deception machine that wants to advertise itself as cutting-edge marvelous with hyped but faked photography in every department of cosmology and astronomy.

Sunspots are called "coronal ejections," and are thus akin to volcanic explosions. However, these explosions are not necessarily formed from hottest locations within the sun. Instead, they may be formed where the swirling of deeper material randomly happens to pass upward MOST EASILY in a lower-pressure path such that it picks up more speed. Rather than being akin to a volcano made by a hot spot, the latter view is more akin to a tornado funnel through low-pressure air such that air rises upward at unusual speeds.

The Real Comet-Tail Mechanism

These same stupids are too idiotic to confess that comets are not made of ice even though they can now photograph comets. Not one has been seen to be made of ice. Duh. What kind of an idiot continues to spew the same embarrassing "education" even when his own eyes tell him it's erroneous? Do they even ask the world for help in coming up with a better explanation for the comet tail? NO? Why not? Because they are PROUD idiots. Proud of what? Of their superior knowledge...that turns out to be wrong. They wouldn't be deemed idiots, just for that, unless their wrong explanations are so-obviously wrong. Ice balls in outer space? Are you kidding me? Did they come from an all-water planet that formed from steam orbiting around a star? IDIOTS. The water planet then shot pieces of itself around our sun. IDIOTS. Or is their a cosmic water fountain somewhere where every sprayed-out drop is one comet? IDIOTS. They see that asteroids are rocks, and should therefore expect comets to be rocks, but their own big-bang science caused them to become blind to the real explanation for the comet tail.

For their failures to understand that solar and planetary gravity repels free electrons, they decided that comet tails are formed from melting ice in the freezing conditions of outer space. What kind of an idiot makes such a laughable claim? In reality, the light of comet tails is formed from free electrons ejected from rock atoms, and then driven away from the sun by solar gravity.

The earth would have no liquid water if it did not have an atmosphere, because the air causes solar heat to go back into space slower than it would otherwise. As it can be assumed guaranteed that comets spin on an axis, as does the earth, it's half-the-time in sunlight and out of sunlight, wherefore there's no chance for an ice ball to melt when it's as far out as the orbit of Jupiter. Yet comet tails form that far out. It should be obvious to the goofs that they need another explanation.

They say: "As a comet approaches the Sun, the heat causes ice to vaporize, forming a cloud of gas and dust called the coma around the nucleus." Are you kidding me? The coma becomes as bright as burning fire due merely to melted water??? Are they science lunatics? YES, and they want to make it sound as though they have the whole thing all figured out due to their superior intelligence. That's why I call them idiots, as a re-occurring message to you that they ought not to be respected.

The coma looks like burning fire because it's made of the same substance, freed electrons, as flames from combustion. The comet is not literally combusting, but both flames and the comet rock emit free electrons, which is the cause of light. Light is not from photons, which do not exist, but is from freed electrons. Only a wacko thinks that wee-wee particles much smaller than electrons can be catapulted to travel at 186,000 miles per second without suffering destruction. ONLY AN IDIOT. Only a wacko thinks that wee-wee particles much smaller than electrons can repeatedly bounce off of materials at 186,000 miles per second without suffering destruction.

Only an idiot thinks that photons can bounce in all directions when striking glass atoms, and then provide a clear picture to your eyes on the other side of the glass. If they don't pass straight through the glass, they cannot provide a clear picture to the eyes. No projectile can pass through glass (or six feet of water) without striking countless atoms, but in order to make this lunatic thing sound more reasonable, they go and make the additional mistake of claiming that glass (and water) is more than 99-percent space. LAUGHABLE IDIOTS. But don't laugh if you believed them.

Like all materials, comet-rock atoms have electrons captured by protonic attraction. When any atom draws progressively nearer to the sun, the negative charge of the suns's sea of free electrons progressively repels more captured electrons from the atom. A comet's freed electrons therefore worm through the atomic spaces and pores of the rock body until ejecting from the comet's outer surface. The tail's brightness is evidence that bits of rock material, and probably individual atoms too, are eroded off, into space, by these ejections.

As the rock bits get out into free space with the free electrons, the bits get pushed away from the sun by the flow of free electrons away from the sun. Therefore, the rock bits are pushed into the comet's tail. In the meantime, free electrons issuing from within the rock bits form the light of the comet tail. It's not the free electrons in the tail that begin the light waves, but the ejection of electrons from the rock bits. The light waves pass through the free electrons, but the latter do not initiate or "ignite" the waves. Free electrons in any space CARRY the light waves initiated by electron emission. The bits of rock in the tail are immersed in the sea of free electrons, the solar wind, that fills the solar system.

Gravity proper needs to be defined anew as the negative charge of free electrons existing in all molten masses. When any object, including comets, falls toward a gravity source, it becomes heavier because the gravity source blows away some of its captured electrons, and thus the atoms are forced to take on a higher net-positive charge. Gravity thus attracts atoms more strongly (as they fall toward gravity), which is the definition of "heavier." Weight is the pull of gravity.

Here's something that modern science won't grasp until it admits that gravity is a negative charge from a body of freed electrons: a rock that loses mass by losing electrons becomes heavier.

The idiots merely gambled when claiming that electrons are attracted by gravity, because they are play-loose idiots. There was no way for them to put an electron on a weight scale. They couldn't prove that a batch of free electrons were drawn downward, yet they claimed that electrons are pulled by gravity nonetheless because the gravity force they invented supposedly pulls all matter. Ya-but stupids, first look at the evidence before making that claim. Which way do electrons go, up or down, when freed into space?

They neglected the evidence like loose-playing science sluts because big-bang science needed electrons to be attracted by gravity, otherwise proto-stars could not attract free electrons (supposedly formed in the big-bang explosion). If proto-stars could not attract free electrons, the H atoms that define stars could not form all the other elements that are the ingredients of the planets supposedly formed from gaseous star material. Therefore, they ignored the evidence that informs them that electrons are repelled by gravity, and they kept this evidence from you.

We cannot excuse them, so long as they do not repent, because they should have known, from the comet, that gravity repels something. They saw with their own eyes that gravity could be forming a wind of material blowing away from the sun, but, even after the discovery of the electrons that constitute the solar wind, they refused to announce, like stuck-up children under the threat of loosing their big-bang toy, that solar gravity could be repelling electrons.

To "build" error-on-error, as they are in the nasty habit of doing, they claimed that solar-wind electrons achieve enough velocity that they can never be attracted back to the sun. They called it "escape velocity." They took this position as fight-back against the concept that gravity repels solar-wind electrons, the other option. Surely, somebody in the science establishment must have proposed that concept, eventually.

They are not correct about the following speed: "The escape velocity from the Sun at the surface is approximately 617.6 km/s (1,380,000 mph). This is the minimum speed an object needs to leave the Sun's gravitational pull and never return." Ya-but, aside from the fact that they cannot know the escape-velocity speed at the sun, solar-wind electrons do not fly away that fast, for they say: "The solar wind travels at speeds of around 1 million miles per hour."

They cannot know what the escape velocity is from the sun because they do not know the specific gravity force at the sun's surface. That's because they have an erroneous definition of gravity as the number of atoms in the sun. That is, they see gravity force as proportional to mass, as if gravity force were an integral part of atoms. In reality, gravity force is from electrons freed from atoms, BIG DIFFERENCE.

By the way, forget Einsteinian gravity, unless you want to progress from idiot to wild lunatic. "Idiot" is an under-statement.

The way they figure the speed of the solar wind is to see how long it takes for the physical effect of a solar flare to reach the earth. Once they time it, they use their erroneous solar distance of 93-million miles to figure the velocity. Therefore, they are saying that the solar wind takes about 93 hours to reach earth when travelling at a million miles per hour. But as the sun is not as far as 93 million, their velocity figure must be less than a million mph, wherefore their escape-velocity theory suffers even more when trying to explain why solar gravity doesn't pull its electrons back.

They have another problem that they don't want us to know: solar-wind electrons pick up speed (accelerate) as they progress from sun to earth. That's because electrons repel each other constantly. The constant push causes them, logically, undeniably, to accelerate one another. Therefore, even if they can be granted the speed of one million mph, that's an average speed, yet they need to confess that the speed at the sun must be less than a million mph while the speed at the earth's orbit is more than a million mph, wherefore the speed at the sun is well below their own escape-velocity speed.

In fact, this big problem of theirs can explain why they pegged the sun wrongly at 93-million miles away, as a best-possible case to explain the solar wind by escape-velocity. I was able to do something that amazed me using NASA data on lunar eclipses. I discovered that the sun is 18 million miles away or less. That undeniable fact makes escape-velocity even less likely to be the cause of the solar wind.

The absolute jerks that are the cosmic evolutionists love to revel in the "fact" that the high number of comet strikes on the moon's surface is utter evidence of millions of years of moon age. Ya-but, the older they claim for the moon's age, the more idiotic the idiots appear because, the longer time there is, the more comet skids we should see on the moon. I know of NOT ONE comet skid on the moon. A comet skid is when a comet flies to the lunar surface at a sharp angle so that it might skid or even bounce of the moon, creating a long ditch. In other sharp-landing comet events, we should expect oval-shaped craters. Alas, all lunar craters are generally round because the craters were not formed by comets.

What are we to believe, that astronomers have never realized what I've just told you? No, but in being evolutionist idiots, they lied to you. They know that the craters are formed by lava flows from interior molten material, but in such a case, the evidence for long ages vanishes.

Lookie: "Moon craters are PRIMARILY formed by the impact of asteroids and meteoroids with the lunar surface." PRIMARILY. That means, not always. How else are the craters formed? You see, they do know that craters can be formed, as they are on earth, by internal magma. In that case, we must conclude that ALMOST ALL craters on the lunar surface are not formed by large comets, for if a significant number were, even 20, we would expect at least three or four skid-made ditches or long-oval craters, and few other slightly-oval craters.

Over a billion years, one expects many comets or asteroids to scrape the ground before bouncing off back into space. No evidence can be seen for such events, that I know of, anyway. But, computer animations in conjunction with long-tern NASA plots can suddenly show such lunar scrapes to the public as the new "education," in attempts to keep the theory of cosmic evolution from becoming fully crippled.

The planet Mercury has a surface similar to that of the moon, with many perfectly-round craters best explained as magma flows. After the magma reaches maximum heights to form hardened walls all around, the still-molten material subsides, meaning that the "floor" of the crater goes back down in elevation to thus form a crater i.e. with higher edges all around. One would not expect perfectly-round craters if the magma fountain was on heavily-sloped land.

True Distance to the Sun Less than 18 Million Miles

Before you start mocking me for my 18-million-mile figure, you should look into how their 93-million figure was obtained. But you need to treat it critically rather than embrace it in full trust of evolutionary cosmologists / astronomers. You need to ask every question as to whether they did everything right in getting the 93-million figure. For one of those questions, you need to ask why they don't use eclipse data to figure the maximum distance to the sun, because that data will indeed cough up roughly 18 million miles.

Don't be a-scared of the fools. Use lunar-eclipse data from NASA to figure out your own distance to the sun, because the evolutionist quacks aren't going to do it for you only to expose that they are play-loose tramps with their 93-million figure. Using eclipse data, you can find the angle of the lunar-eclipse line from the edge of the earth umbra, past the edge of earth, to the edge of the sun.

The angle of the lunar-eclipse line is in comparison to a zero-degree line extending from the core of the earth's umbra, though the core of the earth, and finally to the core of the sun. You cannot find the angle of the eclipse line until you find the diameter of the earth's umbra when the moon travels through it (at any particular eclipse). NASA's data will tell the diameter of the umbra, not in miles, but in "apparent degrees," an astronomy phrase you need to be familiar with. You will need to figure out the umbra diameter in miles from the apparent-diameter figure. It's not difficult. I'll show you how. Apparent diameter is also called, "angular size" (= degrees of width).

NASA data DOES NOT tell you the distance to the moon in any eclipse data. I can glean why it won't cough up the lunar distance: because, it makes it very easy to find the angle of the lunar-eclipse line, and thus anyone could then discover the maximum solar distance as about 18 million miles.

You cannot have the angle of the lunar-eclipse line unless you first have both the umbra diameter in miles, and the distance to the moon at the eclipse.

Once you get the angle of the lunar-eclipse line, you use NASA data to get the angle of a second line to the edge of the sun. For this line, you use the apparent radius of the sun during the eclipse, given by NASA in minutes and seconds. I convert (use online converter) the minutes-seconds on the NASA page to degrees, and that figure alone, per eclipse, will be the angle of the second line that we're after. On NASA's eclipse pages, see the "S.D." figures for moon and sun, meaning "semi-diameter," a phrase meaning "radius."

Now that you have two lines going to the edge of the sun, you need only devise a means to discover how far from the earth the two lines will meet, for they both meet at the sun. The two lines do not begin at the same place upon the earth. The lunar-eclipse line begins at the edge of the earth, and the apparent-radius-of-the-sun line begins at the core of the earth. The two lines thus begin a little less than 4,000 miles apart, i.e. one earth radius apart.

You need only to find how many miles outward into space the two lines will extend before they close the 4,000-mile gap. The way to do this is to find how much the gap will decrease per mile outward into space. An expert geometrist will know how to find this, but as I figured it out on my own, without a special, geometry calculator, that's how easy this is to do.

The angle of the lunar-eclipse line will always be smaller than the angle of the apparent-radius-of-the-sun line. If the two lines were at the same angle, or if the lunar-eclipse line were the larger of the two angles, the two lines would never meet. But, of course, the two lines do meet because both are caused by sunlight coming from the edges of the sun. Draw it all on paper to get a feel for the challenges, and then use NASA data from any full-lunar eclipse.

Although NASA does not reveal the lunar distance to the moon during an eclipse, it does. But the fact remains, it doesn't reveal the distance in miles, as if it's hiding it from us. It would be a simple matter for NASA to provide the distance in miles / kilometers, yet it doesn't. Why do you think this is?

As I'm not an astronomer, it took me a long time to realize that one can find the distance to the moon using the apparent diameter of the moon. NASA gives the apparent semi-diameter of the moon at every lunar-eclipse page. For example, if the apparent diameter is .5 degree, it tells us that the moon is .5 degree of a 360-degree circle around the earth. Therefore, the math is: 360 / .5 = 720. That is, there will be 720 moons in a perfect circle around the earth, and so we then multiply 720 by 2,160 miles (the lunar diameter) to find the circumference of this imaginary circle. It works out to 1.555 million miles. This drawing shows what I'm doing here:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw3MoonCircle.jpg

As every high-schooler knows, one can find the diameter of a circle if one has its circumference, as: circumference / pi. Using the figure above, it's 1.555 million miles / 3.14 = 495,200 miles. But we don't want the diameter of the circle when wanting the distance between the moon and the earth. Instead, we want the radius of the circle, and so the math above discovers that a .5-degree moon is 495,200 / 2 - 247,600 miles from earth.

Why have astronomers been so spineless as not to buck against the idiots by revealing the solar distance as found by eclipse data? Why have the idiots made idiots of all the astronomers? Although NASA data consistently got me a solar distance of 17 to 19 million miles after doing the math for about 10 different eclipses, the fact is that the distance is even less when one allows for the possibility that sunlight is re-directed (refracted) by the earth's atmosphere.

It would be nice for the lying evolutionists if the bending of light through the earth atmosphere allowed the math to get an unknown but larger distance than 18 million, but the fact is, it's the other way around. The bending-of-light factor, if it's even relevant to the angle of the lunar-eclipse line, gets an unknown number SMALLER than 18 million.

When sunlight strikes the atmosphere at the edge of the earth, the light, if it bends at all (this is air, not water), bends inward toward the earth such that the earth umbra is made less wide than would otherwise be the case. The larger the umbra, the closer the sun works out to be. Therefore, an umbra that shows smaller than it really is will mathematically figure a solar distance further than is the reality. That is, where the math / geometry using the made-smaller umbra gets 18 million, the real distance is less than 18 million. TOUGH LUCK, evolutionist LIARS.

At the end of 2021, when I was finally catching on as to how NASA data could be used for the quest of finding the solar distance, I calculated the following solar distances. After each distance figure, I give the angular size of the sun per the eclipse on the date shown. The larger the sun sizes shown, the closer the sun to earth per eclipse:

18.962 million; .52450: June 25, 1964 (calculation below)
16.015 million; .524554: July 16, 2000 (something is wrong here)
17.8777 million; .524832: June 15, 2011
17.188 million; .526277: May 26, 2021
17.63 million; .52661: August 17, 1989
18.207 million; .53144: April 15 2014
18.821 million; .5331: April 4, 2015
18.892 million; .5393: November 18, 1994
17.483 million; .544776: July 26, 1953

For the first offering on the above list, the solar size needs to be cut in half from .52450 degree to .26225. This latter figure is the angle of a line from the core of the earth to the edge of the sun where a zero-degree line is from earth core to solar core. The .26225-degree line cannot lie. That is, the angle cannot lead us astray on the solar-distance findings. It's full-proof over vast distances. It doesn't matter that the line is 19 million miles long, it is an accurate line in so much as the apparent radius of .26225 degree is correctly measured / stated by NASA.

The reason that the solar distances above are not all the same is partly due the impossibility of, and/or errors in, measuring the size of the sun perfectly, and partly because the sun is not always at the same distance, from month to month. Where the apparent solar sizes don't jibe with the distances found, the fault doesn't lie with me, my math, or my method. As you can see, all nine eclipses generally resulted in the same, ballpark distance where I introduced zero numbers to the tabulations. All I did was find a solar-distance method into which I plugged NASA's numbers.

Here's an example of the method, for the first entry in the list above, noting that you need to convert the umbra diameter into moon diameters:

Lunar eclipse of June 25, 1964:

umbra radius .6509 degree; umbra diameter 1.3018 degree
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .491388 degree diameter);
sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 degree diameter):
umbra diameter in moon diameters: 1.3018 / .491388 = 2.6492 moons;
umbra diameter in miles: 2.6492 x 2,159.26 = 5,720.4;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,720.4/2) = 1,099.8 miles
obtain lunar distance: 360 / .491388 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 251,770 miles
1,099.8 / 251,770 = .00436827 mile
obtain lunar distance imaginary moon: 360 / .524500 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 235,875 miles
1,079.63 / 235,875 = .0045771;
.0045771 - .00436827 = .00020883 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .00020883 = 18.962 million miles to the sun

You can repeat the math method above for any lunar eclipse. NASA gives all the needed data on it's lunar-eclipse pages.

You'll need an explanation of what I mean for the line above starting with "lunar-eclipse-line spread" and ending with "3,960 - (5,720.4/2) = 1,099.8 miles." The 3,960 figure is the radius of the earth; the 5,720.4/2 figure is the umbra radius, and the difference between the two, 1,099.8 miles, is the distance, on a lateral line, from the edge of the umbra to the edge of the earth.

It is not the distance from where the moon kisses the edge of the umbra to the edge of the earth, but rather is the distance from where the moon kisses the umbra, going in a lateral direction until the line is directly beneath the edge of the earth on your drawing. For example, when the umbra is at the bottom of the page with the earth directly above it, the 1099.8-mile line goes perfectly HORIZONTAL on the page, starting at the edge of the umbra where the moon kisses it, and ends when it's directly beneath the edge of the earth. The drawing below shows what I mean, where the lateral spread is shown as 1,015 miles for a lunar eclipse in the year 2,000:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw2.jpg

In the drawing, the lunar-eclipse lines are the ones forming the umbra. The task is to find the angle for the bottom red line where the top red line is zero degrees.

For the eclipse under discussion here, the lunar-eclipse line spreads laterally 1,099.8 miles when extending sunward from the moon to the earth. You now have the angle of the lunar-eclipse line defined as spreading laterally 1,099.8 miles per every lunar distance toward the sun. Which lunar distance in particular? The one during the eclipse. This line can be easily converted to degrees at a right-hand-triangle calculator. Here's how:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw4.jpg

However, the math method above doesn't need one to convert the lunar-eclipse line to degrees. Once you get the lateral lunar-eclipse line spread, you divide it by the distance between the core of the earth and the core of the moon. I showed you above how to calculate a lunar distance from earth for any eclipse. It's easy: 360 / .491388 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 251,770 miles; where 360 is for a 360-degree circle; where .491388 is the moon's apparent diameter in degrees; where 2,159.26 is the NASA-given diameter of the moon.

For the eclipse under discussion, the related math is like so: 1,099.8 / 251,770 = .00436827 mile. What this does is to find that the lunar-eclipse line spreads .00436827 mile laterally per every mile toward the sun. It's exactly the same line angle as when it's expressed as 1,099.8 miles laterally per 251,770 miles toward the sun. But when need it expressed in per-mile in order to churn out the solar distance from earth, because the second line we are using won't have a lunar distance of 251,770.

When I did 1,099.8 / 251,770 = .00436827 mile of spread years ago, I didn't know that I was finding .00436827 radians, or "rads," in case you know what they are. If you enter 1099.8 into box 'a' at this
right-hand-triangle calculator, and then enter 251,770 in box 'b', you hit "calculate," then look upward on the page to the alpha line reading: "0.25° = 0°15'1" = 0.0043682 rad" It tells you the angle of the lunar-eclipse line in three different ways, as .25 degree, or 0 minutes, 15.1 seconds, or .004368215 unit (or mile) of lateral spread per one unit (or one mile) of forward distance.

Box 'b' represents line 'b', which in the case at hand is the zero-degree line from the moon's core at mid-eclipse through the center of the earth and finally through the center of the sun.

So, as it turned out, my high-school-level method uses rads to find the solar distance. It's practical and easy to understand. Once you have the knowledge that the lunar-eclipse line spreads laterally .00436827 mile per every mile toward the sun, you are laughing. At NASA's idiots. You are about to discover the true distance to the sun and make utter bozos of its imposters.

But first, you need the angle of a second line starting at the core of the earth and ending up at the edge of the sun at the moment of mid-eclipse. Here's a drawing I made for this task:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw1.jpg

In the drawing, I have the solar-edge lines starting from the eye of a person standing on the earth's edge, but when NASA gives apparent sizes of suns, the solar-edge lines should perhaps be started at the earth's core. It's not going to make much of a difference, one way or the other, for the solar-distance figure, but just so you know. Of course, you need use of only one of the solar-edge lines, and one lunar-eclipse line.

NASA gives us the radius of the sun for the eclipse under discussion as .26225 degree. One can find the rads of this angle in any online converter, which works out to .0045771 rads. If you go up to my math method above, you will see: 1,079.63 / 235,875 = .0045771. Therefore, the method I used to find .0045771 is a correct method. Let me tell you how I did it, how I arrived at the operation, 1,079.63 / 235,875. If you're wondering what the 235,875 number refers to, it's a second distance to an imaginary moon that represents the real sun at the moment of mid-eclipse.

I pretended that the sun during the eclipse is a second moon. Am I allowed to do that? YES. My only task was to find the angle of the line going from earth core to edge of sun, and that angle is identical to a line going from earth core to a moon exactly the size of the sun at mid-eclipse. See that? This "apparatus" escaped me for more than a decade, though I wasn't working diligently on this problem for all that time.

The diameter of the sun, during the eclipse, was .5245 degree, and so I pretended that the solar ball was a moon of that same diameter. I could then discover how far from the earth the sun is, not only because we know the moon's true diameter of 2,159.26 miles, but because we can find the moon's distance from knowing any apparent moon size while NASA tells us which apparent size to use: the apparent size of the sun at mid-eclipse. See that? How fortuitous was it for me to find this apparatus that every seasoned astronomer knows off the skin of his hands? Lucky enough to get some good laughs toward the apes stuck in blind lalaland. No pity deserved.

To put this another way that should enlighten you, in case I've lost you with the sun-moon trick, the angle of a line, starting at your eye, to the edge of the moon is identical to the angle of a line to the edge of the sun when the sun and moon are back-to-back in a perfect solar eclipse, where both are of identical size to the eye. Therefore, I need find only the angle of one to get the angle of the other, and as I don't know the true diameter of the sun, or it's distance from earth, I obviously chose to find the angle using the moon's particulars.

The math is like so where the diameter of the sun during the eclipse is .5245 degree: 360 / .5245 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 235,875 miles from earth core to moon's core. You saw that same math above when seeking the earth-moon distance from mid-eclipse, when finding the angle of the lunar-eclipse line. This latest math finds the distance to the the imaginary moon by knowing its apparent size of .5245 degree.

The next math, in using the moon-distance figure above, is: 1,079.63 / 235,875 = .0045771 mile. The 1,079.63 figure is the lunar radius. We are trying to find how far a line will spread laterally if, at the moment of the eclipse, we start it at the earth's core and extend it along the moon's edge toward the sun's edge. As the line starts on the zero-degree line through the cores of the earth and moon, we want to use only the lunar radius, not the diameter, for this operation. And so we find that the line spreads .0045771 mile laterally per every 235,875 miles toward the sun. But it's too complicated to leave things at that; we want to know the line spread per ONE MILE toward the sun. Get it?

We already have the lunar-eclipse-line spread per one mile toward the sun; having the same for the solar-edge line is like banana pie to the face of a backward, fantasizing astronomy baboon. These damned liars who never went to the moon are working hard to "debunk" those who know the truth, by trying to lump us in with flat-earthers. These Godless dreamers who invent black holes, rolling space-time, and other impossible fantasies are lunatics now poised to make the world believe that they have found inhabitable other-planets and alien life. It's evolutionist hog-wash.

We can call the second line the solar-edge line. The lunar-eclipse line was shown to spread .004368215 mile laterally per each mile toward the sun. That's .0045771 mile for the solar-edge line versus .0043682 mile for the lunar-eclipse line. It means that the solar-edge line spreads laterally .0045771 - .0043682 = .00020883 mile more than the lunar-eclipse line, per mile toward the sun. Sooner or later, the two lines will meet.

The lunar-eclipse line is to be viewed as starting at the earth's edge, one earth radius from where the solar-edge line begins. Both start at the same starting line, i.e. the same distance from the sun. Therefore, when the solar-edge line has closed the gap by one earth radius, 3,960 miles, that's where the two lines meet. The final math operation is therefore: 3,960 / .00020883 = 18.962 million miles to the sun. Give or take a couple of cubits.

Did you see what was done in that final operation? The two lines begin 3,960 miles apart, and the solar-edge line moves toward the lunar-eclipse line by .00020833 mile per every one mile toward the sun. Therefore, the solar-edge line has moved 3,960 miles toward the lunar-eclipse line after the two lines have extended in the forward direction by 18,962,000 miles.

God has a Hot Day for their recompense, when every knee shall bow to Jesus, the Eternal Ruler over CREATION. Not evolution, wicked clowns, but CREATION by the Almighty. You cannot fathom how mighty He is. You shouldn't want to get on His bad side.

I'm writing this section in case anyone wants to know my method enough to check it out for themselves, to verify its accuracy or to debunk it. I'll give NASA details also for another eclipse not on the list of nine above:

Eclipse of July 26, 1953

umbra radius = .7496 degree;
moon radius 16'20.6" = .544776 degree
sun radius 15'45.0" = .5250 degree
umbra diameter in miles: 5,933.4
lunar-eclipse-line spread: 3,960 - 5,933.4/2 = 993.3 miles
lunar distance: 360 / .544776 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 227,096 miles
993.3 / 227,096 = .00437392 mile lateral spread per mile toward sun
lunar distance for imaginary moon: (360 / .5250 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,650 miles
1,079.63 / 235,650 = .0045815 mile lateral spread per mile toward sun
.0045815 - .00437392 = .00020758 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun
then, 3,960 / .00020758 = 19.076 million miles to the sun

I've gone over and over this method for many eclipses, and cannot see one thing I'm doing wrong. I therefore trust that this is accurate work. It's not easy to believe that I'm the first person to use these numbers in this straight-forward way. I therefore think that there's been a cover-up where people have used this eclipse-line method or something similar, shown it to their astronomical bosses, but were told to hush-up for one reason or another at the pain of being defamed, or at one other threat or another.

On the other hand, it is possible that the use of the imaginary moon has not occurred to anyone who was in the meantime using eclipse lines to find the distance to the sun. It seems to me that many astronomers could easily glean that one can find the distance to the sun by following two eclipse lines to the sun. Along with a lunar-eclipse line, the trick is to find an appropriate second line. For years (over a decade), I was hoping to find an appropriate solar-eclipse line, from some solar eclipse, as the second line, but then realized I could make my own imaginary solar eclipse, i.e. with the imaginary moon, making the latter's size as per the exact size of the sun on the day/minute of any lunar-eclipse that itself was lending the lunar-eclipse line. PERFECT. It works to make a perfect second line, and I can see no way to discredit the use of the lunar-eclipse line as I've used it.

Solar-Wind Proton Trash

Time to pound on evolutionists liars, self-inflicted fools. They are not in the field of evolution only, but in all the sciences. They helped to develop the fields in physics, particle physics, and cosmology. They then took science establishments over, pushing Creationists away, and finally bragging that science is mainly evolutionist as "proof" that evolution is the most-credible belief system. Ya, sure, kick out the competition, then tell everyone that most scientists are not Creationists, fiendishly giving the impression that Creationism is unscientific.

Two updates ago, I told why they do not understand the black color of sunspots, because they, control freaks with a world agenda to destroy God, do not hold the correct definition of light waves as literal waves through the light-wave-medium of solar-wind electrons. What could make more sense, yet they rejected it even after the discovery of the solar wind containing free electrons.

To make us believe that these electrons are not important in the solar wind, they lied, telling that the solar wind possesses protons too. But there cannot exist bare-naked protons, as they claim there are. The reason they lied about the existence of solar protons is that they did not want to violate their claim that protons cannot be destroyed. They reasoned that, when the sun releases electrons to such a great scale as exist in the solar wind, there had to be protons released too that once held the electrons. Ya-but, duh, if this is true, why don't the solar-wind protons re-load with the solar-wind electrons?

Plus, complete shysters that they are, they told us that the solar wind has exactly as many protons as it has electrons, not because they truly discovered this to be true by some experiment in space, but because their atomic model stupidly assigns one electron per one proton in every atom. They claim that a giant proton has as much positive-charge force as one wee electron has negative-charge force. STUPID. They make that claim because their "fathers" wanted a simple atom where one proton holds only one orbiting electron, COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE.

I read it myself years ago, that the solar wind is half electrons, half protons. Not anymore. google AI is now telling that protons "are the most abundant particles, making up about 95% of the solar wind." There can be only one explanation for this nonsense: the establishment wants to obliterate the solar wind's definition as freed electrons. It's nonsense because it's impossible for naked, solar protons to be freed from the sun without the electrons they once held also being freed. THEY LIE, apparently to hide the electrons that truly define the solar wind, thus hiding the "aether" that they foolishly rejected a century ago.

Another reason for their abandoning the half-electron half-proton claim of years ago is that it tends to help explain why the protons don't reload with the electrons to become what they view as hydrogen atoms. NASA falsifies all sorts of things with the war on God being the priority. They yet have the problem of explaining why the electrons in the solar wind are alone, not captured by the many protons in their midst. They do add helium in with the solar wind, which could be a trick to give appearances of naked solar-wind protons and free electrons coming together to form atoms, because this is the expectation where naked protons exist with free electrons.

BUT, the fakes did not eradicate all of the free electrons from the solar wind, because those particles are, in truth, the main, living / healthy constituents of the solar wind by far. If there is protonic material in the solar wind, it's either dead or crippled, unable to attract back their electrons, or at least all of them. The continual spewing of free electrons from the sun indicates a vast destruction of protons within the sun.

What do you think it could mean that something hot emits electrons? Ah, er, duh, if you answered that it makes heat look defined as free electrons, congratulations, there's more hope for you than an evolutionist ape.

I now want to buck against their claim that the solar wind does not enter the earth atmosphere, very convenient for protecting their erroneous definition of heat as the MOTION of atoms, any atoms. In their bonehead theory, the faster atoms speed about, the hotter the environment. In reality, the higher the density of free electrons (not attached/captured by atoms), the hotter the environment. Free electrons act both as literal heat and the light-wave medium. But as it's important to cosmic evolution from the big bang not to define heat as a material all its own, the wackos stick to their atoms-in-motion definition. That's not science, it's dressing up the make-believe big bang to look like truth. And that's what the goofs have done in many fields of science, chosen theories that best suit the big bang, especially when the ailing big bang badly needs some walking shoes from some field of science.

Lest the people realize that free electrons from the sun is what heats the earth, they say that solar-wind electrons are deflected away from earth by its "magnetic field." Everyone trusts these demonic liars such that they are all convinced that a magnetic field exists, that the earth has both a south and north pole, which is trash, untrue. The earth is not a magnet.

It it were a magnet, then all of the naked protons in the solar wind should be attracted to the earth's negative pole while the free electrons should be attracted to the opposite pole. But that's not happening, which is evidence that they lie all over the place on the topic of the solar wind. Attraction of solar-wind particles expects that they should enter the atmosphere, but the liars have arranged a magician's trick in which, somehow, the particles are shuffled off above the atmosphere to the sides of the planet.

Here's proof for anyone who thinks out-of-the-box for themselves: "Typically, these compasses work great in the Northern Magnetic Zone (see map), and will usually work halfway down into the Equatorial Magnetic Zone. But once you start approaching the Southern Magnetic Zone, you will begin to have issues with the needle dragging in the capsule." That's a google offering in my search as to whether compasses work in Australia. Apparently, the north end of a compass needle, in Australia, will point into the ground, and therefore will have trouble circling toward North.

Fine, I accept that as true, but, the point is, if the south pole was itself magnetic, then the south end of the magnetic needle would point south with no difference to how it points FINE AND DANDY to the north on the northern hemisphere. A compass should work in the southern hemisphere as well as it works in the northern hemisphere, if the south pole were itself attracting the compass needle. But as you read above, only the north end of the compass needle points to a pole of the earth, yet the person who wrote the quote above WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH to point this out, because that person is a stooge of the scientific establishment, not thinking for self, but simply believing what he/she is told, then repeating it like an unwitting victim.

The south end of a compass needle points south, on a compass in the United States, not because it's attracted by the south pole, but because the north end of the needle is attracted by the north pole, and, ONLY CONSEQUENTLY does the opposite end of the needle point south. I accept that there's some electromagnetic charge near the north pole, but I'm claiming with the evidence above that there's no opposite charge at the south pole. Thus, the earth is not a magnet with two poles of opposite charge. Therefore, there is no "earth's magnetic field."

Without their magnetic field around the planet, it obliterates the claim that the earth magnet deflects AWAY ALL solar-wind electrons such that they don't enter the atmosphere. In that case, what do you suppose happens to the electrons as they strike the air? If you answered: they strike the air when they strike the air, fabulous, you have logic. There is nothing odd or difficult to grasp about the solar wind crashing into the air.

Plus, as the air is not filled with naked protons, that's how you can know that tricksters are behind the claim that a magnetic field has shuffled them away, in order that the magicians might not be discovered as liars when claiming that the solar wind is almost all naked protons. They think that you cannot disprove that claim, but you can, by showing that the earth's south pole is not magnetic. It doesn't attract a magnetic compass needle. FULL STOP.

But just as soon as the world starts to talk about that, suddenly, the fakes will put out fake news, aimed at the new generation, saying that the south pole does attract a compass needle. That's how they operate, with deliberated shame and scheming.

As science can't see what's going on at the atomic level of a magnet to cause repulsion and attraction, they don't know whether the north pole of a magnet is positive or negative. The magnet doesn't come with a built-in label, "north pole." Therefore, the charge at the north end of a compass needle is not known, meaning that the charge at the north pole of the earth cannot be known, whether negative or positive. However, as I can prove that earth and solar gravity is due to negative charge from freed electrons, chances are that the north pole of the earth has an abnormal amount of freed electrons in its crust. If this is correct, then the positive end of a magnet points to the north pole.

As those interior free electrons define heat, the north pole of the planet must have an unusual heat source in the crust, which can explain why the Arctic is always warmer than Antarctica by a significant amount.

So, without the existence of earth's magnetic field, solar-wind electrons do in fact enter the atmosphere, same as when a flood of water strikes the forest trees but easily enters the forest too. One can predict correctly that ALL solar electrons will collide with air atoms, but, in moving at high speed, the electrons will "plow" through air atoms, between the space between them, to a significant depth toward the ground...all happening on the sun-side of the planet, of course. But what do you suppose happens on the dark side, where solar electrons do not directly enter the atmosphere. If you answered, "it gets colder," congratulations, you are on to something: free electrons define heat.

But if you can answer the question, without my telling you first, as per where the vast accumulation of daily-entering solar electrons go, then you are on to something big, very big. In fact, the liars do not want the solar electrons to enter the atmosphere because the only way to get rid of them, from the earth, is by admitting that their cherished Newtonian gravity is their other farce. They are a bunch of farce-inventing goons, farce after farce after farce, each dead farce invented to keep the other dead farce propped up to appear as living truths.

In the meantime, as the solar electrons enter, the earth's gravity REPELs them, such that they have a limit as to how deep into the atmosphere they can arrive. You just got your big hint as to where the daily feed of electrons go so that they cannot constantly accumulate to kill the planet.

The solar electrons don't quite make it to cloud height on the sun-side, because clouds puff up on their tops, meaning that earth gravity is repelling them upward more strongly than they are plowing down toward the ground. Yes, it's true, clouds puff up on their tops because electrons are moving upward as heat. As gravity repels electrons up, they push air atoms and water molecules up.

When clouds form droplets, the water molecules, due to merging as droplets, release some captured electrons, and this can cause lightning and tornadoes (from low air pressure above clouds) when the density of the freed electrons becomes high. The more numerous the free electrons, the more cloud tops puff upward. It's well known in physics that all atomic mergers release heat, and vice versa: all liquid atoms that dislodge into gas atoms absorb heat i.e. it gets colder in the space between gas atoms. Therefore, it's known that the release of electrons from atoms is the release of heat, but the control freaks don't want to word it that way because they don't want you to know electrons as the definition of heat.

Though the solar wind can't reach the ground on its own steam, wind will spread solar electrons around, cause them to reach the ground. Heat is the known cause of wind, and so the solar-wind electrons have a built-in mechanism for getting themselves spread throughout the air all the way down into your nostrils. Your body makes them, through chemical reactions, at all times, and releases them as body heat. Chemical reactions often involve atoms merging with atoms = released electrons.

As the earth spins on its axis, the electron-filled air soon finds itself entering the dark side of the planet, where earth gravity repels many of them back into outer space. God has set up the situation such that, as many electrons that are entering by day get lost by night, for if this were not so, the earth would either get progressively hotter, with time, or colder.

The fact seems to be that the sun provides a SURPLUS of electrons not needed for more than one 24-hour period. This surplus would fry the planet if there were no mechanism in place to get rid of the surplus, and that mechanism is partially the night time, assuring that the surplus vanishes once in every 24-hour period.

Now you know why evolutionist imposters don't want you to know that solar electrons are constantly entering the air, because one of the only two ways to get rid of their surplus is by earth gravity, and, thus, the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. This true definition of gravity does not dress the big bang very well. Instead, it provides its coffin.

I should add that solar heat is not only from the entry of electrons into the air, but also from the sun's light, which is "radiant heat." The reason that the goofs don't want you to believe in solar-wind electrons in the air is two-fold, one to deny that they define atmospheric heat, and two: to deny you the fact that light travels across them as a literal wave, similar to sound waves across atoms.

The reason that light waves are much faster than sound waves is that atoms are either held down by gravity when they form gases, or are in bondage to each other when in the liquid or solid states. It takes work for a wave to move across those atoms, and work slows the speed of the wave. The more work involved, the slower the wave, I assume, but waves across free electrons have no work to do. Can you see why not?

Atoms in contact with each other are under attraction to each other, and the sound wave needs to act against that attraction. Sound can carry as a wave only if atoms jolt, and a jolt is defined as breaking away a little from the atomic attraction. But free electrons are not bonded to each other, and are neither held down by gravity. A sound wave through the air needs to jolt atoms against the downward pull of gravity. It takes some WORK. The sound wave fast becomes weaker with distance, due to this work.

It's the attraction forces of atoms that cause gas atoms to form liquids in the first place, and all gas atoms can form liquids, but only if something forces them to make contact, otherwise, when at a distance from each other as gas atoms, ALL atoms repel each other, which defines gas pressure. Inter-attraction of atoms can only form when atoms make contact, because it's only then that the protonic core of each atom can attract the captured electrons of one or more neighboring atoms.

Atomic attraction causes friction when anything comes against merged atoms. The physical force from anything is weakened / reduced due to the attraction between atoms. Every force that attempts to unmerge atoms is physical energy lost in the process. But there is almost zero friction amid the motion of free electrons in air, not only because they are not in physical contact with each other, and not only because they repel each other. Free electrons have the best "grease", their inter-repulsion forces.

Air atoms, thanks to being pulled by gravity, have a minute amount of friction; if it were not so, birds and insects could not fly. Flight by animal wings requires that work be done when flapping/moving air atoms away. Air atoms repel each other, as do electrons, but air atoms are held down by gravity, and that alone is what gives air some viscosity = friction such that everything going through it needs to do work. But, in a vacuum having only free electrons, nothing can fly.

Free electrons in air suffer some frictional force because they are trapped in a sea of air atoms, but the friction level is far less than you would imagine when viewing air atoms as solid balls, with solid outer edges. Atoms do not have solid outer edges. Instead, the outer edges of all atoms are quasi-free electrons barely captured by their respective protons, and hence, when free electrons strike atoms, for example due to wind, they roll off with minimal friction involved. If you think electrons orbit protons, slap yourself out of it.

Free electrons collide with air atoms even when the air is perfectly still at night, for the electrons are then propelled UPWARD from the repulsion of the heat source within the planet, which is the gravity source. Electrons repel electrons, and so they worm their way between air atoms, striking them on their undersides from time to time, and eventually fly off into outer space. They would do this even if there was not earth gravity repelling them, for in repelling each other, they tend to move as far as possible from each other. But they would not fly off fast enough, apart from gravity, to keep the planet from getting hotter day after day. God has set the particulars of this situation just right so that the maximum heat loss at night keeps the average planetary temperature where we find now, or, a little warmer previous to the Flood.

LOOK IT. Everyone knows electrons repel electrons. Every physicist knows that electrons are at every heat source. Therefore, the stupids who pretend to be super-intelligent know that there is a vast source of free electrons in the earth's molten rocks. Therefore, if even you can now say that this vast source of heat is predicted to repel atmospheric electrons into space, why do you think the stupids act blind to that simple conclusion? Because, they are ugly, evolutionist imposters, not scientists, but "drug handlers" who keep you stoned on false physics. The more stoned they can get you, the less likely you'll be able to see the realities before your very noses. You are hallucinating when you see electrons whizzing around atoms at the near speed of light. Snap out of it, get sober.

The big bang, in order to form stars, needs gravity defined as a little atomic attraction existing in every atom...by which ALL gas atoms have a little attraction to one another, from a distance. TRASH. It's not true. You are being fed an hallucination. Gas atoms can either net-repel, or net-attract, you can't have hydrogen atoms doing both. As your inflated tires hold up your car's weight, air atoms inter-repel. ALL gas atoms cause gas pressure, and that's from their inter-repulsion. Therefore, as all gas atoms repel each other, hydrogen atoms from a theoretical big-bang explosion could NOT have attracted one another to form stars. Therefore, the magicians invented Newtonian gravity, where each atom magically comes with attraction toward all other atoms that is NOT from electromagnetic attraction.

Ya-but, this attraction cannot be found in experiments, though the magicians have led you to think that some experiments prove atomic gravity force. Besides, the repulsion forces between hydrogen gas atoms are a zillion times stronger than whatever atomic gravity force has been "found" in experiments. Once again: hydrogen atoms from the big-bang explosion could not possibly have attracted each other, especially as gas pressure = repulsion force increases with higher temperatures. Last I heard, the big bang was HOT-HOT-HOT. You are hallucinating when envisioning screeching (super fast and hot) H atoms coming together to form proto-stars.

And now you know why the evolutionist fools did not define gravity as an electromagnetic charge, not because they proved it wasn't, but because they WANTED a built-in attraction between all gas atoms. FOOLS. Choosing what they want as science laws, merely to keep the big-bang viable, is NOT SCIENCE. They need to be kicked out of the schools. Hail Creation Science. Make the students sober again by first making the parents sober again.

In outer space, where there is no air, and thus no restriction to the flow of free electrons, light speed through those electrons may be instant, faster than 186,000 mps. As said a couple of updates ago, light-speed experiments are tainted, meaning that light travels faster than 186,000 miles per second. The experiments are tainted because light, when bouncing out of a mirror, must first slow down a little, for light entering the mirror's atoms must first come to a stop within the atoms, then bounce back in the opposite direction. That takes time, thus affecting the math that finds the speed of 186,000 mph. For, speed is found by: velocity divided by time. That little bounce in and out of a mirror makes it appear that light is slower than it really is. Sorry, goofballs, liars, you lose. You lied to the people by not pointing out this obvious thing. You wanted light to be slower than instant because instant light helps the Creationists. Right? Right.

Evolutionists don't want instant light speed because they then have no argument against light travelling millions of light years instantly. It wrecks their claim that stars must be millions / billions of years old. It's their prime argument against God's creation of the universe in six days. If light is almost instant in space, then they have wrongly calculated the distance of a light year. It's no longer true that light travels some six trillion miles in one year, but much, much further. Besides, the fools have grossly exaggerated the distances to the stars because it befits their murder of Creationism.

Light-Wave Mechanics

Let me show you how a light wave works, similar to a normal flow but not quite the same. A train "flows" down the tracks. "Flow" is hereby defined as moving along. A light wave is a short flow that stops flowing almost instantly because it's hitting a target. The wave is the start of a flow, but cut short as soon as the last free electron, in a light-wave line, strikes an atomic material.

A light wave, though moving along much-more straight than a sound wave, is not innately perfectly straight. However, when countless light waves are flowing simultaneously in all directions, for example between a light bulb and everything in the room, each wave trains the other wave to move straight ahead. Each wave prevents the neighboring wave from deviating from a straight line outward to the targets. Only when light passes an edge of an object can the wave deviate a little from the straight-line course, into the shadow of the object passed. That's why the slit experiment reveals that light does bend a little when passing the slits.

A light wave can be viewed as a train perfectly straight. The first electron at the light bulb pushes the train of hooked-up cars, but it can't run because the last car in the train hits the book on the table, or the table, or whatever. The last car in the train thus jolts one atom of the book, or whatever, which can be viewed as one quanta of light, though not as the stupids define "quanta." It results in radiant heat, when the last car in the train enters the atom by a light-wave jolt. It's not the electron emitted at the bulb that enters the book's atom, but the stupids expect you to believe it when they define light as a photon shot out from the bulb. STUPIDS. They were made stupid by the denial of evolutionists of the solar-wind aether that fills earth's atmosphere. They need to protest against the establishment, wouldn't that be fun to watch?

If the stupids had reasoned properly, they would have realized that the countless electrons emitting at the bulb push countless trains of electrons INSTANTLY into every strike-able atom in the room. That's because the trains are all existing even before the light bulb is turned on. If we had to wait for the electron at the bulb to reach the book, it would take some considerable time i.e. not instant. The aether is a sea of electrons that provides on-the-ready trains extending in every-conceivable direction.

Trains cut across trains. In whatever direction the electron goes at the light source, that's the direction of its train. One active train can cut across another active train. Therefore, your flashlight's light-wave trains can shine through / across the light wave trains from the light bulbs on the outer wall of your house. A dozen candles on your birthday cake create innumerable trains all cutting across each other...because God is a genius.

So, the reality is not a photon travelling at 186,000 mps from bulb to book, but rather it's built-in trains striking the book as though faster than 186,000 mps.

The goofs say that electrical flow is slightly less than 186,000 mps. Only an absolute buffoon thinks that electrons in metal wires travel THROUGH metal atoms at nearly that speed. Like, um, when you flick the light switch on, they travel through atoms at that speed, but then come to a FULL STOP (???), as soon as the light switch is turned off. What a bunch of morons. How do electrons stop so suddenly? Do they have brakes or parachutes? If they are freely flying through the VAST SPACES within atoms, which spaces the goofs wrongly imagine, what brings electrons to an instant stop?

Besides, it is not true that atoms are more than 99-percent space, only an absolute moron teaches that to the world. Farce upon farce to prop up false farces, it's not flattery or respect they deserve.

Bare protons, which do not exist in nature, will attract available free electrons only until the very outer electrons are held by as much protonic force as the inner electrons are repelling them outward (though gravity plays a role in repelling them too). Once the outer layer of captured electrons is balanced by equal attraction-verses-repulsion force, it means that the outer layer of atoms is net-neutral, unable to attract more electrons. As you can glean, the specific strength of protonic attraction determines the size of the atom when fully dressed with an electron atmosphere.

There are no proton clusters as the goofs imagine, for protons repel each other, duh. Not all protons are identical, but there are over a 100 different types (one each per element) each with their own positive-force levels. The stronger the proton, the larger the atom will be.

With the outer layers of atoms keeping their captured electrons in balance between attraction-versus repulsion, they are barely hanging on to the proton. Outer electrons, and to some unknown depth into the atom, hover in space, for while the proton attracts them inward to itself, the captured electrons repel each other outward such they they are denied physical contact with each other. They are in "contact" only by their mutual repulsion forces, and this situation amounts to near-zero friction, when anything attempts to move them. So, if an electron grazes an atom on its edge (as opposed to striking dead-on), it will sail through the captured electrons easily, moving them aside easily.

The deeper into the atom from the outer layer, the greater the friction when trying to move the electrons, for example by electricity flow, which is a literal flow of electrons. For, the closer the electrons to the proton, the more strongly they are held by it. It will take more work to move the deeper electrons. Therefore, electrical flow is a literal flow of captured electrons across the edges / peripheries of atoms. Electrical flow takes the easiest route available, on the very outer edges of atoms where friction is eased.

Most atoms do not allow electrical flow, not because their outer electrons are held too tightly to allow flow, but, I reason, because they have the "wrong" shapes to allow electrical flow. If the outer electrons of one atom are pushed ahead into the center region of a neighboring the atom, rather than pushed ahead such that they graze an outer edge, it could stifle atom-to-atom flow. For example, spherical atoms that are not merged deeply would not allow flow from atom edge to atom edge, but would push electrons into the central regions of atoms, creating chaos rather than an atom-to-atom "river."

As soon as one flips on an electrical switch, captured electrons move, atom-to-atom, toward the light bulb. They transfer, atom-to-atom, what else? There is no other option. Duh. The atoms do not move. They are locked into position. Only the electrons flow, literally like water in a water hose. But the electrons do not move toward the light bulb at anywhere near the speed of light; only a moronic physicist teaches this, who isn't really thinking. They are simply believing what they were brainwashed to believe and teach. Brainwashing and educating are similar processes, but brainwashing involves misleading tricks. "Brainwashing" is brain fooling.

If the water hose is full of water, water will start coming out the end of the hose as soon as the tap is turned on 50 feet away. Let's say that, due to friction in the hose, water starts coming out the hose one-millionth of a second after the tap is turned on. Nobody in their right mind is going to say that water travelled 50 feet in one-millionth of a second. Instead, water travels an atomic diameter in a millionth of a second, from the last water atom in the hose, out the hose end. Water is already at the hose end, no need to wait for water at the tap to arrive to the hose outlet.

Electricity works in the same way, wherefore a physicist is brainfooled to think that it travels at nearly the speed of light. I don't care if the electrical wire is 100 miles long, it's filled with trains of electrons before the electricity is turned on, and the last train cars in the wire start pouring into an electrical tool, regardless of how fast or slow the electron flow is, the instant the power is turned on. There's no need to wait for the electrons in the switch to arrive to a light bulb before the bulb shines.

Ditto for light waves. They travel through the free electrons in your room. As soon as they start emitting from the filament in the light bulb, there are already free electrons at your eye. No need to wait for the electrons at the filament to arrive to your eye, they start coming into your eye the instant the electrons at the filament push the train of electrons that includes the one right beside your eye.

However, the light wave from a light bulb is not a literal flow of electrons in the way water flows from tap to outlet. Electrons emitting from the light source are repelled upward by gravity, and do not flow toward the light targets along the light-wave lines. On the other hand, electrons emitted from the sun do flow in conjunction with light waves in the same directions, for solar gravity repels electrons in the same directions as the waves are going out. Light from the sun is therefore like water through a hose, with both the water waves and water molecules travelling in the same direction. The light wave acts as if (though not literally) travelling at more than 186,000 mps, but the flow of solar electrons is much slower.

Light waves go out in all directions from the light source, and as each wave essentially has equal force in the forward direction, they all keep one another going in straight lines. There's not one wave with more sideways force to shift any wave to the right or to the left. They all TRAIN straight. If they did not go in straight lines, they create a foggy appearance, like when light goes through foggy, semi-transparent plastic. Due to being re-directed by the plastic atoms, the light waves don't go in straight lines, thus distorting the picture when the light has exited the opposite side of the plastic.

If light were from photons penetrating glass, zikers, they would strike zillions of glass atoms and not go straight though. There is no way for straight-shooting photon particles to avoid striking atoms when attempting to penetrate glass. You can prove this by the very fact that most materials do not allow light to pass through. That's because the atoms disallow it like a concrete wall to a tennis ball. If light were a straight-shooting photon that had to avoid glass atoms, light could never be crisp-and-clear out the other side of a glass pane. Therefore, the stupids, the brainfooled, rather than discard the photon by which they were brainwashed, decided that glass is more than 99-percent space...as if this allows photons to penetrate straight. IT DOES NOT, but it's a trick made for brainfooling. Even with 99-percent less glass atoms, the remainder are sufficient in numbers to be a concrete wall to photons, expected to bounce as many photons backward out the glass as those allowed chaotically forward through the glass.

That's how you can know that light through transparent materials is a literal light wave across the outer electrons of their atoms. For a reason(s), transparent materials allow waves to go in straight lines, atom-to-atom. I can only give this for the reason: because God is a genius. Give credit to Where credit is due, evolutionist finks, or pay the eternal price. Admit that you have been a fink and an utter fool, and work to receive the grace of God first by acknowledging Jesus. I'm not going to beg you to save your soul if you don't care for it. The time for making the right choice will soon be over. Fear God.

I suggest that light can penetrate glass at absolute zero temperature. The latter is wrongly defined by physics establishments. In reality, absolute zero is when there are zero free electrons, both in the atomic spaces of materials, and in space outside of materials. Light cannot penetrate a space having no free electrons, and so it cannot penetrate a space at absolute zero.

However, the goofs tell us the following at a google offering: "Absolute zero represents the lowest possible temperature, where molecular motion [their definition of heat] is at its minimum. However, light, composed of photons, does not have mass and travels without needing a medium, so it's not directly affected by temperature in the same way matter is. A light source, like a flashlight, could still emit light at absolute zero if it had the necessary energy."

There you see the physics establishment speaking its theories as though they were the truths. A photon, they say, has no problem flying through a vacuum regardless of its temperature. And that's correct, the only problem being that there are no photons. But what I want to know is what has been found in actual experiments at near-absolute zero. Can light penetrate such a vacuum or not? No gas can exist at absolute zero. That temperature necessitates a vacuum.

The quote above implies that light has been found incapable of travel through absolute zero, but it plays a trick, blaming it on the breakdown of the flashlight battery. No, it's because light needs a wave medium, and that medium is heat. There's no end to playing tricks in farceland science. Put the flashlight outside of a container having vacuum at absolute zero. It'll work fine, but its light won't go through the vacuum.

Light is not electromagnetic energy. They are playing a trick on your brain again. Light is the PHYSICAL energy of an emitting electron transferred, free electron to free electron, to a target. The magnetism between electrons is NOT the reason for the appearance of light. Light is seen when the electrons jolt physically inside your eyes. They invented "electromagnetic energy" as part of their photon-wave duality. google's AI says: "Light is electromagnetic because it's a form of electromagnetic radiation, specifically a type of wave composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. These fields are at right angles to each other and to the direction of the wave's movement." If you understand that, you are a lunatic.

The light wave is an effect, not the literal flow. Like if you hit one end of a chisel with a "flowing" hammer, the opposite end of the chisel effects the rock instantly with the hit, even though the hammer would take some time to reach the rock (if the chisel were not in the way). The effect of the light wave goes much further, per second, than the flow of electrons out of the light source. Same as when you hit a drum with a drumstick, the sound wave "moves" much faster than the drumstick. There's two things happening, the strike, and the wave from the strike. A stone strikes water, a wave goes out. The wave carries the strike to a distance. The strike energy transfers from A to B in all directions possible, and lands on atomic things, pushing them. A wave is extended PHYSICAL force. There's no lunacy in this explanation, no imaginary, magneto-electro-thingies travelling at right angles to each other, no burning your brain to a crisp.

In a light wave: as soon as the emitting electron moves toward the next electron in the line, the second one starts to move thanks to the repulsion forces between them. Free electrons are always under stress of their mutual repulsion forces. They are always seeking to get away from each other such that, if one moves toward another, the latter starts to move instantly, because they are in "contact."

Only when a small sequence of free electrons (existing between two atoms) strikes an air atom does the light wave receive some backlash. BUT, not much, for the outer electrons upon atoms are almost free electrons themselves, barely held to the proton. Therefore, when an atoms gets struck on its lit half by a multitude of light waves at any given instant, the waves continue around the periphery of the atom and issue out its non-lit half. This is what makes air atoms "transparent." The light wave maintains straightness by circling each atom, then issuing out the atom at the direct-opposite end from the center of the lit half. The waves then continue in a straight line in the free-electron aether until striking another atom, and so on, the waves circle that atom too. STRAIGHT-LINE LIGHT, in spite of circling atoms. God is a genius, otherwise air would not allow me to see you clearly, or at all.

The waves do not bounce off of air atoms, aside from a small fraction, but encircle them. A photon is not capable of that because it is a projectile in a vacuum (i.e. not in a wave medium), expected to ricochet off of an atom, whether you envision my atom or the loony bird's atom of clustered protons and orbiting electrons.

Stored Photons Are For Stupid, Electron-Deniers

Where do photons come from in the light of lightning strikes? Are we to believe that photons travelling at 186,000 mps second are somehow stored upon atoms, and that they shoot out instantly as soon as a lightning bolt is formed? If not, where do the photons come from that form the light of lightning? Alas, photons do not exist, don't be stupid on stupid. Everyone should start offending and slandering evolutionist physics. It is responsible for atrocious "science," and its gurus deserve no respect. THEY ARE DETERMINED IDIOTS.

All light is formed by emitting electrons, usually emitting from atoms. I can't yet explain the mechanics of the explosion that is a lightning strike, but I know that some forceful thing jolts some electrons out of air and/or water molecules to form the light of lightning. I can therefore predict that there can be no lightning in a vacuum. And it's true:

No, lightning as we know it, a visible discharge of electricity, cannot occur in a vacuum. Lightning in a vacuum is not possible because it depends on the ionization of gas molecules... (google offering).

Ionization of atoms, in this case, means that atoms are temporarily losing captured electrons (they instantly re-load because the air is filled with free electrons). The electric current that is the lightning jolts electrons off of the atoms. Light forms.

But the loss of electrons from atoms is not in itself expected to make noise, because emitted electrons cause light waves, not sound waves. I suppose it's logical that thunder forms when water molecules are split apart, by lightning's current, into separate O and H atoms that then EXPLODE (i.e. make the thunder noise) and return to water molecules. It's known that even a small spark can explosively burn hydrogen, in the presence of oxygen, such that the two turn into water as the exhaust.

I'll take a stab at the mechanism that begins the lightning bolt. When water molecules unite / bond in a cloud to form droplets, they release captured electrons without commotion. The cloud environment becomes so highly charged with negative charge that all neighboring atoms in the air see their captured electrons repelled to the far sides of atoms, the sides furthest from the highly-negative region. Therefore, the sides of the atoms more or less facing the ground acquire a surplus of captured electrons while the sides of atoms facing the cloud are left with a deficiency of captured electrons.

To put it another way, the sides of atoms facing the cloud's highly-negative region can now be considered positively charged. Electrons from within the highly-charged, electron-stacked region therefore jump to the atoms, one at a time, but super-fast from cloud to ground. It's amazing that the process goes so fast, but it's due to the highly-charged region preparing all atoms by making their one side net-positive. As soon as the electrons-in-cloud jump to the first atom, the electrons at the ground-facing side of the same atom are forced to jump to the next atom in the line, and so on until the line engages a tree or other object.

So, perhaps now we have one of the reasons for the invention of the impossible orbiting electron, said to orbit at nearly the speed of light. I suppose the dingbats needed to explain how photons could magically appear out of atoms from flames, for example, or when electrons move through a metal wire, or when electrons cause the stove element to glow. I suppose they envisioned photons magically piggy-backing on orbiting electrons at all times, and then the electrons spit them out at 186,000 mps when the electrons go under duress, when emitting from the stove element, or from a light bulb's thin wire, or from flames. NO, STUPIDS. It's the emitting electrons that cause light, when striking the aether. STUPIDS, you've made fools of yourselves.

google's AI: "In flames, photons originate from the movement and interactions of electrons within the atoms of the burning material. When atoms are heated, electrons can jump to higher energy levels (excited states). When these electrons return to their lower energy levels, they release the excess energy as photons, which are particles of light. " When they say "jump to higher energy levels," they envision electrons orbiting in higher orbits. NO, STUPIDS, don't do it. Refrain yourselves. You did wrong to reject the aether, JUST ADMIT IT. The solar wind is the aether. Einstein should have known it. He should have known that HOT solar atoms emit electrons.

When light bounces off the wall, the stupids envision photons bouncing off of electrons. The electrons are able to catch them, go into a higher orbit CLEANLY, as if a plane crash were a beautiful thing, then release the photons as if nothing happened, then go back to a lower orbit and take a break for a whole zillionth of a second, then do it all over again as soon as the next photon flies by.

Ya-but, in the case of flames, light filaments, stove elements, and lightning strikes, where no addition of photons is granted in order to allow the stupids an off-the-wall explanation, they have got to envision (an hallucination) that the electrons somehow grab photons as they come in from any direction possible, then store them into their back-packs for long periods (how long?), and, for no logical known reason, they throw them away as soon as they (the electrons) start to leave atoms by force of their inter-repulsion.

BUT STUPIDS, why not just view the emitted electrons as the "photons"? I know exactly why: because the evolutionists brainfooled their students to believe that there is no aether. The evolutionists didn't want an aether. They wanted big-bang speed instead.

Instead of logic, they picked fantasy. Instead of admitting that speedy photons striking speedy orbiting electrons will destroy atoms in the process, they chose a convenient scenario in which the electrons simply absorb photons, even if they collide HEAD-ON at fantastic speeds. To make it more credible, they assigned the photon near-zero mass, and once the population was groomed into swallowing that idea, they moved on to exactly zero mass, an impossibility.

How long can photons piggy-back on electrons? Forever. For as long as your light bulb is turned off, the photons are supposedly on the electrons. If, after a thousand years, someone flips the light switch on, voila, photons start shooting from the electrons. NOOOO, STUPIDS, DON'T DO IT. There are electrons shooting off from the filament, and physicists know it.

Asking google, "do electrons come from a filament," the response is: "Yes, electrons can be emitted from a heated filament in a process called thermionic emission." By "THERMionic," they mean that heated objects emit electrons. But, shameless creatures that they are, they never venture to tell the people that the electrons are the "photons." And that's why they insist that the solar wind doesn't engulf earth's atmosphere with free electrons, that you might not realize what's truly taking place at the atomic level in thermionic emission, and that you might not equate heat with electron material.

Infra-red LIGHT is HEAT because light emission emits heat particles, i.e. freed electrons. Heat is electron gas. It enters everything. All atoms store heat as captured electrons. Get with the program. Freely share these truths, Creationists, make stubborn and delinquent donkeys of evolutionists.

Van Allen Pools

Wikipedia: "Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet..." Then, google AI: "The Earth's magnetic field lines extend from the North Pole to the South Pole, creating a magnetic field that traps charged particles." Baloney. There are no magnetic field lines even around a standard magnet, and the earth is not a magnet. There is no "field" there. Therefore, the van-Allen "belts" are formed by some other method.

The electrons that make up the belts (ignore invented, cosmic particles that do not exist in the solar wind) are not "trapped" by the magnetic field lines, as claimed, for "trapped" suggests that attractive and repulsive forces are both acting on the electrons such that they can't come closer to earth nor further from earth than where the belts exist. However, this ignores that the negative particles should be fully attracted to the positive pole, and vice-versa. How can that situation be avoided? Exactly half the solar wind moving toward the earth comes toward the northern hemisphere, and half toward the southern hemisphere. Therefore, almost half all these electrons would be receiving attraction force if the earth is made of two magnetic poles.

But it gets worse for the tricksters because, while one earth pole attracts the electrons to itself, the other earth pole repels them such that the electrons are compelled all-the-more to end up at the pole that attracts them. There is no logic in the claim that electrons should be captured in mid-space, midway between the poles of the earth magnet. But this is what the magicians would have you believe on the basis that you trust them due to their being super-capable for delivering to you the truth. It's not scientific capability that delivers truth, but honesty.

If we put an iron filing, which is thin and long, beside a long, rectangular magnet midway between its poles, one end of the filing gets attracted by one pole of the magnet by as much force as the other end of the filing gets attracted by the other end of the magnet (that's because the filing is temporarily turned, by the magnet, into a magnet itself, with two poles of its own of opposite charges). The filing is trapped midway between the two poles of the magnet, fine and dandy, but only because someone put the filing midway between the poles. But if the filing were sailing along on its own, closer to the south pole, then it would NOT get trapped midway between the poles. Therefore, the magicians are playing a trick on you, denying you the full picture.

But it gets worse for them because electrons sailing along in the solar wind are not magnets; they do not, as filings do, have both a south and north pole. They cannot therefore get trapped midway between poles. Nor can naked protons because they too are not bi-polar magnets. Case closed. You are being lied too, tricked.

The longitudinal iron filing above is positioned by the magnet parallel with the longitudinal body of the magnet because it is midway between poles. The filing is pulled by equal force to both poles, and as such the filing partakes in a small part of what is called a "field line." But this supposed magnetic field line does not exist as an entity to itself. It's just that iron filings HAPPEN to take on positions that create a curve line from one end of the magnet to the other. No invisible field lines exist apart from these filings. The magnetic field exists, but it's not shaped in lines from one end of the magnet to the other.

Only the filings create the lines according to how much they are attracted to one pole versus how much they are attracted by the other pole, itself depending on how close or far they are to either pole. The closer they are to a pole, the closer they are situated to the magnet's body. The filings furthest from the magnet body are situated exactly midway between poles. The closer the filings are to a pole, the closer they get to the magnet's body precisely because they get closer to the attraction force of the pole. There's stronger attraction there as compared to filings midway between poles. Thus, this situation, wherein filings get progressively closer to the magnet body with closeness to a pole is what creates the curvature of a line of filings.

Neither lone electrons nor lone protons in outer space can be attracted to both earth poles, even if earth did have two poles of opposite charges. CASE CLOSED. They lie with a trick. They show you field lines with iron filings and then want you to believe that solar-wind particles have exactly the same situation.

The closer the filing to one end of the magnetic, the more it points directly to that end, not because it's trapped in a magnet's field line, but because its positive end is attracted more to the magnet's negative end than the filings negative end is attracted to the magnet's positive end. But, again, electrons do not have two poles of opposite charges...meaning that solar electrons strike the atmosphere, and enter it. People can get the impression that solar electrons define solar heat, and all other heat, therefore.

Multiple curved and DISTINCT lines can be made with the filings, not because multiple magnetic lines exist there, but because the negative ends of filings repel the negative ends of filings while the positive ends of filings repel positive ends of filings. The filings repel each other across their full length, and as such they create some distance from one another, giving the illusion of multiple "field LINES."

It's not just upper air atoms that force solar-wind electrons to curve around the earth such that they accumulate in "belts." The solar electrons already filling the air repel incoming solar electrons, and so they repel them upward. The more dense the electrons in the air, the more they can repel them away into space. The denser the atmospheric electrons, the hotter the air. Therefore, the equatorial zones can repel more electrons than the arctic zones, which can easily explain why the Van-Allen belts form roughly around the equator.

They say: "...the belts are primarily centered around the geomagnetic equator." Achem, there is no magnetic equator. It's in their imagination. The electrons get deflected based on the physics of the situation. The earth spins on its axis, and thus the atmosphere spins with the earth, deflecting the electrons into the direction of the spin (eastward) more than into the opposite direction. The tilt of the planet at any given time determines how close to the geographical equator the belts will form. In our summer, the belts form more to the north of the equator, and vice-versa for winter. The "belts" should be defined as an accumulation or pool of free electrons, but "belt" is favored, I suppose, because it compliments "field lines" i.e. shaped long and thin.

Never assume that what they draw on paper, or by computer animation, is the total reality. Don't expect that everything we're taught about these belts is based on experimental facts versus what they believe by theory. And even when they cite experimental facts as evidence for their theories, they can misinterpret the realities, and often they do to the tune of becoming science lunatics.

The electrons in the pools are not captured at all. They freely sail away further into space. They get accumulated, but not due to being captured magnetically. The pools thin out because earth gravity repels electrons further out into space.

The so-called "South Atlantic Anomaly" over southern South America is where they claim the belts are closest to the earth due to a portion of the magnetic field lines being closest to the earth over South America. The correct way to interpret this, in my expectations, is that there is a high positive charge under South America that attracts solar wind electrons. However, I don't know much about this. It sounds incorrect to me that a part of the van-Allen belts hang above South America even while South American spins around daily with the earth.

As solar and earth gravity repel solar-wind electrons, earth gravity must be a negative charge from free-electron pools in the earth's crust. If the electrons are going free of atoms undergoing some normal chemical change, the earth would not become net-negative. The only way to make the earth and sun net-negative is by continual destruction (or partial-destruction) of protons that hold captured electrons. When freed from crippled protons, they melt the rocks. As positive charge decreases with their crippling, the earth becomes net-negative. Proof that protons are being destroyed/crippled is the net-negative charge that repels solar electrons many miles into the sky. One needs a colossal negative charge to accomplish that. Rubbing a stick with your hand won't do.

The earth does not progressively become more net-negative, over time, due to a continual destruction of protonic material, for if this were the case, gravity would become stronger, and things would weigh more. Rather, the freed electrons from the protons work their way through the magma / rocks and, after coming out of the ground as ground heat, they fly away into space. The heat working through, but temporarily trapped in the rocks, is thus the definition of gravity. The earth's and sun's gravity is only as strong as the destruction of protons allows at any given time. Gravity is from a "machine" cleverly devised by The Genius. Woe to His enemies, who rob Him of what belongs to Him.

The soil is known to be net-positive in that it attracts electricity, but this is due merely to ground water, or to the ingredients in water that make it conductive to electricity. Deeper down, in the crust, the earth is net-negative. If it were not, the electrons issuing from the filament of a light bulb, or the heat entering any object, would not rise upward more than going into any other direction.

Gravity causes heat to rise, face it, goofballs, it's in your face sticking its tongue out at you. There's still time for the Grace of God to come upon you, if you confess that your many goof-ups are not the way to continue, if you try to make amends to Him by sinning no more.

They call the particles of the Van-Allen belts "charged magnetic particles" in hopes that you will not dwell on their being electrons. But they are not magnetic in the sense of having two poles. They are tricking you.

Challenging google's Artificial "Intelligence"

This section tells why I call atomic physicists, "goofballs," because they are, in the eyes of common logic, intolerable lunatics obedient to the fiction of Godless, cosmic evolution.

To show that google AI is nothing much more than a human mocking bird, I asked it: "can protons cluster at atomic cores?" The true answer is a logical, no, because they repel each other, what could be more straight forward? But AI responded just like a puppet or recording of an evolutionist dingdong, even maintaining that neutrons are true particles, which they are not. Instead, they are particles invented in hopes of rectifying problems with the fictional atomic model of the evolutionists:

Yes, protons can cluster within atomic cores (nuclei). Protons and neutrons, collectively called nucleons, are the building blocks of the nucleus...The strong nuclear force binds these nucleons together, holding the nucleus together despite the repulsive electromagnetic forces between protons.

There you go, proof that AI doesn't literally think for itself, but responds as programmed to respond. It cannot tell us how the "strong nuclear force" holds protons in a cluster, and neither can anyone prove that such a force exists. Nobody can demonstrate a force that counters repulsion force. It's a fantasy invented because evolutionists decided that cosmic evolution needs an all-protons-are-identical fantasy. Otherwise, if cosmic evolution didn't need this quackery, it wouldn't have been invented and pushed for undeniable fact.

The only alternative model, which does away for the need for a strong nuclear force, is the model I claim to be fact: every one of the 100-plus elements has its own, unique proton, one proton per atomic core, no neutrons needed either. How could anyone argue against this model? What goof would insist that, no, we must have all protons identical, each element having a different number of protons in a cluster? Anyone can readily see the problem, but it benefits the big-bang Frankenstein because every atom can be deemed a multiple of an H atom, important for a "logical" approach to the teaching of the evolution of stars, because they are made of hydrogen atoms.

The goofs deemed it's more credible for the big bang to produce all protons exactly alike such that all atoms are simply multiples, roughly, of one hydrogen atom. This was the premise that evolutionists chose, and, I suppose, Creationists were lulled into accepting their views under political pressure, for evolutionists have always played politics with their theories, and with their specialized experiments supposedly proving their erroneous theories to be facts.

Try to imagine how mighty their proton must be where it can hold an electron in orbit at the near speed of light. Imagine what great centrifugal force there would be that wants to fling the electron out of orbit. Yet, they claimed that these protons do not inter-repel each other away. The big question I pose, therefore: why don't we examine the alternative theory, one proton per element, each proton different in one or more ways?

Next, I asked google AI: "can electrons orbit protonic cores?" Of course they can't, only a lunatic thinks this, and so AI, if it wants to be respected, should have answered, "are you kidding me?" Instead:

Yes, electrons can [just easy as pie] orbit protonic cores. While it's a simplified model, the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom, which is composed of protons and neutrons, is a fundamental concept in understanding atomic structure.

Surely, you can see how laughable this idea is. Surely, you assented to this orbital "fact" because you've been guilty of follow-the-leader, which is the politics that evolutionists played. Anyone who didn't follow the evolutionist guru was made to fail science class, you see. They didn't get hired much to do physics-related work. The lunatics marred others as lunatics who didn't stay the course of their "facts." Society was forced to adopt fantasies by the scores of arguments made on their behalf, and science idols were made to push those fantasies. Anyone who pushed the fantasies with experimental proof has been idolized, made to appear super-intelligent to this day. Who are you, commoner-know-nothing, to buck against such brainy idols?

google AI is dishonest, simply repeating the knowledge of the anti-Christs which programmed it. How do you think humanity will fare as more and more human problems are assigned to AI for rectification?

Next, I asked: "how can electrons enter an orbit?" The response doesn't answer the question but vaguely because the quacks don't have one that the general public will swallow if attempted:

Electrons enter orbits through a process where they absorb energy, typically in the form of photons. This absorbed energy allows the electron to jump to a higher energy level, or orbital, further from the nucleus. Lower, more stable orbits are visualized as being closer to the nucleus, while higher, less stable orbits are further away.

Telling us that electrons enter orbits by absorbing photon energy does NOT answer the question. We would like to know: how does photon energy create an orbit? Nobody can answer that question without looking like an illogical fool. Go ahead and try to convince yourself that a photon striking an electron NECESSARILY puts it into orbit around an atomic nucleus. That's ludicrous.

Explain like a scholar the possible mechanics of an orbiting electron tossing away a photon just because the electron goes into a "lower" orbit (closer to the core). You are going to appear like an idiot if you use straight-forward street language. The only way to avoid looking like an idiot is to use special but vague words mixed with confusion that give the appearance of your being above the commoner-crowd, super-intelligent...which is a typical magician's trick that evolutionist play.

Here's the street language: photons regularly strike electrons at just the right speeds, at just the right angles, in accordance to their specific heights above atomic cores at the time of striking, to put electrons into perfect orbits. See the problem? I'm trying to make a near impossibility appear simple, naturally expected or easy to accomplish. If I invented this theory and called it a fact, you would call me a lunatic, but if the guards of physics invent it, and protect it with smooth talk, people swallow it whole. Fools breed fools.

They tell us that photons have no mass, and then suggest that photons fling electrons around protonic cores. How? With zero mass, how can the photon's speed-energy give an electron its own colossal speed?

Or, if the moon had a colossal volcanic explosion such that rock material spewed into space, by what mechanics would it go to a lower orbit, closer to the earth? It could just as possibly go into a higher orbit. What logic is there that electrons spewing photons ALWAYS go to lower orbits? It's fantasy, it doesn't happen. We clearly need a new atomic model with an non-orbiting electron.

AI is going to make a total embarrassment out of modern atomic physics when it can't answer questions such as I'm tasking it with. I asked: "where does the electron get its orbital motion"? Instead of answering the question, it pretends to, but in reality it only describes the orbit as being in balance between protonic attraction and electron speed (kinetics):

Electrons obtain their orbital motion from a balance of attractive and kinetic forces within an atom. The nucleus, carrying a positive charge, attracts the negatively charged electron. However, the electron also possesses kinetic energy, which keeps it from collapsing into the nucleus. This interplay results in the electron existing in a stable, orbiting state.

It didn't answer the question, because the quacks have no way to explain the creation of an electron orbit without looking like fools. The response simply assumes that the electron has orbital velocity. Ya-but, how does it get that kinetic energy??? The response uses a trick by saying, "within an atom." That is, it pretends that the electron gets its speed from the speedy electron within the atom. It's trying to fool you with confusion, hoping you're not paying attention. The electron cannot get its velocity from "kinetic forces within an atom" because the electron is the only kinetic/moving part of their atom. The core is stationary in relation to the orbital electron. The latter can't get its orbital motion, at any speed, from the attractive force of the proton, because the latter can only attract it to a dead stop upon the proton surface. AI is therefore lying to us because evolutionists are lying to us. AI is a lying machine when programmed to lie.

When asking the dummy machine, "where does the electron get its kinetic energy," it now turns to the motion of a free electron in an electrical wire, which supposedly flies through atoms down the electrical wire, no longer in orbit. Ya-but, when the electricity is turned off, the flying electron stops flying. What does it do then? Does it sit there, or does it start orbiting another atom. Wasn't it orbiting an atom before someone turned on the electric power? How do zillions of electrons go from flying straight down the wire into perfect orbits again? That's quackery.

AI responds to the question above like a person deflecting to a different topic, now taking shelter in the kinetic energy of electrons in electric wires, totally ignoring the kinetic energy in orbits:

"Electrons gain kinetic energy from the electric fields created by potential differences in a circuit. When a voltage is applied, it creates an electric field that pushes the free electrons, causing them to move from the negative to the positive terminal. This movement is what gives them kinetic energy. "

Imagine electrons in orbit around the atoms of a copper wire, when suddenly the big magnet at the electric plant repels them down the wire toward the light bulb. The electrons are going from spinning dizzy at nearly the speed of light to straight-flying , and the quacks haven't got sense enough not to pass this lunacy onto the students. See my last update for what's really happening to electrons inside a metal wire.

Next question for AI: "do electrons break orbits in electrical wires?" Look at how dishonest the wackos are:

No, electrons don't "break orbits" in the way you might think of them as orbiting a nucleus in a traditional atomic model. In a conductor like a wire, electrons are more like a "sea" of delocalized electrons that move within the metal's structure. When an electric field is applied, these electrons are pushed along the wire, creating a current.

So, the evolutionists programmed the AI computer to just skip the problematic fact that copper atoms have orbiting electrons prior to the straight-running of electrons when electric current is fed to the wire. JUST SKIP IT, don't put it into anyone's head that orbiting electrons start flying straight ahead only to go back into orbits the instant they stop flowing. Let's not tell anyone that part, and hope they're too stupid to realize the problem.

We might be getting the impression that, for copper wire, electrons don't orbit at all. Let's ask: "what happens to electrons when electric current is shut off?" We now find that the imposters would rather deny orbiting electrons than admit to them:

When an electric current is switched off, the flow of electrons stops, but the electrons themselves remain in the material. Since there's no longer a force pushing them, the electrons return to a more stable state, which means they're not moving as much as when they were part of a current.

Not moving as much? What does that mean? They don't go into orbits, they just stay in place with their engines vibrating? They don't orbit? Have the goofs just thrown their hands into the air to admit that electrons don't orbit in electric conductors? If so, why is it necessary for any atom to have orbiting electrons? Why can't all atoms have stationary electrons (until something forces them to move)? But of course. And why not?

The morons claim 29 orbiting electrons per copper atom. Imagine the crash-bang congestion as the magnet at the electric plant forces them out of orbits, and blows them down the wire such that they all strike atomic cores. How possibly could they avoid crashing into atomic cores, and how do you imagine the situation as they move at near light speed when crashing? Laughable farce.

AI says: "In metals, the outermost electrons of the atoms are not tightly held by any single atom but rather form a 'sea' of free electrons." That's my atomic model minus the orbiting electron, and minus the speed-of-light speed. I see protons surrounded by a sea, or atmosphere, of countless electrons (a lot more than 29), with the outermost electrons barely hanging on to the proton, and thus they easily transfer atom to atom down the wire, when pushed. BUT, my atom has STATIONARY electrons rather than orbiting, and so now you're being fed LOGIC. Swallow it, it's good for you.

So, the goofs have invented "free electrons" in metals to act as the ones producing electricity. BUT WAIT. How exactly do their free electrons behave when the electricity is shut off? If not in orbit, they should fall to the proton's surface. Therefore, indeed, they are quacks teaching quackery, that copper electrons are forced out of orbit to fly straight, then re-enter orbits as if easy as pie. If some physicists claim that the running electrons don't go back into orbits, then they need to explain how electrons can be stationary upon atoms, and that's my atomic model.

They program the AI computer to say: "Copper atoms have one valence electron that is easily dislodged and becomes a free electron." If you then ask whether valence electrons orbit, the answer is, yes. A lie. An impossibility. Making fools of themselves. Mistreating you. Taking you for their fool.

Imagine a bulb filament as a bridge 100 lanes wide. The copper wire is thousands of lanes wide each having electron-cars screeching rubber down the road. When they get to the filament, the ramps there cram them all into 100 lanes suddenly such that the congestion on the bridge tosses many of the cars off the bridge, into the gas of the bulb, as heat and light. What happens to these electrons now? Do they start to orbit the gas atoms? No. Where do they go? Are they still travelling at nearly the speed of light inside the bulb? Are the wackos wacko? Shouldn't they crack the glass at such speeds? How many times will they bang off the glass in one second, or before coming to rest?? Why shouldn't they come to rest? Or, do they start to orbit a glass atom? Why bother to answer these questions? Why delve into lunacy?

Let's ask google, "what happens to electrons boiling off a filament?"

When a filament is heated, electrons are "boiled off" in a process called thermionic emission...The released electrons form a negatively charged cloud around the filament.

LIAR! The electrons do not remain at the filament, but go through the bulb as heat. The filament is highly negative, and therefore repels electrons in the bulb. The electrons themselves repel each other, and as such they move through the glass of the bulb. If you keep the light bulb on for days straight, the bulb has not the room for all the boiled-off electrons (they are forced closer and closer, repelling harder and harder), and so it's TRUE that they go through the glass, and, of course, they go through as heat particles because free electrons define heat.

If they did not escape out the bulb, they would burst the bulb due to repulsive pressures. It's obvious, for heat has explosive power. If heat could not get out of the bulb, the bulb would quickly crack. Heat has explosive power, the very thing that causes explosions, because heat is inter-repelling electrons.

Noting that AI refused to answer how electrons form orbits, I re-worded the question as, "how do electrons enter orbits". But the schemers didn't answer that question either:

Electrons enter orbitals in a specific order determined by their energy levels, following the Aufbau principle. Electrons fill orbitals of lower energy first, and then move to higher energy orbitals.

That doesn't tell us HOW the electrons form orbits. It only tells us what formation the wackos think the electrons take. Plus, they have their situation backward from the logical expectation, meaning that they chose the illogical for an important reason. They have their situation backward thus: "Inner electrons in an atom generally move slower than outer electrons. This is because inner electrons are closer to the nucleus and experience a stronger electrostatic force, which restricts their movement." That's STUPID.

Ask any astronomer or satellite fixer, and they will tell you that, the closer to a planet a moon/satellite is, the faster it needs to orbit to maintain an orbit. But the wackos wanted it the other way around because they want to argue that light is formed when an electron has been placed into a higher, FASTER orbit. Ya-sure-sure. They say that, when a photon strikes an electron, the latter goes into a higher, faster orbit. Ya-ya, sure-sure. And when the higher electron throws the photon away, the electron settles back to a lower, slower orbit. SHAMELESS LAW BREAKERS.

Ahh, I've just fished out their trickery by asking: "can electrons be stationary in the atom?"

No, electrons in an atom cannot be stationary. Due to the strong electrostatic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons, stationary electrons would immediately fall into the nucleus, causing the atom to collapse.

This response has a cheap red herring. It's not true that, if electrons fall to the nucleus, the atom "collapses" i.e. gets destroyed. They want you to think so, but it's not true at all. Why should an atom be destroyed if many / countless electrons cover, and hover over, the proton? Rather, that is the true atom. They brainwash their peers and students into thinking that non-orbiting electrons make for non-atoms.

In reality, there is an aether of free electrons outside of every atom in existence. These free electrons are not the captured "free electrons" the goofs speak of in an electrical wire. My free electrons are fully free from protonic attraction, fully outside of atoms. When light waves move through this aether or sea of free electrons, they plunge aether electrons into the upper/outer layers of captured, stationary electrons. The light waves thus create commotion amongst captured electrons, causing them to bounce outward in all directions as reflected light. They create reflected light because the upward parts of their commotion strike aether electrons and thus send waves through the aether. No photons needed in or out of the atom, just ordinary, law-abiding, logical light waves.

There's only one other alternative to electron capture by orbitals: stationary, captured electrons. It's that simple to make goofs of the goofs. They know this alternative method of capture, of course, but they never so much as mention it let alone give reasons as to why it can't be the reality. They don't want anyone to know of this alternative, because they're crazy, not scientists.

When light strikes an atom, the atom "grows" larger because its stationary electrons are put into motion, causing the outer electrons to move a little further away from the proton. The electrons don't orbit higher, stupids, they bounce upward. The harder the light waves, the higher the electrons bounce, the harder the reflected light waves go out. The heavier and faster the rock into water, the higher the water splash. Reflected light is from the splashing of captured electrons after a free electron falls into the sea of captured electrons. It's that simple, why complicate it with impossible orbits and impossible photons?

No physical energy is needed inside the atom to form light, until light falls on the atom. Only then does the atom start to move with physical energy. Or, if the atoms are stirred to motion by some other method, such as a hammer against them, light will go out, as infra-red, due to the atomic motion at the surface of the hammer-struck material.

When we shine a light on a wall, say from a flashlight or a laser, the light enters the wall atoms from a straight-line attack, yet the light bounces out of every wall atom into ALL DIRECTIONS. That's because the captured electrons are bouncing chaotically i.e. into all directions.

The Air is Stacked With Electrons

The aether, which is easily proven to exist, is defined (my definition, my discovery) as inter-repelling free electrons. Due to their repulsion forces, they press in on every atom, assuring that outer captured electrons are smack beside the first free electrons into the aether. The atomic electrons don't need to bounce very high to send out light waves, therefore, because aether electrons are virtually kissing the atom's outer electrons. The aether is not some mysterious, ghostly thing. It's an electron gas (that does not form a liquid).

Asking google AI, "do electrons fill the air", tends to prove that the wicked are terrified of the people learning that electrons fill the air. AI responds, "No, electrons do not fill the air in the same way they fill an atom's energy levels." It's a trick answer to avoid answering. I didn't ask whether electrons fill the air in the way they orbit protons. The same response goes on:

Air is primarily composed of neutral molecules like nitrogen and oxygen, with their electrons bound within those molecules. While UV radiation and cosmic rays can knock electrons off these molecules, creating free electrons and positive ions, this is a temporary effect and these free electrons are not a continuous 'filling' of the air.

Note how they insist that air has NEUTRAL atoms. But when it comes to their explaining how gas atoms turn to liquid, they say that gas atoms attract. Asking, "do gas atoms attract to form liquids", the response is: "Yes, gas atoms and molecules do attract each other...When a gas is compressed or cooled, the increased pressure and decreased kinetic energy of the gas molecules allow their attractive forces to overcome the repulsive forces, causing them to condense into a liquid." They can't have it both ways, neutral on the one hand, attractive on the other. It means that AI is lying the lie of the evolutionists, especially as it can be proven that all gas atoms repel each other.

One cannot build a device to detect the electromagnet charge of air atoms if one builds the device in air, and sets it to zero charge in air. It's going to register zero charge in air, duh, which of course doesn't prove that air atoms are neutral in charge.

So, we read above that free electrons don't fill the air. It's a lie. Desperation is showing. The odd electrons they say, are removed off of atoms, but this is "temporary." Oh ya? Where do the positive-charged atoms get their electrons to become neutral again? You are being led to imagine that the electrons lost by atoms, by any means, come back to the same atoms. BALONEY. Again, where do electrons come from to re-load atoms having lost some?

I ask google: "do rubbed objects re-load with electrons from the air." Of course they do, if they lose them during the rubbing, but AI again show the desperation of the evolutionists:

"No, rubbed objects do not reload with electrons from the air. When two objects are rubbed together, electrons are transferred between the objects, not from the air. This transfer of electrons causes one object to become negatively charged (gains electrons) and the other to become positively charged (loses electrons)."

See the trick? I didn't ask whether electrons from the air participate in what goes on between rubbed objects. Why is it lying when saying, "No, rubbed objects do not reload with electrons from the air"? From where do they re-load, if not from the air? Is AI stupid, or did evolutionists SPECIALLY and DELIBERATELY program the google computer to deny re-loading from the air? Now you're onto them, fiends, liars, guardians of big-bang "science."

How much friction happens every day, every minute, in this world? Yet, every object that loses electrons in friction re-loads automatically no matter where it is. You can rub objects in the living room, then take them quickly to the kitchen to get them away from any electrons that may have slipped into the living-room air, yet the object will re-load in the kitchen too. YET, google's LYING MACHINE wants to teach that the air is not filled with free electrons. That's because evolutionists are desperate to protect their photon, and their kinetic theory of heat. Guardians of the Lies.

Some admit that there are free electrons in air, but only scanty. Nobody who wants to remain respected in this world will openly say that the air is an aether of electrons that defines heat and allows light waves. Any such person will be taken as an uneducated / rebellious radical by the wrongly-educated and rebellious wackos.

You can't build a device to detect electrons in air if you set it to zero electrons in air. Plus, even though there are many free electrons in a light bulb, equipment cannot detect them as a strong negative charge, meaning that they are too few to make the gas emit a negative charge. I asked google about the charge of a gas in a bulb, and got this response: "The gas inside a light bulb, such as argon, neon, or krypton, generally maintains a neutral overall charge. While the gases may contain some ions and free electrons during operation, the net charge remains close to zero." It implies some scanty negative charge.

When electrons are "boiled" (stupid term) off of a light-bulb filament, the last thing the finks want to admit is that they go lost through the bulb's glass, because the finks then need to explain where the copper wire gets its electrons back. From the air, of course. And now you know partly why AI gave the following answer to my question: "do electrons come out of a stove element?"

"No, electrons don't 'come out' of a stove element in the sense of leaving the material completely. Instead, they are part of the current that flows through the heating element, and they return to the circuit via the wiring."

That's a lie. The element glows for the same reason that the filament glows, due to the loss of electrons, but perish that thought, they want to minimize the opportunities for people to realize that electrons define heat. They will admit only that the electrons indirectly cause heat by first speeding up the atoms in the stove element. The only alternative is that the electrons leaking out of the element are the heat. Therefore, I'm not passing off a wacko theory, but a fact, because the kinetic theory of heat can be shown blatantly erroneous.

Heat will penetrate a vacuum just as well / easily as it penetrates a gas. How can this be explained unless heat were made of free electrons? I owned a 40-watt light bulb (by Sylvania) with vacuum, and it got very hot, at the top, as soon as it was turned on. It was only warm at the bottom. HOT ON TOP, only warm on the bottom. Nobody can credit this to photons, because they shoot equally in all directions. Nobody can credit this to the kinetic theory of heat because it necessitates that heat spreads equally in all directions.

As a vacuum gets about 95-percent or more of the air removed, the kinetic-heat transfer through the bulb should be reduced greatly in quantity and speed, if the goof theory is true that heat is from sped-up atoms. As heat flows normally through a vacuum, that's how you can know that electrons come out of a stove element, for the only way to explain heat through a vacuum is by electrons through a vacuum. Put a stove element into a vacuum, and set it on the lowest seating such that it doesn't emit light, and heat will fill it because free electrons fill it. They lie; electrons do come out of the element.

They are prisoners to their theories, always teaching "facts" in accordance with the predictions of their theories. They say: "Yes, a heating element can be used to heat a vacuum. However, it will heat the vacuum primarily through radiation, not convection or conduction, as these methods require a medium [gas] to transfer heat." Liars. The radiation strikes only the container walls, and any heat on those walls is not supposed to enter the vacuum, in their kinetic theory of heat. Yet the vacuum is itself filled with extra heat from the element. It's easy to prove. Put any hot item in a vacuum beneath some suspended butter, and watch the butter melt. It's going to melt just as fast in vacuum as in air.

Measure the temperature increase per minute in a gas-filled container, and it will be roughly the same as in the same container but with gas removed, proving that heat is not due to excitation of gas atoms.

LIARS. They know full well that, when they place a heating element in a vacuum, the container gets hottest by far directly above the heater, proving that something is propelling the electrons upward. Blinded by their kinetic theory, they fail to realize, or at least resist telling the world when they do realize it, that gravity repels electrons. There's nothing in a vacuum but the electrons and gravity force. Duh, what's wrong with the big-bang goofs that they should war against this obvious truth?

Asking youtube for "heat in vacuum experiment," precious little comes up. In the video below, someone removes air from a container and shows that the vacuum temperature goes down from 17 C to 11 C at the lowest, during evacuation to near-full vacuum, but then rises again. Both are expected because evacuating the air also evacuates free electrons, and allowing the vacuum to sit allows electrons to enter through the atomic spaces of the container's atoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hTAr2GkhpM

The vacuum should not have increased from 11C if heat is defined as the motion of atoms. The video owner claims that the temperature started to increase, from 11 to 15.9, not in the vacuum, but only at the sensor of the thermometer, and he wrongly claims that this heat came from the other parts of the thermometer. He believes that the heat in the thermometer cannot transfer into the vacuum.

You can tell he's a dishonest player because he didn't show us the vacuum's final temperature. He didn't claim that 15.9 is the final temperature, and, no doubt at all in my mind, the temperature would have soon-after climbed back up to 17 to match the temperature outside of the container, because that's the true source of the heat that was entering the thermometer's sensor. Heat was passing right through the vacuum.

He then goes on to give his audience the false impression that a vacuum in a thermos doesn't transfer any heat. That thermos would keep coffee just about as warm if it had an air gap instead of the vacuum gap. The vacuum has a slight advantage over the air gap because a vacuum can hold more heat particles than air i.e. it takes longer to heat the vacuum to a specific temperature as compared to an air gap.

In the video below (after 2:00 minutes), a red-hot ball is placed in a vacuum, which loses most of its glow after little more than a minute, even though only a minute amount of its heat can be transferring through the stand that it sits on. After two minutes, the glow was all but gone. Imagine how much heat is in that ball, transferring through the vacuum as fast and easy as making brute, lying apes of physicists. The container walls are warm all over, and so why didn't the diabolical, lying apes get a similar video online? Because, they are diabolical, not wanting to reveal it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lR3k0wf_iU&t=19s

The video owner above is once again the dishonest player that did the earlier video. He now apes the liars in saying that the container walls got hot via radiated heat. He's dishonest because he could do the experiment again using normal air, to show that the ball loses heat roughly at the same rate in both situations, and we know for sure that heat leaks off (i.e. not radiated heat) into the air/space when the container is filled with air. Nor did this dishonest player tell us that the ball would come down to room temperature even after it stopped radiating. But, dishonest player that he is, he would say that a ball, or anything else, radiates some heat even at near-room temperature.

Plus, if he was a good guy, he would have told us what he knew, that the container was hotter directly above the ball than anywhere else, proving that the ball was leaking heat into the space, for radiated heat (they imagine photons) goes in all directions equally. The only thing this ape wanted to do was ape his idols. He's not after truth if it muddies what his idols teach only to point to guilty finger at himself for his part in the idolatry.

If he made the vacuum space very cold by applying nitrogen gas to the exterior of the container, the same hot ball in a vacuum would lose its glow a lot sooner, which is not expected if the only heat loss is via radiation. This man is not after truth. He lies to you. He's not trying, but to give you the standard trash. If he were trying, he'd cover the ball to keep light from getting to the container walls, to prove whether heat is leaking into the space. It of course is. Or, try a large light bulb covered in tin foil, then feel the heat on the container walls.

Worldly people love to celebrate the heights of modern knowledge, not realizing what a sham it can be. It's known that flames emit electrons. google AI will confirm it. The dishonest player above heated the ball to glowing with a torch, and he therefore impregnated the ball with electrons freed from the flame. Therefore, the heat released into the vacuum was, not from the captured electrons of the ball's atoms, but from free electrons crammed into the atomic spaces by the flame.

Dishonest player didn't tell his viewers that the red ball's light was almost wholly going through the transparent container, meaning that most of the radiant heat was not absorbed by the container.

Here's another video having a light bulb in a vacuum, and the vacuum starts at the same temperature as the air outside of the vacuum. He allowed the vacuum to reach that same outer temperature before turning on the light bulb. How does that happen, do you think? Everything is screaming that the kinetic theory of heat is false, for after the bulb is shut off, heat leaves the vacuum through the container walls. At 5500-6000 microns, this fella has 99-percent of the air removed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv3V5XIJayA

Let's go back to examine a light-bulb filament. One second it doesn't shine with photons, the next minute is does even though no photons were put into the copper wire in that time period. The goofballs need to argue that the photons were in the copper wire all along, stored on the atoms. But this is not what they say when they tell what atoms consist of, because it's problematic. If the electrons were not orbiting at the near-speed of light, people would have a harder time believing that photons move at the speed of light, if they were simply parked on stationary electrons within the atom.

Did you see that? The photon was invented roughly at the time of the orbital model of the atom. They tend to teach that photons are continually moving at 186,000 mps without ceasing, as if this is just a natural trait of this particle, as if nothing can slow it down. I assume they teach that, when a photon strikes an electron, it bumps up its speed to 186,000 mph, for they do say that the electron "absorbs" extra energy when absorbing a photon. The photons doesn't crash violently into the electron, but gets ever-so-nicely absorbed because these men were crazy law-breakers.

We now go to any kind of combustible gas coming out a torch nozzle. We give it a spark, and boom, there's light whereas there's not light prior to the spark. The lunatics now need to teach that the gas atoms had photons built-in, but they come out forming light only in the combustion process. But if all types of gases and metal atoms have built-in photons, why shouldn't all atoms have them too? Isn't this problematic? Why should photons remain on atoms forever unless the atoms are undergoing the combustion process, or unless the electrons are being stressed out through a thin wire or semi-conductor like a stove element?

google's AI: "LED lights produce light through a process called electroluminescence. When an electrical current passes through a semiconductor, electrons and holes recombine, releasing energy in the form of light (photons)." Never mind the "holes," which don't exist anymore than orbiting electrons do. The point is, the semi-conductor material need to be viewed as having built-in photons that stay forever on the atoms until a magnet causes electrical flow across the atoms. Does that seem real to you?

How does an electron "absorb" it such that it just stays on the electron? The photon can come in on the electron from any random angle. Go ahead, explain to your satisfaction how the photon comes to piggy-back on the electron. Go ahead, be a moron, claiming that it happens even though you don't understand how, even though the odds are a zillion to one against it.

When electrons fly through atomic space in an electrical wire to your vacuum cleaner, they don't strike atomic cores only, but the captured electrons. How do the straight-shooting electrical electrons collide with the orbital electrons without knocking them out of orbit, or without knocking off their piggy-backing photons? Go ahead, be an absolute moron, and try to explain it.

There are all sorts of electrical uses that produce ZERO light. Why? What allows the photons to remain on the electrons whether the electrons orbit, or whether they are suddenly sent straight along the wire? It makes us wonder what sort of a monkey wrench it is for the traditional atomic model to simply and logically claim that the photon is really the electron.

Usually, electrical flow only produces minimal heat, because some captured electrons are leaking out of the wire. But when electrons are leaking profusely when forced to flow across an extremely thin wire, the filament, they produce bright light and much heat. Doesn't it sit better with you that light is produced by the emission of electrons from the atoms, no photons needed?

In combustion, the gas atoms merge with oxygen atoms. When atoms merge, their electron atmosphere's merge. Of course, in that process, the density of electrons increases in the shared, merged regions. When two gas atoms merge to form a liquid, their shared, merged region exactly doubles in density. Right? What's going to happen as electrons are forced much closer together in these merged regions? They will repel each other much more strongly, and as the protons can't hold them in the electron atmospheres, they inter-repel each other clear out of the atom. Thus, they emit from the atoms and cause heat or visible light.

It's known that all gas atoms emit heat when merging to produce liquid droplets. Exactly the same amount of heat is absorbed by atoms when they unmerge again into separate gas atoms during evaporation. That's because atoms reclaim the electrons they lost during merger. But where do these electrons come from if not from in the air? No matter where liquids evaporate, they re-load their electrons.

The quacks refuse to see electrons coming and going during atomic mergers and unmergers. In that case, they need another way to explain heat formation and heat absorption during mergers and unmergers. As they define higher heat as greater atomic motion, they need to claim that atoms move faster when merging into liquid droplets. But where's the logic? Where's the reason for faster speed when, for example, gravity forces two water molecules to merge on a leaf top as dew? There's no energy going into the water molecules to make them go faster just because gravity pulls them together.

Or, when a gas is compressed in a sealed container, it forms liquid, and gives off heat, even though there's nothing going on to make the gas atoms move faster. Clearly, heat is NOT from faster atoms. Or, if a piston goes in the other direction, allowing a gas to expand, it absorbs heat even though there's nothing happening to make the atoms move slower. What's really going on? They can't argue that heat increase is also due to more-condensed gas atoms because doubling the gas pressure, which doubles the number of atoms, nowhere-near doubles the temperature.

There's only one explanation as the alternative when liquid formation releases heat, and that's because electrons go free from atoms during the merger of their electron atmospheres. Both heat and light are formed when electrons emit from atoms because heat formation emits some light, usually invisible. And the only way for electron emissions to produce light is via an aether in the air.

There's no way for the source of this vast aether to be merely in the electrons released by daily water formation in the clouds, especially as all water in clouds was evaporated to begin with, which absorbs as many electrons as are emitted during liquid formation. The only-possibly source for the atmospheric aether is from solar electrons, such a logical reality. It's possible that at least some of the solar electrons are leaked when hydrogen atoms in the sun become helium "atoms."

Why is helium called an atom when it ought to be deemed a molecule? Often, molecules do not react with any other substance to form a different molecule. As helium will not react with any other atom to form a molecule, chances are high that helium is already a molecule. Why couldn't helium be a merger of some hydrogen atoms i.e. a hydrogen molecule? If correct, then at least some of the solar-wind electrons may be sourced in helium formation, for it involves mergers i.e. releasing electrons.

At first, in or nearer to the 1950s, when the solar wind was discovered, the goons told us that the solar wind consists half of bare protons, and half of free electrons. Whenever any reality threatens their key theories, they start to fabricate i.e. tell lies. Shudder, not only might the people start to think that the solar electrons form the light-wave medium, but they might realize that solar heat are the electrons themselves. Something had to be done to counter those possibilities, and so what they did was to change their story such that the solar wind is now predominantly made of protons, with just a few electrons. LIARS.

Surely, you understand that, if the sun can fling protons into space, it should be able to fling full hydrogen atoms too. Why not? Or, with so many protons, how do they not attract solar-wind electrons such that they become hydrogen atoms on the flight toward earth? Indeed, as the goons insist that protons and electrons flying out from the big-bang explosion attracted each other to form hydrogen atoms, how could they not do the same in the much slower solar-wind situation?

Forget it. What really happened is that NASA discovered electrons flying away from the sun, and, in keeping with their erroneous theory that a hydrogen atom consists of one proton with one-only orbiting electrons (these guys were lunatics), they fabricated the "fact" that the solar wind consists of half protons and half electrons. Otherwise, the sun would get a surplus of bare protons if the solar wind had more electrons than protons.

But how can we even imagine bare protons in the sun when its filled with free electrons? If electrons can fly down an electric wire only to re-enter orbits as if the natural thing to do, how could bare protons exist in the sun with ample electrons?

How do we imagine that solar protons are shot into space without their electrons to begin with? If the solar wind has more protons by far than electrons, then the sun is becoming progressively negatively charged, in which case it ought to send more electrons into space than protons, for a negatively-charged sun would repel electrons and attract protons. If the sun can expel bare protons while negatively charged, it would be able to expel hydrogen atoms a lot easier. Forget it, it's not happening. There's no protons in the solar wind, the evolutionists lied to their students, who then passed the lie to their students, who then passed a modified lie to their students.

Earth's air is filled with electrons, solar heat, the scariest thing to big-bangers. They know that, if ever they need to confess that they had an erroneous atomic model, nobody will ever again respect their "science," which will put the spotlight on their big-bang fantasy. As it's not true that all protons are identical, their atomic model is ailing for a lot more reasons than the orbital electron.

Helium, they say, consists of two protons clustered at the core, with two orbiting electrons. They devised it to look like two H atoms superimposed. Helium gas weighs twice as much as hydrogen gas (when both are at STP), but, they wrongly gave helium an atomic weight of four when, in their atomic scheme, they should have assigned helium an atomic weight of two, because, in their scheme, atomic weight must be proportional to gas weights. That's because they claim (wrongly) that every gas at STP has the same number of atoms, meaning that they are forced to assign helium gas with as many helium atoms as hydrogen gas, except that helium atoms weight twice as much (in their book).

However, for some reason that I'm not familiar with, they made the hydrogen atom, without proof, a diatomic atom, which is to say that they made it a hydrogen molecule of two hydrogen atoms merged, but because they knew it would appear wrong to do so, they didn't call it a molecule, but a diatomic (= double) atom. Do you think they should have been able to get away with that? Then, because hydrogen gas has diatomic atoms, according to their scheme, they had to double the atomic weight of helium, and that's how they made it four instead of two, due directly to their diatomic-H trick.

But, it didn't end there, for with an atomic weight of four and only two protons, the helium atom weighs just as much as a diatomic H atom. The "solution" was to invent neutrons that weigh as much as protons but have no more positive charge. That's called cheating the world with make-believe. Voila, they pulled two neutrons out of their hat, and assigned them to the helium atoms so that it could weigh twice as much as a hydrogen atom, in conformity to a helium gas known to weigh twice as much. But if you buy all of this, your are one naive customer. Don't be stupid.

Realize, if nothing more, that all gases at STP do NOT have the same number of atoms. There's no reason nor rhyme for such a cosmic coincidence. That alone causes their atomic model to be erroneous. What a bunch of lying delinquents.

Let's ask google, "why do all gases at STP have the same number of atoms?" Google has no answer, of course, because the goofs have no answer. Here's the response:

At Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), all gases have the same number of molecules within the same volume because of Avogadro's Law. This law states that equal volumes of different gases, at the same temperature and pressure, contain the same number of molecules.

Ya-but, that's like saying that the sky is green because Avogadro made it a law. The goofs are trying to trick you. You are being led to believe that his law has merit. It does not. Nobody can explain the reason or rhyme for that "law," and you can find articles telling that it's a mere theory. Avogadro is one of the science idols that evolutionists push on the world, because he's badly needed for his law. Not atomic/molecular size, weight, density, imagined kinetic speed, or any combination thereof, can explain why all gases should have the very same number of atoms when they are at the same temperature and pressure.

Therefore, every atom is erroneously drawn due to this atomic-weight interpretation, but add to this picture that proton clusters cannot exist, and neither do neutrons. This is not a small problem for the wizards, who will go down in history as passing off the biggest science scandal ever. As oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than hydrogen gas, they assigned the oxygen atom 16 times as many protons as a hydrogen atom. See the problem?

It's easy to spot as a crippling problem. They think that both gases have the same number of atoms, at STP, and thus they conclude a fantasy, that oxygen has 16 times the protons, and 16 times the electrons. Just admit that it's erroneous, and then you are open and clear to come up with another atomic model. That's what I did, and I was able to find a way to find what molecules truly look like if only we know the weight of a gas for any element. But that's another story not to be repeated here.

The problem is, there cannot be a gas weight at STP for most elements because their boiling points are far above standard temperature. I don't know how the goofs work that out for finding the atomic weights of metals, for example, but there's a lot of room there for fudging with the numbers, when they need to. I therefore cannot trust their stated atomic weights for most elements, that they are perfectly proportional to gas weights. Their trick is to always make atomic weights appear as though atoms are made of multiple H atoms. They assign gold an atomic weight of 197 (full number) because assigning it 196.5 or 197.5 contradicts their claim that every atom is a multiple of one hydrogen atom, which itself is assigned an atomic weight of 1. What they are claiming is that gold gas weighs 197 times as much as hydrogen gas at the same temperature and pressure. Guaranteed, this is not true at every temperature tested. THEY LIE. Ditto for every metal. They can cherry pick a certain temperature that works for their theory, and then deny us the fact that a full number is not obtained at other temperatures.

Gravity Exposes Atmospheric Electrons

With their so-called "negative mass," physicists toy with a hypothetical material that is repelled by gravity rather than attracted, even though they do not view gravity as a negative, electromagnetic force. By "negative mass," they mean only that it works in reverse to the downward pull of gravity; it has not to do with electromagnetism. But it's not hypothetical, negative mass does exist as the electrons, and, therefore, they are wrong: gravity is an electromagnetic force.

The kinetic theory cannot explain why hotter air rises. Hotter air amid cooler air has no bottom side by which it can be lifted, as has a party balloon. In their view, the atoms in hotter air do not become lighter than atoms of cooler air. In their view, hotter atoms are faster atoms, but nothing is available in all the world of logic to explain why faster atoms should rise. Hotter air has atoms further apart, but there is nothing in all the world of logic to explain why atoms should rise just because they have more space between them. CLEARLY, hotter air rises because gravity repels electrons against the underside of each air atom. Therefore, the air is filled with electrons.

To be sure, colder air does invade hotter air. Open your door in winter, and colder air pours into the bottom half of the door, forcing the hotter air out the top half of the door. Never fails. Therefore, if there is a "pocket" of hot air outdoors, one might argue that the hotter air rises because colder air is forcing its way into the hotter air. But why should it rise on that invasion argument alone? One can argue that the invasion will simply spread the hot air out, not compelling it upwards necessarily, but in all directions equally.

But if we add upward-moving electrons into the picture of a heated pocket of air invaded by cooler air, then it tends to explain the upward direction of the heated air. But there is something else going on, because the upward lift from the electrons makes the atoms in the hotter air "lighter" than the atoms in the cooler air. The atoms don't change weight, but we can say that gravity has less net force upon them in the downward direction.

So, when you open the door in winter, the cold air forces its way into the door, as if it were water pouring in, because gravity attracts atoms in the cold with more net-force than atoms in the heat of the home. Atoms inter-repel more forcefully when in a colder environment, not only because they are closer to each other, but because the extra downward pull of gravity upon them translates to outspreading in all directions i.e. even sideways through the door.

The hot air in the home is not invading the outdoors under its own steam. The cold air at the top of the door would invade the house too if not for the fact that the heated air in the house has to go somewhere when cold air invades it, and so the heated air naturally goes out the top half of the door. The heated air never exits the bottom half of the door. Why not? The colder air has "heavier" atoms, and the warmer air has "lighter" atoms. Can that answer the question? I don't see what else can. How can heated air have de-facto lighter atoms? By having more electrons underneath them repelled upward by gravity.

There could be no air without electrons in their midst. It's a law. It's the reality that hell-bound deviants want to hide from you. Without solar electrons, gases couldn't exist. Remove all heat, and air is a solid block of "ice." God is a genius, admit it, goofballs.

In the kinetic theory, atoms do not have a means to alter weights. Atoms in colder air are not pulled by gravity stronger than atoms in warmer air, meaning that the kinetic theory cannot explain why cold air invades the bottom half of the door.

The goofs will tell us that colder air is heavier due to being more packed with atoms per unit of space, but the fact remains that all atoms are pulled by gravity by the same force. Don't fool yourself when pondering this situation. The air needs to be imagined as individual atoms, not blocks of air. Why should atoms plow sideways through the door just because they are more dense on the outside than the inside? What would compel them to go sideways where the goofs tell us that the atoms are neutral in electromagnetic charge? Why should atoms that supposedly don't repel each other move sideways just because they are closer to each other? See the problem?

But that's not all, for in their scheme, the atoms in the house are moving faster such that, if any inward invasion is justified, it should be canceled due to in-house atoms having more outward punch. The outdoors has more atoms for more inward punch, but they are to be deemed slower, having less punch on that factor. Besides, atomic invasion from atomic punching cannot conceivably move as fast as cold-air invasion into a house at multiple feet per second. The reality is that gravity is forcing the colder air in, in which case the "colder" atoms are getting more gravity pull.

They cannot get more gravity pull just because they are closer to each other, don't fool yourself. The only blocks the air is made of is individual atoms. You are correct to say that colder air is heavier, but you should not view the air as blocks of any size, but rather each atom is a block. The heavier atoms will move the lighter atoms aside. You should not view the air as a block of multiple atoms, and then say that this block is heavier (due to having more atoms per space) such that it pushes lighter blocks of air over. Don't fool yourself that way, because the atomic magicians want you to fool yourself in exactly that way.

As colder air invades warmer air, the goofs will tell us such contradictory things as: "Low air pressure is generally associated with warmer temperatures, not colder." Ya-but, warmer gas has higher pressure than colder gas, wherefore meteorologists are not wording it correctly with the claim above. The hotter air has higher pressure, yet a second factor must be at work to make colder air invade the hotter. The second factor is above. Free electrons fill the air and make the atoms of warmer air get less downward pull from gravity. This second factor allows lower-pressure air to invade higher-pressure air whereas the reverse is true when two masses of air are at the same temperature.

It then becomes predictable that, at some temperature above winter temperature but below room temperature, neither outside air will nor in-house air will invade the other because the pressure of the warmer air equals the invasive power of the cooler air.

I've noted that, in winter, the cold air from the outside does not flow down my 5-inch chimney pipe to a thankless hot-water heater when it's not operating. It suggests that, at some point up this pipe, the temperature is such that it creates an equalization of invasive powers, the hot air seeking to rise as hard into the cooler air as the cooler air seeks to fall into the warmer air.

When we light a match stick, we can see the upward direction of both the flame and smoke, yet there's nothing stopping the colder air from above and beside the match from invading in the downward and sideways directions. The colder air wants to invade the flame from all directions equally, and the flame is easily invaded. It doesn't possess concrete walls. Yet the flame, filled with freed electrons, insists on flowing upward. Every time, never fails. What do you think is going on? There is an upward force in the flame countering the downward force of the cooler air. A burning match wins the invasion battle because it's far hotter than the air halfway up my chimney pipe.

The goobers claim that gravity attracts electrons. Therefore, the electrons freed into a light bulb should accumulate at the bottom of the bulb. Do they? Of course not. For if they did fall to the bottom, the deviants would have been sure to make it priority education.

The reason that a bulb warms up a little sideways and downward from the filament is that electrons in the bulb inter-repel in all directions. The various temperatures at all points of the bulb's glass reach a maximum when the electrons escaping out the glass equal in numbers the electrons arriving to those points. The more they accumulate at any point, the closer they come to each other, and, consequently, the harder and faster they inter-repel through the glass. The video below shows that electrons in a light bulb discolor glass, a thing known for well over a century, same sort of yellowing effect as light shining on paper and other materials, because that too is from the striking of electrons:

There are stupids to this day preferring to say that filaments light up "when they heat up." No, stupids, not excited atoms, but emitted electrons. As they emit, they also excite the captured electrons which may or may not emit / leak out, adding to the light waves. Those which do leak away (completely predictable) form the heat in combination with the out-shooting electrons from the electric current.

Gravity Repulsion Solves Central Gyroscope Mystery

This week, Glenn Beck had a guest claiming that his team had found a way to counter gravity to some degree, though we were not told anything more on the means aside from static-electricity of some kind. I happen to know what his team has done because there's only one way to counter gravity: one needs to stack atoms, beneath the protons, with more free electrons than gravity permits.

I therefore assume that people have found a way to stack materials with electrons such that their bottom sides become more net-negative than normal. Not knowing the reason why, these people think that they might be able to crack the secret to fully countering gravity. "Static electricity" implies a stacking of a material with extra electrons, for things with high static electricity create more sparks (caused by jumping electrons) precisely because they are stacked with electrons.

However, I don't think it's possible to stack atoms with enough electrons that their bottom sides significantly counter gravity, unless one spins an object. A few extra electrons on the bottom sides is predicted to alleviate gravity force, because gravity is a negative force.

Gravity's negative charge forces more captured electrons above protons, logically, and thus gravity arranges for the bottom sides of ALL atoms to become net-positive, explaining why gravity attracts ALL atoms. Nobody else is going to tell you that, at this time. It was discovered by my personal "genius moment," which does not involve genius at all. Instead, a genius moment is a lucky strike when someone happens to be walking along a path to bump into something, to see it. It wouldn't have been seen if the mind were not on that path.

It doesn't matter whether atoms become positive ions or negative ions, for either one generally involves a very small percentage of the captured electrons, and so it doesn't change the pull force of gravity much at all, especially if static charge is only on the surface of a material. In most situations, the bottom sides of atoms are always positively charged, and, consequently, the top half must be negatively charged. HOWEVER, what happens to this situation when we spin a wheel or disc? We now enter the unusual.

We may think that the distance between the bottom side of an atom and its top side is so small that gravity force will not treat the atom as positively charged just because it's bottom half alone is positively charged. But when all atoms are forced to have positive bottom sides and negative top sides, they each attract one another top-to-bottom...though the fact that gas atoms are surrounded by a multitude of inter-repelling free electrons (heat material) keeps them apart top-to-bottom.

If you are familiar with gyroscopes, you know what I mean by "unusual." You may know the headache in trying to figure out what's going on. You see the spinning wheel defy gravity, and nobody is able to explain the reason. The most you get from explanations is that the "angular momentum" in combination with momentum from some axis-based torque causes the disc to track a circular path around a hub upon which the gyroscope shaft rests. You're not convinced that the explanation works, and you don't understand it, anyway, but worst of all, it doesn't explain, nor even touch upon, why the disc defies gravity.

It's as though the science goons don't even want you to realize that the gyroscope is defying gravity. At least, they want you to ignore it because a spinning wheel can defy gravity only because gravity is an electromagnetic (negative) charge. Their Newtionian view of gravity becomes obliterated by the formation of an anti-gravity material due to spin alone. In their claims from "old" science, every atom has a graviton particle that is a gravity force. It's ridiculous from the very outset, which is why you don't hear of gravitons. But the evolutionist goons, who conducted a coup on atomic physics, were intent on rejecting the definition of gravity as heat-source electrons in the earth's hot rocks because they, the goofs, did all in their powers to hide the fact that heat is defined as the invasion into materials (including rocks) of free electrons.

I tackled the gyroscope mystery again Saturday and Sunday of last week. I followed logic. I accepted the fact that the gyroscope disc defies gravity, but I also accepted the fact that it registers all its weight when its on a weight scale. I think I was able to solve this apparent contradiction with my understanding of the atom, where gravity attracts all atoms due to having positive undersides.

I got to thinking that the outward (centrifugal) force in a spinning disc forces proton-captured electrons (of the disc) toward the periphery of the entire spinning wheel. The expectation: the captured electrons get piled more densely above protons on the top half of the disc, and more densely on the bottom sides of protons on the bottom half of the disc. That's easy, you can grasp it. The atoms on the disc's top half are therefore attracted by gravity while the atoms on the bottom half are repelled by gravity. That logical find became more than interesting, for it provided a possible solution to the apparent contradiction above.

For this discussion, imagine the disc of a gyroscope spinning at an angle, as you see at the 18-second point of this video. For this discussion, the gyroscope must be attached to, or suspended by, one end only of its central shaft. While on an angle, the gyroscope is expected to fall to gravity, but as it does not, it's clearly defying gravity. Admit it. Don't rebel against the obvious, but rather explain it.

Only half the disc is attracted to gravity while the other half is repelled by gravity. This seems like the key to solving the gyroscope mystery, but it's just the start, a good start.

What do you think will happen when gravity attracts downward the top half of this slash \ while the bottom half of the same slash gets repelled by gravity? Will the slash go more toward the horizontal, or more vertical? That slash is a picture of the angled and spinning gyroscope disc. It will go more horizontal. It will go even more horizontal with faster spin because faster spin forces the electrons to pile-on more densely, either above or below protons.

As the disc is connected to a central shaft that is itself sitting on a hub, all of the gravity force, seeking to make the disc horizontal, will cause the shaft to press down on the hub. See that? Experiments "prove" that the gyroscope's full weight gets transferred to a weight scale underneath the hub. But that claim is technically wrong, because the disc has zero weight. Admit it, gravity is suspending the disc, wherefore it has zero weight. Admit it, and seek the reason.

The only path for the weight of the gyroscope to get to the weight scale is through the hub, and as the weight scale registers a weight that is exactly the full weight of the whole gyroscope, you're bound to be fooled to believe that the gyroscope loses no weight as it spins. BUT, this is your lucky day, because I'm here to first remind you that there is, at times, a difference between weight and force. Weight is itself a force, but not all forces are from weight. Can you see that there is a non-weight force acting on the hub?

Forgive, I don't have a draw package at the ready. I think I can explain the situation if only you can imagine a shaft going out from the left side of this slash, \ , which is acting as the disc/wheel. Play with me here: if you put your left hand at the top of the slash, and pull downward, and if you put your right hand on the bottom of the slash and push upward, the end of the shaft will be forced downward. If the end of the shaft is sitting on a hub, and if the hub sits on a weight scale, the FORCE of your hands will transfer to the weight scale, yet it is not weight-force at all. It's force from your muscles.

Therefore, when gravity attracts downward the top half of the gyroscope disc, and repels the bottom half upward, the hub gets gravity force, yes, but it's not weight proper. Instead, the hub is getting a twist force through the shaft from what we can call anti-weight, or weight in the upward direction. Your intuition alone tells you that the weight is not going straight down through the hub, for the gyroscope can be suspended in the air even in a vertical position, when it's way over to the side of the hub, with its shaft perfectly horizontal. In that picture, you realize best that the straight-down weight of the gyroscope could not possibly be acting down on the hub. The weight first needs to be pushed up, and only then across the shaft.

Therefore, I do declare, even while gravity suspends the disc in the air, the weight of the disc is converted to torque/twist force acting through the shaft to the hub. Or, in the case of the man holding this 40-pound anti-gravity wheel, the torque-force acts through his hand and then to the weight scale.

By the way, the torque I'm referring to here is not the torque that others talk about in seeking to explain the mechanics of gyroscope precession. The shaft torque I'm dealing with always acts 90 degrees to the shaft direction.

The man admits that he feels some "weight," but he does not feel the expected difficulty. He says that the wheel does not try to twist his hand, as he expects with a 40-pound weight three feet away at the far end of the horizontal shaft. That's because the 40-pound force coming from the shaft comes straight down to his hand, rather than from 40 pounds acting straight down three feet away from his hand. See that? Big difference. Gravity not only suspends the wheel, but twists it such that the shaft end (not the whole shaft) in his hand wants to move downward.

BUT WAIT. There is another consideration to be had. The man doesn't lift the wheel high enough such that the shaft is at a 45-degree, which positions the wheel at 45 degrees too. And so we need to go back to the small gyroscope for this discussion. In various videos, the gyroscope is shown directly above the hub, with the shaft perfectly vertical, and the disc perfectly horizontal. It becomes clear that the full weight proper of the gyroscope is weighing normally through the hub. There's zero anti-gravity torque force involved because the shaft is vertical. Any torque on a vertical shaft makes the shaft end go sideways, off of the hub, meaning that there's no torque left when the disc is horizontal, flying-saucer-wise.

Therefore, I now understand what's happening more than ever. When the shaft is horizontal with vertical wheel, the full 40 pounds of the wheel is transferred by torque to the hub. When the shaft is at 45 degrees with wheel at 45 degrees, only 20 pounds of the weight is converted to anti-weight torque, with the remaining 20 pounds acting down on the hub in the normal way that weight works. When the shaft is vertical with wheel now spinning directly above the hub, there's no torque, and the full 40 pounds weighs normally.

Therefore, there's no torque possibility when the wheel spins in the horizontal direction. It's no longer receiving anti-gravity force! I get it. It receives full anti-gravity force when in the vertical position, and steadily less anti-gravity force as it rises such that it becomes angled. Keep in mind that half the wheel is attracted normally, and half is repelled, at all times.

Very conveniently, the wheel needs only half the anti-gravity force when it's at a 45-degree angle, to remain suspended, because half the weight is resting on the hub and no longer needs to be repelled to keep the disc levitating. Only the remaining 20 pounds needs to be repelled at a 45-degree angle.

When it's at 22.5 degrees, at near-vertical, 30 pounds (or 75-percent) weighs down normally on the hub so that only 10 pounds (25 percent) needs to be repelled, and it just so happens that the anti-gravity force, at that angle, is 25 percent. It's still true that part of the wheel is attracted, and partly repelled, but, at this angle, the mechanism that birthed the repulsion is fainting away. The attraction forces become more pronounced the higher the wheel rises.

The vertically-positioned wheel must receive a good chunk of attraction force, but it's got to be less than 50 percent. That is, the repulsion is more than 50-percent while the attraction is less than 50 percent. To provide a reason, there's more going on as per the shifting of electrons than their veering toward the wheel's periphery. This latter mechanism predicts a 50-50 split in attraction versus repulsion, but a second mechanism must be active to give the repulsion the advantage (when the wheel is in a vertical position) because we can witness gyroscope discs levitating even when below the vertical position, i.e. when the center of the disc is below the hub.

There's no other way for torque force to press down on the hub, from a vertical wheel, unless there's a horizontal force acting on the wheel. If it's not perfectly a horizontal force, then partially. If you strike the wheel of your car horizontally with a sledge hammer, striking on the rim's inner-bottom edge, the wheel shaft will want to go downward. A simultaneous whack of a sledge hammer to the outer-top side of the rim will also make the drive shaft want to go downward. Thus, if there's a reason for gravity to act horizontally, it can cause downward shaft pressure against the hub.

Horizontal is perpendicular to the vertical action of gravity. As gravity is an electromagnetic force, note that magnets can send electrons flowing perpendicular to the magnetic force. Therefore, one can propose that gravity force can direct FULL ATOMS into a horizontal direction. For example, if the spinning of the disc causes electrons to batch up to one SIDE of the bottoms of protons, atoms could be pushed quasi-horizontally.

The full weight of the wheel can be cancelled when the shaft is horizontal. The wheel is clearly levitating in the air. The full weight is cancelled when the repulsion force reaches 50 percent, equal to the attraction force. Electrons get re-arranged progressively differently as the wheel goes from vertical to horizontal, which causes progressively less repulsion force on the wheel.

"Maximum" repulsion is when the wheel spins vertically, though it's not truly maximum because more repulsion can be had by spinning the wheel faster. However, faster spins causes the wheel to rise, which then reduces some of the repulsion force due to the changed angle of the wheel. The spin-speed needs to be increased enough to lift the wheel in spite of the reduced repulsion force.

Someone might object to the wheel's weight loss by pointing out that a spinning wheel, sat directly over a weight scale, shows no loss of weight. Yes, but the usual way to weigh a spinning wheel is to mount its central shaft to TWO bearings, one on either side of the wheel. The gyroscope ceases to hover if precession is not permitted, and so we need to consider that a spinning wheel fixed to bearings is not undergoing precession. That is, a wheel fixed to bearings is not receiving more repulsion than attraction, and is therefore not levitating while spinning. When precession is cancelled, gravity repulsion and levitation is cancelled too; I'll take a jab at the reason below.

It doesn't matter which way a gyroscope is spun, counter-clockwise or clockwise, the end of the shaft is forced downward, never upward. The only thing that changes (with counter-clockwise versus clockwise spin) is the direction of precession.

As this theory is working, mechanically, to explain the effect of the gyroscope and anti-gravity wheel (its a gyroscope too), it tends to confirm that gravity attracts atoms if their bottom sides are net-positive. Therefore, it tends to predict that gravity will repel atoms if their bottom sides are net-negative. The wheel first needs to achieve a spin-speed that eliminates all gravity attraction, and only afterward, with more spin-speed, will gravity repulsion set in.

There's something else predicted, within the atoms, when a wheel spins. For example, if marbles cover the bottom of a stationary truck bed, all the marbles will go to the left if the truck suddenly drives to the right. Therefore, if the wheel is spun counter-clockwise, the captured electrons, simultaneous with moving toward the periphery of the wheel, should also move toward the left side of protons at the 6 o'clock part of the wheel, and toward the right side of protons at the 12 o'clock part of the wheel. At 9 o'clock, electrons should move toward the tops of protons, and toward the bottoms of protons at 3 o'clock. I'm thinking that this complicated combination of situations somehow makes for net-repulsion, from gravity, on the wheel. That is, some atoms will be attracted to gravity, but most must be repelled.

The direction of wheel spin, whether counter-clockwise or clockwise, determines whether the gyroscope will circle (or "precess") counterclockwise or clockwise around the hub. When dealing with this circular path, the hub becomes a central axis. For me, it's a no-brainer that gravity causes the circular precession. However, my brain is not able, yet anyway, to explain the atomic mechanics that causes repulsion on the wheel. The electron re-arrangements are complicated when the wheel spins on angles between horizontal and vertical. The first step is: admit the obvious. But if we're fooled by the physicists into thinking that precession is due to a mix of "angular momentum" (= spin momentum) and shaft torque, then we won't seek how gravity could cause precession.

If precession is not permitted to take place, for example by blocking it with the hand, the gyroscope will fall. What can we say, that gravity repels the wheel only so long as it's allowed to circle the hub? Not necessarily true, even though it appears to be true. The gravity force causing precession may go to another function when precession is blocked, which could eradicate some of the repulsion force acting on the disc. In that case, precession is not necessary to keep the disc in levitation, but rather full blockage of precession happens to give gravity attraction the upper hand upon the disc.

It's like saying that a bubble will levitate in the air whether the wind blows it horizontal or not, but if one blocks that bubble from being blown along, it destroys the bubble. The bubble is not levitating because the wind blows it. The disc is not levitating because precession is taking place. In fact, it's vice-versa. However, the two are bound together as a package such that levitation requires precession.

Solution: the net-repulsion is due to disc spin, but if precession is impeded, some repulsion force is cancelled (even though the spin speed remains the same). If enough is cancelled, the disc will be handed over to net-gravity attraction.

The precession is itself very curious, as though a force is acting in a totally unexpected direction. The PHYSICAL forces of a spinning wheel are net-zero in any direction, meaning that the wheel's precession is unexpected with physical force in view. Whatever are the physical forces on one half of a spinning wheel, the other half counters exactly. The result is zero net-force in any direction, meaning that the forces are equal in all directions, meaning also that the wheel cannot precess due to the physical spin forces, nor can it "float" or rise/fall due to the physical spin forces. Yet the suspended wheel wants to creep horizontally, around the hub. What's going on?

I've heard from videos that, the faster the disc is spun, the slower the precession. I suggest this reason: the faster the spin, the higher the disc, and the smaller the orbit-like circle around the hub. That is, the force causing precession gets more "bang for the buck" when the circle is wider, just as it's easier to turn a wheel the longer the shaft is by which one turns it. In short: the available precession force rotates the gyroscope faster when it's furthest from the hub.

Horizontal Gravity Force

If the wheel is vertical, like so, | , it's no longer at an angle. How possibly could gravity apply force on a vertical wheel such that it twists the end of its horizontal shaft downward?

I had said that gravity attracts the top half of the slash, \ , while repelling the bottom half of the slash, which naturally causes the far end of the shaft to press downward, but if the vertical disc with shaft looks like this, ---| , how can downward force on the top half of that vertical slash, in combination with upward force on its bottom half, cause the far end of horizontal shaft to press either downward or upward? It can't. If the disc is levitating in a vertical position, the shaft is expected to levitate too, neither going up nor down. Unless gravity can act horizontally against the wheel.

A faster-spinning disc will rise, taking it off the perfect vertical to a slanted position, at which time the countering gravity forces on the disc can twist the shaft. A perfectly-vertical disc provides a mystery as to how gravity can transfer its weight to the hub.

The full weight of the 40-pound, anti-gravity wheel is transferred to the weight scale. THEREFORE, admit what we are seeing, and move on to explaining it, if an explanation comes available. We are seeing that gravity force twists the end of the shaft downward, into the man's hand, even when the wheel is vertical, meaning that gravity can seek to twist the top half of the wheel to the left (HORIZONTAL) and downward, while seeking to twist the bottom half of the wheel to the right (HORIZONTAL) and upward, even when the wheel is perfectly vertical. Don't rebel, just accept.

The problem to solve is: both the top and bottom of a vertical wheel must be pushed horizontally first, before the top half of the wheel can move downward while the bottom half moves upward. How can gravity attraction and repulsion push horizontally?

This looks like when the force of a magnet acts in a perpendicular direction to the force's direction. At the electric plant, metal wire, run between the two poles of a horseshoe magnet, receives magnetism across the width of the wire, yet the electrons are curiously pushed longitudinally down the wire, perpendicular (at 90 degrees) to the direction of the magnetic force. Therefore, I suppose, if a magnet can act perpendicular upon the captured electrons of atoms, ditto for gravity, for both are magnetic forces. I've never had reason for this idea before.

Can gravity push electrons sideways? Not if there's no spin. There's nothing happening to a vertical wheel that's not spinning. Only when it spins do we see the abnormal, the curiosities. Only when it spins are the wheels electrons re-arranged in relation to the wheel's protons. See that? It's not so much that gravity acts sideways on objects, but that it can if the electrons are arranged in a certain way. At the electric plant, the magnet cannot cause the electrons to flow down the wire unless the wire is rotated fast in a circle between the magnet's poles. The circular motion "upsets" the electrons and protons (maybe they like it).

The people trying to explain precession maintain that the momentum of the spinning wheel goes perpendicular to the spin direction, which, for me, is ludicrous, looking like a desperate means to explain what is inexplicable for them, inexplicable because they haven't understood that gravity force is at the root of precession. Do you imagine that the spinning of the wheels on your car sends out momentum to the sides of the wheels? That's ludicrous. Yet this is what the videos claim for a gyroscope, which only fools the people with a false explanation for the circular precession.

I suggest that the precession is circular only because the gyroscope's shaft is attached to a hub. Otherwise, the gyroscope might go in a straight line. If the man holding the anti-gravity wheel walks a straight line, the wheel might go with him, that is. But if he stands in one spot, the wheel is forced to make a circle around him. Wouldn't it be hint-ful to see a suspended wheel moving in a straight line? What would it be hinting?

Wouldn't it be something to throw the wheel, at just the right speed, into the air so that it levitates on its own, without a hand or hub holding it? Alas, as long as there's a downward force on the end of the shaft, a free-floating wheel will tilt and throw the repulsion force out of whack. It would be interesting to see what happens to the anti-gravity wheel if the man just lets go of it. Will the shaft point down first, or will the wheel fall while the shaft stays in the same position? It matters which of these two is the reality.

It seems correct that precession moves horizontally with the ground. The wheel does not attempt to change height while precessing, meaning it's moving horizontal while moving in a circle. It takes little energy to move a suspended object horizontally, for friction on suspended items, such as gas atoms, is due to gravity pull. Birds can fly only because gravity pulls air atoms. Gravity supplies air atoms with friction. It allows the bird's wings to do work and thus get lift. But if an item is suspended by gravity alone, the friction due to gravity is gone when seeking to move the object horizontally.

Therefore, if anyone is seeking to find a way to net some free energy from the precession, there's likely near-zero energy there. The small energy can explain why the gyroscope doesn't fall off the hub even though it's barley attached to it. The one watching it thinks it doesn't fall off the hub because he/she thinks it's naturally moving in a circle. But I think it's more logical that it's sent moving in a straight line, but forced to go circular due to attachment to the hub.

The only reservation I have about the prediction that the gyroscope is sent into a straight line is that the people testing the hand-held gravity wheel are likely to have discovered it, yet we don't see it in videos. It would be easy for a person to walk a straight line while holding the shaft of the wheel. If the wheel comes along with the person, then I'm correct, but if the wheel wants to do a circle while the person walks a straight line, then I would be greatly surprised. Why should gravity force cause a circular motion; it makes no sense. The direction of force is constantly changing when a circle is made. It becomes a centripetal force, such as a true orbit pulled by a central body.

You can't understand how gravity can set the gyroscope into motion if you've been brainfooled to believe that gravity attracts both protons and electrons. But when you are open to gravity repulsion of electrons, it can explain a spinning disc put into motion by gravity.

In order to set a gyroscope into "orbit," gravity must KNOCK it in a horizontal direction along the ground by sending a force against it, either horizontal or vertical force. Is it possible to move an object horizontally with a straight-up force? Yes. If you strike this slash \ with a vertical force (such as from a bullet) from underneath it, it's going to go up AND to the right. However, if it can't go up due to some blockage, some of that upward force will transfer to the right alone i.e. move the slash horizontal with the ground. If the slash mark is further obstructed from going to the right, due to attachment of the shaft to a hub, it will circle the hub horizontal to the ground.

To elaborate, the upward force REBOUNDING horizontal, or quasi-horizontal, will send the disc into the direction of least resistance, and that's in the circular-horizontal path that it does take. We can propose a means by which the rebound happens. When energy is sent to a disc that's resisting the upward force such that it eventually ceases to rise, the remnant energy -- the leftover after motion ceases -- enters the atoms and bounces around within them, which could then be re-directed into another direction. To put it another way, blocked gravity repulsion force is finding an "outlet" to send the disc sideways in precession.

Another consideration is that, as DOWNWARD gravity attraction can cause water to run on a near-horizontal surface, when the surface blocks the vertical path, so should upward (vertical) gravity repulsion be able to send materials on a near-horizontal path, when upward (vertical) motion is blocked. The blockage to upward motion of the disc is where a part(s) of the wheel receives gravity attraction. The upward repulsion needs to overcome that, and when it does due to fast-enough disc spin, that extra force has to go somewhere when it can't raise the disc more than it's already done so.

I suggest that the repulsion-force capability on the disc goes from 100-percent when it's positioned vertical, to zero when it's at its highest in a horizontal position. When the disc spins in the horizontal position, the re-arrangement of the electrons toward the periphery of the disc no longer makes one half of the wheel positive, and the other negative. All atoms are identical toward the gravity force when the disc is in a horizontal position. There are no longer atoms with more electrons on their bottom sides than on their top sides.

Therefore, I suggest that attraction force of the disc increases steadily, as it rises from the vertical position, to 100-percent when in the horizontal position. The disc doesn't fall to gravity, however, so long as it spins, because, I think, an "anti-gravity" mechanism is still in play similar, or even identical to, a person and bike balanced horizontally when MOVING laterally on a two-wheeled bike. The lateral motion overcomes gravity force. The motion doesn't involve an anti-gravity force, but it overcomes gravity none the less.

Every atom in the disc is moving horizontal on a straight line, even while circling, we could say, because gravity doesn't recognize the difference between a circular path and a straight line; it only recognizes the lateral aspect. A person on a bike can lean over on a drastic angle but not fall to gravity if moving fast enough; he and the bike are evading/avoiding gravity attraction.

It's even possible that gravity repulsion ends once the disc achieves a 45-degree angle, and that the disc can go all the rest of the way up, to zero degrees (highest position), on its spin power alone. But, clearly, spin power cannot raise the wheel from, or keep it levitating at, its vertical position.

This vertical slash, | , representing a vertically-positioned wheel, can't get horizontal / precession motion by straight-upward force unless gravity force is able to act quasi-horizontally on spinning objects. If the going theory in gyroscope science is wrong for explaining precession, and I think it definitely is wrong, then I don't see an alternative explanation besides this gravity-repulsion concept.

This gyroscope, \ , will look like this, / , when the shaft is below the hub and pointing up toward the hub. There are many videos showing gyroscopes circling the hub with shaft pointing up toward the hub, incredibly enough. How can anyone can see that and not realize that gravity is being defied by something more than the physics of the disc spin?

The man in the video below says that the spin momentum is "chasing the torque," to explain precession, but this only creates an illusion in your mind, because you can't really understand it. When you think about it, you think you can understand it, grasp it, but it's fleeting because you can't explain satisfactorily the mechanics involved. For example, why should the momentum force go out in a direction along the shaft? It's a trick, and you are the intended victim. You are supposed to trust scientists with that claim, but not object.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXIV-wMVUk

Near the end of the video above, the wheel has sunk such that its center is below the "hub." In this case, the hub is where the shaft is attached to the rope. The shaft is now pointing up toward the hub. Gravity is obviously repelling the wheel, but with less force progressively as the wheel-spin slows. The man doesn't want to say, "gravity is repelling the wheel." Why not? Because he's a stooge of modern science. He'll get persecuted if he says it. youtube might even shadow-ban a channel, at the request of the physics establishment, if someone comes out with compelling evidence for gravity repulsion.

Note, at the 1:11 point, of the anti-gravity video above, that the man actually lifts the wheel easily a couple of inches when it's directly behind his head, even though he's holding the shaft a whopping 30 inches from the wheel. Clearly, gravity is defying the wheel's weight. YES, undeniable.

As the full weight of the wheel is transferred to the hand, pressing down on the hand, it becomes clear that gravity is not so-simply repelling the wheel straight up. If it were a simple, straight-up force, there would be zero force coming down on the hand. If you had a second person holding the wheel up (spinning or not), there would be no downward pressure on the hand holding the shaft. Ditto if gravity repels the full wheel upward such as to suspend it.

Therefore, what I'm learning here is that gravity tends to move the upper half of the wheel toward the man, and move the lower half of the wheel away from the man. Why couldn't this picture also cause the wheel to "orbit" around the hub? If we say that gravity acts on the wheel EAST toward the man, why couldn't gravity also act south on the wheel to send it on its circular path around the hub?

To put it another way, gravity acts through the wheel's cross-section in order to transfer its weight to the hub, but acts in a straight line through the wheel's 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions to make it precess. All I need to do is prove it, and one way to do it is to spoil the "competition." As the momentum of a spinning wheel cannot create force in any direction, it's not true at all that the momentum is chasing the torque, which is to say that a combination of momentum and torque causes precession.

In fact, I'll even claim that the torque they refer to cannot exist unless the wheel is first precessing. In other words, the torque doesn't cause the wheel to precess, but the precession causes the torque, wherefore there cannot by a combination of torque and momentum causing the precession...even if the momentum could create a force in any direction. The explanation of the establishment is a non-starter on top of being a nothing-burger.

At the 2:33 point, the wheel video shows that a gyroscope disc rises if the precession speed is manually increased. And, the disc precesses lower if the precession speed is manually decreased. At 2:44, the disc is shown falling when the precession is momentarily stopped, but it's not easy to understand how attraction force should over-ride the repulsion just because precession is blocked.

Gravity force seeks to raise the disc higher, and in the process finds a horizontal path by which to create precession. The disc is thereby denied more lift power. When we manually speed precession, depending on the specific speed increase, some or all of the gravity force that had been expended to create precession is no longer expended there, but can now expend itself in raising the disc higher. It's as though manually speeding precession closes the door to gravity's creation of precession. It's no longer an option.

The problem, in this explanation, arises when we slow or fully block precession. When we fully block it manually, we can say that it's no longer an option such that the full force of gravity repulsion should go into raising the disc. Instead, slowing or blocking precession causes the disc to sink. But wait. Slowing or stopping precession does NOT remove the option for gravity repulsion to go in the horizontal direction. It goes that way whether the disc is precessing or not. If we block precession, the gravity force enters the atoms and bounces around within them. It's absorbed.

Why should the disc sink just because gravity force is absorbed by the disc's atoms? The only answer I can come up with is that it re-arranges the electrons such that repulsion on the wheel is diminished or overridden by attraction.

Static Electrons

Electrons rather easily jump from material to material when conditions are right, even when not running in wires. They create sparks, meaning that the physics establishment sees photons emitting from the electrons. Once again, they would need to claim foolishly that photons piggy-back on orbiting electrons of air atoms, on-the-ready at all times to cause the light of a spark just as soon as electrons come flying out of a material charged negatively from friction.

Is there not an alternative? Of course. The air is filled with free electrons that define a light-wave medium, and electrons emitting from the air atoms cause waves of light through that medium. No massless, impossible photons necessary. The electrons jumping from material to material in a spark crash into air atoms, and that's what emits electrons from air atoms.

Video after video on static electricity fails to mention the electrons in the air, lest people get the impression that they constitute a light-wave medium. That is, the establishment doesn't mention electrons in the air, and the video owners copy the establishment...because they feel compelled to be approved by establishment thinking. MERE APES. They learn from the establishment, then repeat what they learn. They consider themselves smart if only they can learn correctly what they are taught. Self-programming apes.

The establishment doesn't want people to know that the science of static electricity is not as clear-cut as they say it is. They tell us that balloons rubbed into hair make them negatively charged, more stacked with electrons after the friction event than before, because the balloon "robs" electrons from the hair, thus making the hair positively charged. Yet there is at least one video online ("Reactions" youtube channel) showing that two balloons rubbed together both become negative, not the establishment's prediction. In all cases I've seen in videos, one rubbed object always loses electrons to the other, never a mention of the many electrons dusted off into the air.

The control goofs don't like you imagining orbiting electrons flung into the air. What do they do there, twirls? The control goons don't want you trying to imagine electrons in air going back into orbits when they enter materials. The goons only want you to imagine electrons in orbit without thinking about the difficulties involved in starting an orbit around an atomic core that already has a multitude of orbiting electrons. They don't want you to think there's going to be some crash-banging going on instead of perfect orbits. The goons want you stupid. The establishment is a cripple pretending to run like an athlete, storing up humiliation for itself when better people finally insist on telling the truths.

The same video even showed that a part of a balloon could be positive while another part is negative, after rubbing two balloons. That's not clear-cut, meaning something else is going on, as if both balloons are robbing electrons from the air. This video owner was so science-sloppy that he didn't even mention the air and humidity inside the balloon.

Rubbing round balloons is not like rubbing flat bricks together. The latter do not allow air to contact most of the rubbed sections. But after a rub in one direction of balloons, both rubbed sections contact the air, and consequently, air atoms and water molecules (from humidity) come in to press against the balloon. On the next rubbing action, in the opposite direction, the air atoms and water molecules on the balloon surfaces become part of the rubbing process, wherefore the prediction is that some air atoms and water molecules let loose some of their electrons to explain why both balloons become negatively charged. I can't see any other way.

After some short time, the balloons lose their charge as the extra electrons leak off. The fact that it can take minutes to lose the charge suggests that electrons had been foisted to some depth into the balloon material, for if the outer layers of atoms is the only one to get stacked with extra electrons, the charge would instantly disappear. In the case of rubbed materials made positive, they can get their electrons back only from the air, yet the videos I've watched failed to tell this, as if the establishment's failure to mention it causes their science stooges to likewise fail.

The video owner told that, when he first encountered a positive charge after rubbing two balloons, on a different day, the humidity in the air was about 95 percent. It suggests that water molecules either stole some of the balloon's electrons, or caused some balloon electrons to leak off into the air. In turn, it suggests that rubbing air atoms (during the balloon rubbing) is what causes the balloons to become negative. Rubbed water molecules take electrons; rubbed air atoms give them away?? Looks like.

It can explain why rubbing a PVC pipe (with wool/cloth) causes it to attract a flow of water out of a tap. PVC becomes negative after a rub. We cvan wonder whether the water is being rubbed when sent down the water pipe. It shows itself to be positively charged, at least toward the PVC.

A metal can or some Styrofoam, neither rubbed at all, are attracted to rubbed PVC. How can that be, if the can and Styrofoam are neutral?

But wait. As magnets cause nails to become temporary magnets by re-arranging their electrons, why can't rubbed (temporarily magnetic) objects re-arrange electrons in neutral objects? The PVC sends the electrons to the far side of atoms, and then pulls their near sides made positive. This is just as I claim for gravity, a negative force sending electrons to the top sides of atoms, then grabbing their positive near sides i.e. their bottom sides. Echo: gravity makes the near sides positive, then grabs the whole atoms in attraction. The existence of charges by friction can become proof that gravity is a negative charge doing exactly what rubbed materials can do.

Things are so not straight forward in charging by friction that the establishment had to admit that charged substances re-arrange atoms, though the orbital-electron theory doesn't allow them to say that electrons can be moved from one end of an atom to another end. How can we imagine orbiting electrons more stacked on one end of an atom than on the other? We can't. Therefore, the orbit model cripples the goofs, making them unable to see the reality: atoms can be negative on one side and positive on the other. Had they not envisioned orbiting electrons, I wouldn't be viewing them as goofs. Had they not envisioned orbiting electrons, their atom would be like mine.

If orbits don't exist, then the captured electrons tend to be stationary on atoms, and thus they can move from one side to the other of ALL atoms without any problem, when something forces them to do so. They can also go clear off of one atom onto neighboring atoms when rubbed objects are brought near them. Why not?

AI answered a question of mine like so: "Yes, rubbing PVC and bringing it near a stream of water will cause the water to bend or be attracted towards the PVC. This is due to the static electricity generated by rubbing the PVC, which creates a charged object that can attract the oppositely charged ends of water molecules." It doesn't say "attract the water molecules," but rather says the "ends" of water molecules, implying that the PVC makes the ends nearest itself positive. But how? Alas, they don't see the attraction as per the shifting of electrons to the far end.

Instead, the goofs think that the PVC's negative charge re-arranges water molecules such that their negative ends face away from the PVC while the positive ends face the PVC. Which is easier, to turn entire atoms while under inter-attractive bondage to each other, or to chase away a few outer electrons barely hanging on to protonic attraction?

The elaboration of the AI response above says: "Water molecules have a slightly positive charge on one end (the hydrogen end) and a slightly negative charge on the other (the oxygen end)." However, never trust the establishment with anything, meaning don't take "hydrogen end" and "oxygen end" as fact just because it says so. Fact: the establishment doesn't know what a water molecule looks like. It doesn't have an oxygen end versus a hydrogen end, guaranteed. The goofballs are tricking you.

Why shouldn't electrons be shift-able in atoms? google AI: "When a magnet is brought near a nail, it induces the magnetic domains in the nail to align in the direction of the magnetic field, creating a temporary magnet." You see? They don't want to admit that electrons are being repelled to far sides of the nail's atoms. The goofs are locked by their orbital theory into a position that will ultimately shame them as science imposters.

In the elaboration for the response above, under the sub-title, "No Electron Movement," AI says: "While the electrons within the nail do align their magnetic moments, they are not physically moving from their positions in the atoms. They are simply changing their orientation within the nail's structure." The goofs absolutely do not want electrons to shift in atoms when a magnetic material is brought close to them. Suddenly, electrons become mighty, able to resist the magnetism while entire atoms shift instead.

Which do you think is stronger, atom-to-atom attraction, or attraction of the proton to an orbiting electron? How strongly is an orbiting satellite in orbit? FAINT. It's balanced delicately between attraction and outward force. The slightest magnetic impulse would send it out of orbit. That's a fact you can depend on, which is why the goofs are goofs. You can't be so stupid as to believe that electrons orbit at the near-speed of light, because that speed would create enormous outward force. Why won't the establishment come to its senses? Why are the guardians of the establishment like rats urinating into your mind? How can such deceptive tricksters be so respected? What bewitchery ails humanity?

How strongly do atoms attract? Ask a sledge hammer to a piece of steel. Yet, you are to believe that all electrons maintain their orbits when a sledge is slammed against a pea on a block of iron. The pea's atoms are disbonded; the pea is crushed to a pancake, yet the electrons remain in orbit??? Are we nuts?

No, but electrons are jolted off of atoms. Banging a pea with a sledge is friction too. The electrons come off as the heat of the frictional process, but the crushed pea material re-loads with electrons from free electrons in the air.

So let me get this straight. A massless photon can knock an electron into a higher orbit, but a sledge hammer can't? What kind of absolute morons are our educators?

How do the photons hang on to electrons when smashing atoms with a sledge? Why don't photons come flying out? To answer that, use your imagination, not science, not logic, and you will be just like a science goof. C'mon, you can think of something. Just invent it. How hard can it be? The squashed pea emits no visible light. Where could those speedy photons be hiding upon the electrons?

Maybe photons have hooks that pierce the skin of electrons, hanging on in that way as the electron spins and orbits, just use your imagination. All you need do now is figure a way for the hooks to let go when the time comes for light formation.

Ignite some hydrogen gas, and H atoms unite with O atoms GENTLY, with much light production, yet zero visible light comes from materials slammed hard with a hammer? Are you sure that light derives in photons hiding out on electrons? Are you absolutely sure? Is there a better explanation for light formation? How do photons travel in straight lines after launching off of electrons orbiting at nearly the speed of light? Who in their right minds would take this seriously?

A hammer against iron can cause sparks. Electrons jump out of iron struck by iron hammers. The electrons crash into air atoms, causing light. Are you sure that this light is from photons coming off the orbiting electrons of air atoms? They say that the orbiting electron nicely settles trouble-free to a lower orbit when emitting a photon, yet the electrons of air atoms are bombarded by "giant" electrons jumping out of the iron or sledge. How can those orbiting electrons remain in orbit under that bombardment? What kind of absolute morons have been placed in charge of our physics education? They know that the light of the spark occurs only because the electrons in the spark-path are striking the electrons of air atoms. This spark to mamma's finger can send her ouch-ing across the room, but, according to the morons, the spark-force can't knock a wee electron out of orbit. Instead, it sends the electron to a lower orbit? MORONS.

The spark-path is like a meteor shower of electrons ramming through the electrons of atoms, but the morons tell us that the struck electrons just settle to a little-lower orbit? Why? Because they are ignorant morons who love to deceive, who won't play straight with your mind. In their picture, a spark would strip every orbiting electron from air atoms struck by the spark.

But, in true atomic model, only the outer electrons go free because they are held with little protonic attraction; the interior electrons remain on the atoms. They need a lot more force to be removed, and should anyone be able to, that's called "nuclear power." I don't know how many electrons atoms have, but I suspect thousands per atom, at least.

Better question: why do Christians believe them and even promote their "science"? I'm disheartened. Instead of exposing the enemy, they're scratching its back. Science departments are controlled by God rejectors and God despisers.

Rather than realizing the easy reality, that charged PVC plastic repels captured electrons as far as possible to the far sides of atoms, the goofs claim that the PVC's negative charge causes the positive ends of water molecules to face the PVC. But as this explanation cannot be used for all materials, they start to fall right in line with my claims, for lack of an alternative explanation:

"Yes, a negatively charged PVC pipe can attract an aluminum can due to static electricity. When the PVC pipe is rubbed against a material (like fur), it gains a negative charge. When brought near an aluminum can, the negative charges on the PVC repel the electrons within the can, causing the can to become polarized. The side of the can closest to the PVC becomes positively charged, and the opposite side negatively charged. Because opposite charges attract, the can rolls towards the PVC pipe.

That is a moronic answer desperate not to tell the audience that electrons in the aluminum atoms are repositioned in the metal, but rather than telling the people that electrons are sent to the far side of atoms only, they have electrons shifted clear across to the far half of the can. Instead of polarized atoms being the result, the entire can is said to be polarized (defined as one side negative, on side positive).

You can clearly understand why they prefer half the atoms in the can to be negative, and half positive, rather than half of each atom negative and half positive. BECAUSE, you cannot have orbiting electrons on one half the atom only. Orbiting particles must traverse both halves of the atom, the near side and the far side.

And so they cling to the fantasy that some electrons orbiting on the near side, the side nearest the PVC, are chased to the back half of the can, and they somehow traverse instantly through the atomic jungle to the back half while not orbiting protonic cores, but, upon arrival to their final destinations on the back half, they start to orbit there. DISGUSTING LIARS who know better, but lie anyway.

Why are they not making the same argument for aluminum as they do for water molecules? Because, aluminum is an element that does not have a multi-atom molecule by which to fantasize a negative charge in one atom (of the molecule), and a positive charge in another atom (of the same molecule). They take the opportunities to make such claims when it comes to molecules, but cannot with the elements.

You can begin to see what a horror story it becomes when they assign negativity and positivity to atoms for all the many molecules, for in one molecule they would make one type of atom negative, but positive when the same atom is in another molecule, as the needs arises, not following a strict rule for the atom, but cherry-picking...like acrobatic hypocrites. Falsifying imposters have no moral dilemma when cherry-picking whatever works at the time. In order to get away with such things, there's no end to their inventing justifications for their fixes upon fixes upon fixes. They give fixes special names to give the impression that the fixes are acceptable science to the bulk of scientists.

With their admission that electrons can be sent to the far half of a can, by the magnetic power merely of rubbed PVC pipe, they have fallen into the trap they dread. They are essentially in agreement with me when I say that a negative gravity force can send electrons merely to the far sides of atoms, and in the meantime attract the atoms. See that? Their admission admits that gravity could be an electromagnetic force, because there is a logical means by which to explain how such a force attracts ALL ATOMS.

Only one thing is required for negative gravity to attract all atoms: gravity sends electrons in every atom more to the top sides of atoms. How can that simple thing be impossible or even unlikely? It's LOGICAL, EXPECTED, REVOLUTIONARY, and it makes willful idiots out of orbit-worshiping goofballs. I apologize for that language: some are only blind idiots.

You can find videos of PVC pipe attracting a metal can such that the can is made to roll along on a table. The goofs must now fantasize that the orbiting electrons on the far side of the can are, DURING THE ROLL, transferring atom-to-atom while retaining orbits, because the far half of the can becomes the front half after a half-revolution of the can, in less than a second.

Watch AI squirm when asked: "what happens when an orbiting electron strikes an orbiting electron?" KABOOM, the universe dies in two seconds flat. How many electrons in solid and liquid objects would collide due to orbits? Innumerable. But the quacks tells us it isn't so. AI:

In quantum mechanics [a fantasy you are to be entertained and stupidified by], it's not quite accurate to say orbiting electrons "strike" each other in the way we might imagine macroscopic objects colliding. Instead, when electrons in different orbitals interact, they can exchange energy and change their quantum states, a process often described as a "transition" or "scattering". This can involve the emission or absorption of photons (light particles).

Electron transitioning, the changing of the heights at which electrons orbit, doesn't answer the question, doesn't explain why electrons don't strike each other millions of times per second per atom. No solid or liquid material could exist under that scenario. Orbiting electrons are the destruction of merged atoms, yet they say that an atom is destroyed unless it orbits. WACKO.

AI deflected with a word salad because the quacks programmed AI to answer the question that way. BLASTED, LYING DEMONS control science. How many billions of dollars and hours have been wasted for understanding orbiting electrons that don't orbit, and for making excuses for how they can indeed orbit against several laws of physics?

It's all-too possible that the God haters, or the demons who controlled them, chose orbiting electrons to avoid the reality of electromagnetic gravity, for the latter makes the evolution of the cosmos, by the big bang, impossible. The alternative to orbiting electrons is stationary electrons that "dance" (toss about) lightly on atomic peripheries when light shines on them (no light, no motion). This alternative lends itself so much to a re-defining of gravity as electromagnetic force that, maybe, it partially explains why the evolutionists decided to go with orbiting electrons.

For star formation, the goons needed every atom to possess a gravity power by which to "conceivably" attract one another into proto-stars. All they had was "conceivably," half the basis upon which they could fool the people. The other half was their masking themselves as super-intelligent heroes such that nobody should counter their claims. When you think about it, IF you think about it while deluded and hypnotized by "quantum mechanics," a wee-wee gravity power existing in each proton could never allow protons to attract each other for forming proto-stars. But, as long as the super-intelligent say it could be done, and was indeed done, who are you to argue?

It's clear to science that a small shedding of electrons from two or more atoms causes their protons to repel each other. Therefore, any gravitons in the nucleus can't rescue the atoms from repelling each other. How, then, did these gravitons cause protons to attact from vast cosmic distances? Didn't happen. It's a God-murdering fantasy.

I'll remind you that a man on a bike, travelling far slower than protons from the big-bang explosion, defies gravity. As long as the bike moves five miles per hour, earth gravity has insufficient power to attract the bike and rider to itself. The forward motion over-rides earth's gravity just a few thousand miles underneath his feet. Imagine how much less the gravity of one proton is upon a speeding, "neighboring" proton a million miles from itself, a million years after the big bang. Ten million years after. A hundred million years after. Are you nuts who actually believe this star-formation garbage?

I asked google: "how do orbiting electrons avoid each other?" AI responded:

Electrons, being negatively charged, naturally repel each other due to electrostatic forces. However, in an atom, they also experience an attraction to the positively charged nucleus. These two opposing forces, along with the principles of quantum mechanics, dictate how electrons arrange themselves and avoid colliding.

It again did not answer the question, for it is inconceivable as to how the inter-repulsion of electrons, or their attraction to protons, keeps them from crashing. It's irrelevant. Their inter-repulsion is meaningless when they fly such tiny orbits at nearly the speed of light. The wee bit of repulsion can't alter the trajectory of such a fast orbit should two or more electrons be headed for a crash. In just one second at that speed, sufficient orbits are made that the electrons would pass each other zillions of times, and, as such, they will crash without question within that one second, especially when two or more atoms are merged (i.e. when sharing orbiting electrons).

Planet Formation According to the Weeds

I'm going to accuse people who love to push atomic physics as people who love delving into fantasies, who love entertaining themselves with fantasies, and teaching them to others. I'll go so far as to say they love to deceive while being self-deluded into thinking they are teaching realities. Anyone who loves truth can see that atomic physics is a big red flag. Many people just stay away from it, not interested, good for you if you're like that.

Ditto for many astronomers and cosmologists. They invent all sorts of entertaining ideas, and are prone to "proving" that there was life on Mars, for example. Some of them will ape what they hear from NASA. For example, that the stepping stones to life on earth have been found on asteroids. It's wholly expected that God-haters would seek to make down-and-dirty evolutionists celebrate "finds" like that. The more they invent things, the more the down-and-dirty get emboldened. When evidence against the big bang comes out from Hubble, just feed the crew exciting stories of amino acids found on asteroids. That's how deceivers work.

NASA DID NOT put men on the moon. google has hidden most of the evidence for that fraud. Some of the accusations against the moon landing can be seemingly "de-bunked," but de-bunking videos never treat the most damning evidences that cannot be de-bunked. If you search for the most-damning evidence, google gives you the de-bunking videos. People denying the moon landing are now lumped in with flat-earthers. Trust your intuition, knowing that, if NASA put men on the moon in 1970, they would have RUSHED back to do the same in every decade since then.

Trust your intuition: it was impossible to drive a capsule backward/downward toward the moon, to keep it straight up so that it did not crash. The astronauts could not practice it on earth because NASA knew such an attempt was fatal for anyone inside the craft, yet we are to believe that, on their first attempts ever, at the moon, all the pilots got it right the first time, Apollo landing after Apollo landing. Horse manure. What insane man would agree to drop a capsule on the moon that did not work on earth, knowing he'd likely kill his buddies in the capsule? Don't be stupid. They did not walk on the moon.

Don't be stupid, NASA is yet involved in entertaining deception, now with all sorts of computer animations and invented claims to keep your interest.

How did asteroids come to orbit the sun along with the planets? What kind of a physics weed would teach that metal / silica gases from the sun started to orbit the sun until they condensed, then cooled further into hard rocks? Astronomy has an infestation of poisonous weeds, do not eat. They are reserved for Fire from the hand of God. It will not be fire from happen-chance, but from the hand of God Himself. It will go to astronomers. Stay away from them, do not partake in their sins.

What do we know about gases? They SPREAD OUT. Hello? How could the atoms of gases in OPEN space come together to form hard rocks? Are we so stupid that we believe these moronic ideas without going through the steps to assure that the claims don't break the laws of physics? What do we see in open space, walls that prevent the gases from spreading out? No. Then what is out there that could possibly allow the gases to come together into hard rocks? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This is how easy it is to make jackasses of big-bang cosmologists.

Not only would the big-bang gases not come together to form stars, but gases from stars could not form orbiting rocks. In the 1950s, NASA reported the discovery of the solar wind. It wrongly reported it as half free (bare) protons and half free electrons, but regardless, this wind carries gas atoms away, not allowing them to gather at the planetary orbits even if gas atoms could in themselves congregate as proto-planets. Not only do gas atoms seek to get away from each other, but the solar wind would brush them clear out of the solar system even if the sun did expel gases.

How many gas clouds do you see, today, circling the sun? Why zero? If the sun expelled gases long ago, why not also today? What could be the difference of long ago as compared to today? Where did the early sun get the metal atoms, the silica atoms, etc., to form the planets?

How did the protons get into the big-bang spot? What kind of a demonic moron dares to teach that all the material in the known universe was at a single, big-bang spot? These ruinous and harmful lunatics should be in a jail, and God has prepared one for them, a very terrible place for all who war against Creation. Stay away from them. Don't scratch their backs by passing off their inventions.

Whenever the goons try to explain proto-star formation, they begin with a gravity pool at one region of space. They draw illustrations showing atomic particles sucked into that gravity pool. Ya-but, how did the gravity pool form in the first place? Duh, it couldn't have. If they say that gravity resides in protons, and if protons repel each other, then a gravity pool could not have formed, yet these weeds claim that trillions of such gravity pools formed, each one a proto-star. Therefore, fire like the fire inside of a star will be the resting place for these thorny plants, and God will not have mercy upon them when the dark gases of their lives go up in torment. A star is a lake of fire, we could say, with the "chasm" of space all around it.

Did the big bang also create gravitons? If so, how did each atom get one or more of them? Something in the proto-atom had to attract the gravitons, right? If protons attracted gravitons, the latter look negatively charged. The goons tell us that gravitons are not magnetic, however, yet they somehow got into every atom. HOW? Not only did the goons invent a force that keeps protons connected such that this scheme could form metal and silica atoms, but they invented some method for atomic cores to attract one another into stars. They never discuss with you the complications and impossibilities involved.

The big bang with its related inventions would never have occurred to people, never have been taken seriously, never have gotten a government platform, had not the weeds warred against God, to de-throne Him on earth, to steal His universe for themselves. Their guilt is not merely being innocently wrong with their science, but they have pushed error upon obvious error just because it has worked to destroy Faith in many, and to make people callously and gratefully sinful. Evolutionists are not guilty of a small sin only, but the very sin of the rebellious and devious devil. Do not show such fools respect. People will latch to popular evolutionism just because it's the wide road to sin. Evolutionism is "naturalism," devoid of Spirit, playing to mammon, the root of many evils, especially kingdom-building wars = brutal murder for money.

Not only do gases in space spread out ever-thinner with passing time, but they will not orbit the sun unless something puts the gas atoms into orbit. It's completely moronic to suggest that gases exploding forth violently from the early sun were put into perfect orbits that retained perfect orbits for millions of years. Do they even know how long that is? Sinners swallow a million years as if it were candy. They pass such long ages mouth-to-mouth, happily infecting each other.

Do we see hydrogen gases orbiting the sun today? Do we see hydrogen gases floating away from the sun today? The sun is filled with hydrogen atoms, but if they are not exploded forth into space, but are trapped in solar gravity, what makes the morons teach that metal and silica atoms escaped the early sun for planet formation? Nothing makes them say it having natural logic as the basis, but rather they claim the incredible as if it were candy because they are evangelists of the devil.

How did metal atoms and silica form in the early sun? The weeds had choices. They could invent the formation of those atoms from within the big-bang explosion, ready-packaged there such that they didn't need to invent any processes by which they could be formed in stars, but they opted to invent the fallacy that all atoms are multiples of the hydrogen atom. In this way, stars could become the factories that built the atoms of all the elements, by clustering of protons. They needed only invent the "strong nuclear force" that could keep the inter-repelling protons clustered. And that's what they did.

Stars could not magically create whole protons that were of 100 different types, and so the goons opted to build an atomic model wherein 100-plus elements have the same proton, but with each atom having a different number of protons. And that's what they did.

Someone in their ranks probably objected to the invention of the big bang creating 100-plus protons, because the people would not easily swallow the idea that an explosion could perfectly replicate each of 100-plus protons in innumerable quantities. And so they opted to devise the fantasy that the explosion replicated only one type of proton. And as stars are made of mainly hydrogen, that's the only reason that hydrogen was invented as the only atom (in their scheme) having one proton alone.

We Christians can prove Creation by God in countless ways using science FACTs instead of science fantasies, yet the evolutionists loath that we should use "their" science for our own purposes. So long as we attach a Creator to science, the goons claim that we are cheating science. Sinners will take that position. But nobody owns a fact.

If the big bang and star formation are impossible, if fossils do not reveal front legs evolving into wings, then the only alternative is a Creator. We can win this war easily by exposing and spoiling evolution's key inventions. We don't even need to prove that Creation took place, because it's the only default where evolution is fakery.

But, it is enjoyable to watch Creationists prove a Creator by many methods. All Christians should become excited fans of Creationist science, like when two teams are battling it out for winner-takes-all, and we know we are the winners who will take all, when the weeds are exposed worthy of being burned in the fire. This conflict should be our number-one "sporting" event. We should cheer Creationist scientists. But, alas, they adopt many evolutionist fantasies, what a shame. They score into their own nets when they do that. They move the goal posts closer to the evolutionist field kicker when they do that. They let evolutionists steal bases when they do that. They lose their fans when they show respect for the killers of God. Evolutionists are not seeking to steal bases only, but whole souls, even of our children, and do we treat them with respect?

When Paul met the false prophet, Bar-jesus, did the apostle show him respect? No, but filled with the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:9 says, he called him a "child of the devil." Don't you think that evolutionists who convert to Jesus would be more proud of Creationist scientists if they showed the same disrespect for the arch-enemy, passionately and fearlessly calling it out for what it is? We don't need to lavish that beast with respect for fear that one of their people might not be saved, because not one will be missing from Eternal Life whom God has chosen for it. By showing respect, we send the signal that it really doesn't matter much what side people are on. Treating it with respect is like making a peace treaty with it, allowing it to re-arm in secret while we're pacified. Rather, the more we are whacking this beast to death, keep whacking it harder because it's trying to rise up to kill us.

A cold planet or moon has no gravity, but it can still be placed into a solar / planetary orbit because solar / planetary gravity attracts its atoms. Some moons are so small they are not expected to have molten interiors, without which they can have no gravity. Gravity is from heat, though gravity is not heat proper. Gravity is the negative charge of heat because heat is free electrons. The many round craters on our moon are from lava flows, not from asteroid landings. Therefore, the moon once had gravity force, if it no longer does now.

Only a non-thinking idiot box claims that thousands of round and near-round craters are made from asteroid landings. The problem is, Creationists scratch the back of the evolutionist beast on this matter, for this beast uses lunar and planetary craters as proof of long ages in the billions of years. What's wrong with Creationists that they don't point out the lack of long skid marks on the moon expected if asteroids have been pelting it? What's wrong with Creationists that they don't point out the lack of oval craters expected if asteroids have been pelting the moon / planets? Asteroids don't land only while striking dead-on. Yes, striking dead-on will create a round crater, but asteroids are expected to land randomly at all angles, and when landing on sharp angles, the space rocks are expected to skid into the ground, creating long ditches, or even bounce after making a long skid mark. What's wrong with Creationists?

If asteroids explain lunar craters, there should by far be more non-round craters than round. My estimation is that, for every five round craters, there should be 24 oval ones from 45-degree strikes on average, and more than 24 skid marks from near 90-degree strikes.

Revelations from PVC

I'm wondering whether rubbed PVC attracts all atomic materials. I therefore asked google: "what does rubbed PVC repel?" The response tends to affirm that it will attract all atomic materials:

...This negatively charged PVC pipe will repel other negatively charged objects and attract positively charged objects. Specifically, rubbed PVC will repel other negatively charged PVC, as well as other negatively charged materials like a plastic bag or a negatively charged foil bit.

It tends to suggest that PVC will cause all non-rubbed atomic materials to become positive such as to attract them all. In that case, why can't negative gravity do the same?

google AI tends to tell me, in another way, that PVC will attract all materials, unless they are rubbed or made negative in some other way. I asked, "does rubbed PVC attract all materials", and got this possible half-lie:

No, a rubbed PVC pipe does not attract all materials....This negatively charged PVC pipe will then [when rubbed] attract materials that are positively charged or have a neutral charge [= unrubbed materials!] with a polarized charge distribution, where one side is slightly positive and the other slightly negative. However, materials that are already negatively charged will be repelled by the PVC pipe.

Ya-but, just because PVC repels other negatively-charged materials doesn't mean that gravity will too, for such charges are only "skin deep" into materials. Gravity attracts negative, rubbed PVC because the great majority of its atoms are made positive by gravity, and only few atoms become negative toward gravity by rubbing them.

I've just attracted plastic vitamin caps with rubbed PVC. Rubbed plastic goes negative such that it will repel rubbed PVC, but when the rubbed PVC is put to unrubbed plastic, attraction happens, i.e. same effect as gravity.

Where AI above says of neutral materials, "where one side is slightly positive and the other slightly negative," that to me is a fib. It wants you to believe that rubbed PVC makes the entire far half of an aluminum can negative, and the entire near side of the can positive. BUNK. The only reason the goofballs make this claim is that their orbiting electrons can't make half an atom negative and half positive. My atomic model allows for it, however, meaning I win, they lose. I share the true mechanics for attraction by static charging.

When I rub PVC and bring it close to an upward-pointing flap of small note paper, the two attract. If I keep the pipe a half-inch or more from the paper, the latter only nears the pipe a little but does not touch it. When I sink a plastic ruler between the paper and pipe, most of the attractive forces are blocked. Attraction force does not go through the ruler. Yet AI's programmers would have you believe that the PVC pipe acts on the far half of an aluminum can some three inches from the pipe, right through the metal in the front half of the aluminum can.

The PVC pipe is only 5/8" inside diameter. When rubbed on the one side, the opposite side/half does not get charged; it neither attracts nor repels the paper. When rubbed on one end, the opposite end of the pipe does not get charged. The charge is only where the rub occurs; it does not spread throughout the atoms of the pipe. I'm not suggesting that the rubbed atoms are half negative and half positive, but am claiming that the non-rubbed atoms of the paper, plastic, steel, aluminum, etc., when brought close to the rubbed pipe atoms, become net-positive on their near halves facing the PVC, and net-negative on their far halves. This is the secret to gravity force that is no longer a secret.

Let me say that again. When PVC becomes negative, I see that the atoms at the rubbed area are over-loaded with electrons all around the atoms, not heaped on one side of the atoms. BUT, when this PVC is put near another object, it causes electrons within it to become heaped on the far side of atoms.

It doesn't matter where you are on earth, rubbed PVC loses its charge after two or three minutes. Ditto for all rubbed / scraped / banged / eroded / blasted / wiped / stirred materials. Those materials that lose electrons are going to re-load with electrons from the free electrons in the air, ANYWHERE ON EARTH. You will not hear the goofballs speaking on these electrons much, if ever. They are brainfooled (trained) not to mention them. There's no talk about atmospheric electrons at the central square of science. They appear in the minds of the goofballs only in their nightmares.

As free electrons, they cannot be orbiting atoms. They are envisioned as bang-banging together in the way that the goofs imagine air atoms bang-banging together in all directions randomly, and never loosing speed (impossible). But you never hear the goofs tell that a vacuum has free electrons. Even if they wish for there to be few free electrons in air, the goofs are required to be honest, to tell of them, when explaining a vacuum. They therefore pretend that their tongues have been cut out, because nobody is supposed to know that free electrons are in the air.

While they tend to claim that air atoms are neutral toward each other -- until they need to cherry-pick an explanation as to liquid formation from gases, when gas atoms suddenly and magically have attraction toward each other -- they cannot claim the same for free electrons in the air. They are therefore required to inform the people that free electrons in the air will inter-repel each other clear out into outer space. The reason they don't tell you this is because they then need to explain where atmospheric electrons come from to replace the ones lost into space. The solar-wind electrons, of course, but they don't want you to know it.

You can now see why they absolutely did not want a negatively-charged gravity force, for it repels free electrons into outer space even faster than the electrons themselves do. A negative-gravity definition compels the goofs to admit that, yes, no matter how few we think there are, atmospheric electrons must be replenished after being lost into space. Yes, they must admit, solar electrons must be entering the air. We were wr-wr-wrong, not just about the solar wind, not just about gravity force, but on our positioning ourselves as the holy guardians of science. We are a gross farce, they must admit.

Atmospheric electrons are a major problem for the goofballs, liars, deceivers. They won't come straight with you when their theories have major problems; they prefer to fool you, to hide the problems in their explanations that are moreover delivered to you often with law-breaking nonsense. If free electrons are travelling at vast speeds in the air, as the goofs claim they are, then they must be colliding at vast speeds against air atoms, in which case air atoms will become positively charged due to the bombardments knocking off some of their captured electrons. BIG PROBLEMS THERE. First of all, it predicts more free electrons from the air atoms and atmospheric water molecules. For them, this extra infusion of free electrons into the air is a bad nightmare going worse. Best not to inform the public about it, they decided. Best not to inform fellow goofballs, they decided.

Contact between atoms is going on all over the world. Some electrons are always going lost into the air, and others back into materials, not as rare events, but as the norm. But the finks don't want to talk about them? Why not? Why do they always say that electrons from rubbed objects go from material to material, but not into the air? When I ask AI how much free-electron material there is in the air, it's programmed to lie to me:

The vast majority of electrons in the air are bound to atoms and molecules, not free to move and conduct electricity. The percentage of free electrons in the air is extremely low under normal conditions, making it a poor conductor of electricity.

Air is not a poor conductor of electricity due to having very few free electrons, but rather because electricity is defined as electrons flowing as captured electrons. Electricity doesn't flow across free electrons. Therefore, if the goofballs use poor electrical conduction of air as proof that air has few free electrons, it's a trick, totally irrelevant yet played to your mind as relevant.

When asking whether a magnet attracts electrons or free electrons, AI is programmed to say, no:

No, a magnet does not directly attract free electrons. While magnetic fields can exert a force on moving charges, including electrons, they don't cause a simple attraction or repulsion like static electric charges. Instead, a magnetic field can alter the path of a moving electron, causing it to curve or spiral, but it doesn't pull the electron towards the magnet's poles.

I beg to differ. The very fact that a magnet can curve the path of an electron is evidence that a magnet affects the electron. Moreover, the fact that magnets attract iron suggests that the magnet re-arranges the captured electrons in iron, which in turn suggests that the magnet attracts and/or repels captured electrons in ALL materials. In most materials, however, magnets unable to re-arrange the electrons much would be the conclusion.

My point in going to magnets here is the claim that the earth's magnet re-directs solar electrons away from the planet such that they don't enter the atmosphere. This claim is to fend off their worst nightmare: the air is stacked with free electrons.

On the one hand, they say that magnets don't attract or repel electrons, but on the other hand they say that solar electrons are re-directed from striking the earth via repulsion from the earth magnet. Not that the latter exists (it does not), but that they contradict themselves whenever cherry-picking is necessary in attempts to hold their fantasies together. If they claim that magnets attract electrons, then they would need to claim that the positive pole of the earth attracts them too, and vice-versa for the other pole. As they don't want you to know that solar electrons enter the air, they also claim that magnetic poles don't attract them. Cherry-picking. They yet claim that the magnetic forces of earth somehow repel them ALL, ALL AROUND and PAST the earth. CHERRY-PICKING LIARS.

Wikipedia, typically aping the establishment, says: "The south pole of a lodestone points to the north pole of the Earth and vice versa as the terrestrial globe is magnetic." Ah, er, not so fast. Just because the one end of a compass needle is attracted by the north pole of earth doesn't necessarily mean that the other end is attracted to the south pole. The needle pointing south does so by mere default of the opposite end pointing north. There is no magnetic south pole. It's a lie that conveniently allows the goons to fabricate a reason for the false claim of earth's rejection of solar electrons. This is nasty "science."

Here's Wikipedia aping a lunatic theory:

Free electrons in the atmosphere move at very high speeds, typically around 10^6 meters per second (one million meters per second). However, this is their thermal speed, meaning they are moving randomly in all directions [= the impossible bang-bang theory of particles].

That speed of one million meters per second is only 622 miles per second, much-much lower than their electron-orbit speed. I have no idea how they arrive to the speed of atmospheric electrons, but it's not from experimental observations, that's for sure, but rather from their typical fix-a-fix reasoning. They create the need for fixes almost each time they fix a problem with their own theories, for one fix requires another fix requires another fix. They need to fix the problem of how possibly rubbed materials, which lost orbiting electrons, can take in slow atmospheric electrons and catapult them to the near-speed of light in orbit again. Fix-a-fix-a-fix lunatics never come to their senses.

They probably slowed electrons in the air so that they could minimize the lost electrons expected from their bombardment with air atoms. With super-fast electrons in the air, all air atoms become inter-repelling ions, you see. They didn't want that, and so they fixed the problem with the claim that orbiting electrons, which never slow down while orbiting, suddenly slow down to a near crawl when they enter the air. FIXITY-FIX FARCES. Whatever they WANT the world to be, that's their "science." They shape science, not vice-versa.

I asked google what material makes PVC positive, and it told me that wool does. Yet google's AI also tells that wool makes PVC negative. "PVC (a type of plastic) tends to attract electrons more strongly [more affinity] than materials like wool or fur." Yet, google AI says: "...a material like wool, which has a higher electron affinity than PVC." Either AI has its wires crossed, or someone wants us to falsely believe that PVC can be made positive.

It also says: "To create a positive electrical charge on a PVC pipe, you need to rub it with a material that has a higher electron affinity than PVC, such as wool. This process transfers electrons from the PVC to the wool, leaving the PVC with a net positive charge." That seems incorrect to me.

I would suggest that there may be no material that makes PVC positive, otherwise AI wouldn't have chosen wool. It should mean that PVC holds its electrons very miserly. I hesitate to use "very strongly," because the atomic fact may be that there are few captured electrons available for knocking off, depending on PVC's molecular configuration. In my atomic model, the exterior electrons on all atom types are held on with the same strength/force.

Plus, not only is PVC stingy in giving up electrons, but it adds electrons from other materials rubbed against it. Rub PVC against aluminum, and it robs aluminum electrons. How does that happen? What gives the PVC atoms a propensity to hold more electrons when rubbed, though it doesn't steal electrons from the air (or the aluminum) when not rubbed? I suggest that the PVC atoms hold their electrons weakly, unexpectedly enough. That is, when electrons from cloth or aluminum come off in friction, they inter-repel and punch each other DEEPLY into PVC, precisely because the PVC electrons are held weakly. Otherwise, if they were held strongly, they would be more like a solid wall to electrons punching their way in.

As you probably know, PVC is easy to cut, scrape or break, suggesting weak atomic bonds. Steel is harder in these ways, yet steal loses electrons to PVC when rubbed with it.

Another consideration is that the atoms having the most electrons, per depth into the electron atmosphere, are those that release the most-dense electrons, and the most-dense ones are those that inter-repel hardest, predicting that they will punch into the other material more than the other material's electrons punch into it. It's not always going to be so simple as to assume that the negatively-charged material has the strongest hold on (most affinity for) its electrons.

Gravity force is a MUCH-GREATER force than mere static-electric forces. The goofs always wish to portray gravity as a weak force. What? Are they science lunatics? Earth gravity reaches the moon, achem. How they call that "weak" is another evidence of their being cherry-picking boneheads.

google AI: "Gravity is often described as the weakest of the four fundamental forces in physics...While other forces like the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are vastly stronger,..." What a bunch of retards. They obviously have a fixity-fix motive behind this claim. Always suspect that their theories are fixes to other bad theories. Always assume guilty until proven innocent.

google AI: "Yes, electromagnetism, which includes magnetism, is fundamentally stronger than gravity." This is an idiot box speaking. Just because a magnet can pull a nail faster to itself than gravity doesn't mean that the magnet is stronger than gravity. The nail is pulled fast by a magnet due to its closeness to the magnet, but gravity force is thousands of miles below the ground. Try putting the nail an inch away from the heart of gravity force, and then tell us whether it's weaker than a magnet.

google AI: "A small magnet can easily overcome the gravitational pull of the entire Earth on a paperclip, demonstrating the difference in strength." RETARDS. These people are unworthy to educate humanity. What could be their secret motive for posing openly as such retards? I think I know. They decided to make a distinction between magnetism and gravity lest the people realized that gravity is a magnetic force. See that? Magnetism is strong, they say, gravity is weak, therefore gravity is not magnetic. Trust us, we're the super-intelligent who have it all figured out.

Gravity repels the electrons of ALL atoms to their top sides, as can rubbed PVC when it's positioned a half-inch underneath some atoms. But the rubbed PVC can't do the same to atoms an inch or two away. Gravity can do it all the way to the moon. Kick the bums out.

Hearken ye, science buffs with youtube channels. There's more money to be made exposing the inconsistencies and errors of modern physics than confirming its lunatic claims.

One of the four "fundamental forces" is the invention, the "strong nuclear force." It reportedly resides as an attractive force in the atomic nucleus. Very conveniently, the goons cherry-picked its nature. They couldn't have it attracting electrons, and so they decided that it acts over a very-short distance? How short? Not outside of the nucleus. It's a STRONG force, able to hold 100 protons together in a cluster, but it can only act a microscopic distance. If you believe that such a force exists, you are a sandblasted fool. The establishment has taken a sandblaster to your good senses, and turned you into a shining moron. If you are advertising the establishment's "science" on youtube, you are shining as bright as blinding light, and have become a sandblaster yourself, breeding morons.

The strong nuclear force was invented because evolutionists chose to go with the all-protons-are-the-same model. In this model, all atomic nuclei, for all the elements, have different weights. The more protons they cluster in the nucleus, the more that atom weighs. Ya-but, Galileo discovered that all atoms weigh the same, for he verified that all materials fall to gravity at the same speed of acceleration. There is no way to explain that reality but that all atoms weigh the same. Gravity pulls on every atom with exactly the same force, as long as all the atoms are the same distance from gravity. Therefore, atoms cannot have clustered protons, it's as simple as that.

Go ahead, try to explain how all objects, regardless of size or mass, fall at the same speed to gravity, if not due to gravity pulling all atoms with the same force? The latter is defined as, "weight." "All the same force" means "all the same weight."

It's not a grand coincidence that all atoms weigh the same. Gravity arranges it. Gravity force NATURALLY removes all electrons from the undersides of all atoms that are held on to the proton with less force than the gravity force. Only the deeper electrons, held to the proton with more force than the gravity force (at any one specific distance from gravity) will remain tight to the bottom of atoms. What does this result in?

It means that, after gravity has done its thing, the outer layer of every atomic bottom will have a protonic force equal to the gravity force. That's why all atoms weight the same, for every atomic bottom has exactly the same attraction force coming forth toward gravity. The very outer layer of the atomic bottom has electrons held to the proton by exactly the force of gravity, because the protonic attraction at that outer layer is equal to the force of gravity.

If the outer layer were held on by less than the force of gravity, it will be blown away by gravity. If the outer layer is held on by more than the force of gravity, it wouldn't be the outer layer, but would instead be a layer deeper into the atom than the outer layer. The higher from the proton the electrons are hovering, the more weakly they are held by the proton. Gravity will continue to repel electrons until it reaches the depth where the electrons are held by the same force as gravity.

Gravity arranges an atom to shine forth, beyond the host of its electrons, with the same protonic-attraction force as all other atoms, because gravity strips all atoms of electrons to the same point of net-attraction. The more that gravity undresses the proton of its electron clothing, the more protonic attraction overrides the negative forces of the electrons. Both forces shine forth in unison, but the more electrons are stripped away, the more the atom becomes net-positive in the downward direction. Gravity hasn't got the power to strip atoms more than when the net-positive force downward equals the negative force of gravity.

It doesn't matter how strong or weak gravity is at any elevation from the core of gravity, the only point I'm making is that all atoms at the same elevation have the same net-attraction force toward gravity such that all atoms at the same elevation will weigh the same (the higher we go, the less atoms weigh). Therefore, atoms cannot have clustered protons such that all the different types of atoms weigh at variance to one another. Every type of atom has ONE proton. Every type of proton makes a different-sized atom, but gravity pulls them all with the same force, GENIUS, because gravity reduces all atoms to, and maintains them with, a g-force attraction force.