There are several Biblical statements revealing what appears to be the shutting down of "our" galaxy, and while many are in the Old Testament, no Hebrew scripture exposes the stars "falling" to the earth. This difficulty was first offered to us by Jesus himself:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the tribes of the land will then wail as they see the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with much power and glory..." (Matthew 24:29-30).

See if you don't see what I do, not a blocking out of the sun by clouds or atmospheric dust, but a sun literally turned off while light radiates from Jesus Himself as he descends with "much power and glory." Other scriptures verify that he comes with much brilliance.

In the language, "the moon will not give her light," do we not receive the impression that the sun's light no longer shines on the moon, as opposed to atmospheric clouds/dust obscuring the moon from our eyes? Note in the following quote that the moon will be visible to the eye, glowing a deep red...even while the sun is darkened. There seems to me to be only one way for the moon to glow when the sun no longer shines upon it: the moon can glow with it’s own heat. Note, too, that the stars fall "to the earth," an impossibility in the literal sense:

"I saw when he opened the sixth seal, a great earthquake occurred, and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig-tree casts its late figs when shaken by a great wind, and the heaven departed like a scroll rolling up. And the kings of the earth...hid themselves in the caves..." (Revelation 6:12-15).

The explanation I offer here is the best I can do at this time outside of appealing, as other do, to a meteor shower. I do not believe that Jesus was referring to a meteor shower because the strange and awesome language of the sky departing, and moreover rolling up like a scroll, suggests something far less "conventional" on the cosmic scale. A meteor shower doesn't cause the sky to depart, and if the sky rolls up, one or two things seem necessary: the color of the sky must disappear from one point in the sky to another, and/or the stars must disappear in a similar, graduating way. Either way, the language doesn't speak to me as though atmospheric smoke and dust are the causes.

There are only two ways for the literal stars to "fall to the earth" (if you have another plausible theory, I would definitely be interested). One, the stars may be made to migrate through the vastness of space towards the horizon, or, if that seems too much, the Earth could be made to spin faster in the direction that it now spins, or to spin fast in another direction, in order to make the stars appear on one horizon as moving visibly toward the ground. True, the stars will appear on the opposite horizon to be rising.

The people at the equator now rotate at a little over 1,000 miles per hour (25,000 miles per day) with gradually reduced speeds toward both poles...i.e. as the circumference of the planet gradually becomes smaller. However, in order for the people to detect the movement of stars, the world would need to spin at much greater velocities, in the range of 1,000 miles per minute. While this would be considered a screech in the Olympic 100-meter dash, it is very slow where a large sphere is concerned, for it amounts merely to about .04 revolutions per minute. Still, the stars would then travel from one horizon to the other in about 12 minutes. Imagine.

If the problem with this theory is that the speed of "falling" stars on one horizon would not rate as being fast enough to resemble figs falling from a tree when shaken by a strong wind, then perhaps an equatorial velocity of 10,000 miles per minute (= .4 rpm) would do; stars would then cross from horizon to horizon in about 1 minute. I must admit, though, I feel like I'm out on a limb in making this suggestion.

Comparing stars to figs seems awkward in the first place; perhaps Jesus intended symbolic language. Some suggest that both stars and figs depict Israel so that the symbolism then translates to the fall of Israel during a tempestuous war. That fits. Yet I wouldn't for that reason deny the literal reading, that the literal stars will somehow "fall to" (i.e. cross past) the horizons. In Isaiah 34:4, where we have the same star-quenching event put in other words, the stars are likened to leaves wilting on a fig tree...clearly figurative language that may very well depict the fading away of end-time Israel, and yet I wouldn't deny the literal thrust of the text, that the literal stars will at the same time be made to fade away. Might Jesus have been expounding on that Isaiah text when telling that stars would, aside from wilting/fading away, also fall as figs from a fig tree?

How will the stars fade away? Although there are a couple of scriptures speaking of cloud cover over the end-time sun (e.g. Ezekiel 32:7), cloud cover is not mentioned in the bulk of cases as the reason for the darkening of the cosmic bodies. If dust or clouds obscure the skies, then how will stars be seen falling? Or how will the blood-red color of the moon be seen? The moon never turns red in the most humid conditions, nor when moonlight penetrates volcanic debris in the air. When the sun is completely obscured on a stormy day, do we say that it's black like sackcloth? Was Jesus really referring to a sun covered by black clouds, and if he was, why didn't he just say so? Therein is the evidence, in a black sun, that something in the realm of miraculous will overcome the peoples and shake them silly to the bones of their souls.

Perhaps Jesus was not so much comparing the speed of the falling stars to the speed of falling figs in a great storm, but was instead implying that the stars would fall at a time that an unusually great wind visited the world. Check out the violent storms of Psalm 18, for example (to be quoted later in this chapter). In 2 Peter 3:10, there is great wind implied on the Day the Lord when Peter writes: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens with rushing sound will pass away." This sound cannot originate in outer space, for sound doesn't travel through a vacuum, wherefore an atmospheric disturbance is implied.

If the question is whether or not the stars will disappear as a direct result of the rushing sound, as Peter's words seem to imply, the answer is: it's more possible than one might at first glance think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's an established fact that stars twinkle due to atmospheric interference with starlight, especially when the air moves i.e. as wind. The more moving air there is between our eyes and the stars, the more the stars twinkle, which is why stars twinkle nearer to the horizon.

It seems possible, then, that should great winds form at the brink of Armageddon, starlight could fade in and out more drastically than the average twinkle. This neatly explains how the heavens can "disappear" with a rushing sound, but it doesn't satisfy all the requirements of other scriptures; the sky must roll up and depart, which sounds a little more phenomenal than stars fading out due to a twinkle effect.

Some suggest that the darkening of the heavens referred to by Peter is the post-Millennial event wherein God does away with the universe and ushers in the New Heavens. But the impression of many others is that Peter was referring to the darkening of the stars as per Armageddon-related events, for he was clearly writing about the Day of the Lord i.e. a Day referring to Armageddon. In that case, we ought to understand his "pass away" phrase as "fade away." That is, the heavens at Armageddon will not pass away as in being permanently discarded, but will merely disappear...which of course means that the cosmic bodies can re-appear, as the sun and moon will re-appear, for the Millennium.

The Greek word for Peter's "rushing sound" is RHOIZEDON, which according to Strong's Concordance means "whizzingly." My lexicon defines it as "a whizzing, a rushing noise." The Oxford dictionary defines "whiz" as: "sound made by a body moving through the air at great speed." But the same whiz sound can be made in reverse, i.e. with air moving at great speed past stationary objects.

Revelation reveals an extraordinary wind on the Day of the Lord, if you know your meteorology. In the seventh Bowl (16:21), we read about huge hailstones weighing about 75 pounds. Meteorologists know that hail is formed because wind keeps ice crystals in the air for extended periods so as to develop them larger in size, but just how strong of a wind do they think will be needed to create hailstones weighing up to 75 pounds? Unbelievable, you say?

I can tell you that one cubic centimeter of ice weighs .92 grams. And I can convert 75 pounds of ice to 37,000 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 1.3 cubic feet. Then if I wanted to -- and I do -- I can convert that large "ice cube" into a ball with a diameter of about 1.75 feet! I mean, we're talking big white pumpkins here, falling out of the sky!! We wouldn't call this a dreary day. But just what do we attribute this unexpected precipitation to? A gentle breeze? Nay, but to a wind like never before...so that it creates a rushing sound unlike any other wind before. That's Armageddon in a nutshell: UNLIKE ANYTHING BEFORE.

Wind force (in pounds per square foot) on such an ice ball can be figured out with the formula used by engineers: .00256 x wind speed x wind speed = lbs. per square foot. Using this formula, I can tell you that an updraft (i.e. a wind straight up) of about 150 mph is needed to keep that ice ball suspended in the air. Imagine, then, how fast the wind would need to be if it were purely lateral instead of straight up!

Winds are formed by solar heat entering the atmosphere, as heated air shifts about, toward cold air masses. You'll probably agree with me that this daily wind-forming mechanism will not create the great winds necessary to create such huge hailstones...especially at a time when the sun goes dark. But if the planet begins to spin faster, then unusual winds are absolutely predictable. Consider the italicized text below:

"For the stars of the heavens will not give light, the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not reflect its light. And I will visit evil on the world...So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath of YHWH of hosts, in the Day of His fierce anger" (Isaiah 13:10-13).

"Move" is a mediocre translation of the Hebrew word here. According to Strong's Concordance, the primary meaning is "to undulate," a term defined by the Oxford dictionary as, "have wavy motion...gentle rise and fall." My impression from this Isaiah scripture is that the Earth, normally making a straight-line orbital path around the sun, will wind/snake in its orbit. This may or may not cause unusual winds, but in such a situation the planet may begin to spin erratically in any direction so as to cause furious winds...and making stars appear to fall onto certain horizons.

Evolutionists (i.e. God's enemies) have stretched the size of the universe to unimaginable proportions merely to support their evolution-theory requirements, namely a great age for the universe, this being a deliberate act of enmity against the very existence of God. Therefore I have come to understand that they are wrong in many of their assertions, especially those that can't be easily disproven, for evolutionists, being fools, are destined to make countless errors...that God will bring to light specifically for shaming the "wise" of this age. These individuals founded and therefore control, to this day, modern astronomy and astronomy-related curriculums...so that if you don't strongly agree with their findings, you won't likely get an important job as an astronomer/astrophysicist.

The ways in which evolutionists determine the distances to stars are erroneous toward their bias in providing for themselves (and their audiences) a universe extremely old and therefore extremely large. It is said that distances to stars can be determined by forming a triangle, with its base being the diameter of the earth's orbit, and the star acting as its apex. Knowing the diameter of the Earth's orbit and the angles (six months apart) to a star may allow one to calculate the height of triangle, which is the distance to the apex/star. This method of calculation is theoretically viable, but it won't work perfectly as it would when angles are measured from overhead on a small drawing on a flat piece of paper in math class.

You can imagine the great room for error in measuring angles six months apart that need to co-operate with one another to find a stellar distance, working from a telescope stationed on the round rock that is the sphere that is the Earth, as it moreover spins while tilted on its axis. Any tiny imperfection in the measurement of any one angle could make the star appear light years further away than it actually is. But such room for error is precisely what works nicely in the hands of evolutionists, for errors can be manipulated to one's own bias and then reported as truth, while correct or near-correct calculations (that favor a galaxy too small to support evolution theory) can be rejected as error.

The wider the earth's orbit, the longer the triangle's base will be, and consequently the more distant the star. Therefore, because the diameter of the Earth's orbit is determined by our distance to the sun, evolutionists would desire the greatest-possible distance to the sun. In my suspecting that the conventional 93-million mile figure was erroneous, I did my own meticulous calculations using online NASA data on specific solar and lunar eclipses. I discovered to my delight that there is indeed an absolutely-reliable method, using the geometry of the eclipse lines, to find the true distance to the sun.

Evolutionists don't use eclipse lines and the geometry therein to discover the distance to the sun, wherefore I can only assume that they discredit anyone's calculations who does, no doubt for the very reason that this method results in a figure far less than evolution requires. They therefore use the speed-of-light method (i.e. bouncing radio/light transmissions, for example off of Venus and obtaining from that calculation the remaining distance to the sun). Although the method is perfectly viable, it's not trustworthy until the true speed of light is in outer space is discovered.

The faster that light moves through the cosmos, the better for obtaining larger distances to the sun and stars, wherefore scientists have gladly assumed that the speed of light in outer space is the same as the speed of light in a vacuum on Earth. Not so. The eclipse geometry does not lie, and therefore the speed of light in space must not be the same as on Earth.

I spent ten years studying physics hard and in depth while devising my own understandings from scratch, believing that evolutionists got much of it wrong when aligning theories to their evolutionary needs. When I realized that heat needs to be re-defined as the negative energy of free electrons (i.e. electrons freed from atoms), and that solar heat was therefore based in solar electrons, I came to view light as a wave in a medium, just as scientists had believed before Einstein's photon. But I realized what early scientists could not, that the cosmic medium (called the "aether/ether") was made up of electrons.

And while the ether was (and still is by some scientists) viewed simply as a sea of unknown/hypothetical particles that filled the universe, scientists did not know where the particles originated; some suggested from Creation, evolutionists from the Big Bang. But if it's true that the particles are electrons, it should now be clear that ether particles are ejected by stars (including the sun), explaining why they fill the universe. Indeed, in the 1950s (decades after the ether was done away with because they expected it to weigh plenty and therefore exert detectable friction), astronomy proved, against resisting astronomers, the existence of free electrons in outer space, and moreover learned that electrons were a major constituent of the solar wind. Yet physicists have yet to realize/accept that these solar-wind electrons make up the light-wave medium...probably because the existence of an ether works counter to evolution, in that it significantly decreases the speed of light in outer space!

I realized, just as it's known and fully-accepted that the speed of sound decreases with decreasing density of the atoms through which sound transmits, that the speed of light must decrease with decreasing density of the free electrons through which light waves transmit. Thus is highly scientific, in other words, so don't flatly reject my claims here as though I were guilty of pushing pseudo-science.

Einstein ignored the idea of a light-wave medium in favor of a projectile, i.e. bullet-like light particle that came to be called a "photon." This idea was naturally terrific for evolutionists, for if light is viewed as a projectile, then it will travel at the same speed in a vacuum on Earth as in a vacuum in outer space. Only if light is a wave moving through a medium will it's velocity be altered/determined by the density of the medium.

So, the difference between the speed of light in outer space and in our atmosphere is the free-electron density in outer space as compared to the free-electron density in the atmosphere. And difference in these densities is as vast as the difference between the temperatures in outer space versus the temperature of the atmosphere (because free electrons are the basis for heat and temperature). Therefore, light travels slower as the temperature drops, which is proven in that scientists have slowed light to as much as 38 miles per hour at near-absolute zero temperature. Space, we are told, is about three degrees above absolute zero, or roughly 270 degrees C below freezing temperature.

Because my eclipse geometry has shown that the sun may be as close to Earth as two million miles, it not only serves to show that the sun is as much as 45 times smaller in diameter than claimed dogmatically by modern astronomy, but that light moves as much as 45 times slower in outer space than the 186,000 mile-per-second rate here on Earth. It's as much as 45 times slower because, rather than traveling 93 million miles in eight minutes, light moves as little as two million miles in eight minutes.

I should add that light, if its a wave, does not have moving parts that literally "move" at such impossible speeds that evolutionists are willing to accept against their better judgment; note that sound waves transmit at over 700 miles per hour in air, while the air atoms through which sound transmits hardly move at all. Ditto for the ether electrons...they hardly move at all due to light transmission through them. And light transmission is nothing but physical energy, the energy from the explosions in the sun. This is not the marvel; the marvel is that God not only made the eye capable of detecting that energy here on Earth even though we can't feel it colliding with our hands, but that we detect light in living color! Praise God for Creation!!

I am not off topic. The point is this, that the existence of the solar-wind ether easily provides an explanation for how stars can "disappear." For if the sun stops shining, as it will after the Tribulation Period, the solar wind will cease to move out from the sun. Then, where there is no longer some solar ether between our eyes and the stars, they will fade and/or disappear from our view. At first (correct me if I'm wrong), people on the day-time side of the Earth would see the stars disappear as a growing circle of blackness, starting exactly where the black sun is located, for stars behind the sun will not be visible because the solar ether will progressively disappear from around the sun.

As the electron-less emptiness grows larger and larger in the shape of a sphere around the sun, the stellar-disappearing effect here on Earth will move across the sky toward all horizons. As the last free electrons fly past the Earth, someone standing on the west night-time side of the Earth will see stars disappearing from western horizon toward the eastern horizon, but anyone on the east night-time side will see the stars disappear from the eastern horizon toward the west. This phenomenon may certainly appear as the sky rolling/unrolling like a scroll. In fact, people in the middle/midnight region may see stars disappear simultaneously from both west and east horizons, or even from all horizons at once, with the disappearing effect meeting at/near the middle of the sky.

It is well known that it takes about two to three days for solar wind particles at the sun's surface to arrive to the Earth. It takes light waves much less time. In other words, and this is not to be taken dogmatically as Bible truth, the sun would go dark about two days before the last ether electrons fly past the earth, meaning that for two days the stars would fade/disappear gradually on what is normally the day-time side of the planet. There may yet exist in our solar system the small portion of ether to which all the stars have contributed, and this may allow some brighter/larger stars to fade but not disappear completely. In any case, so long to the Illuminati's pagan sun god, moon god, planet gods, and zodiac gods; the true God is about to appear.

It's not likely that the sun will go suddenly from normal to black, but rather gradually, by which I mean to say that the solar ether will diminish gradually and that the stars will therefore disappear gradually from our view, as though fading away.

One question is: will the stars be seen falling before the sun goes dark, or after it goes dark? I can imagine God causing the sun to go dark as the first thing He does, to capture the attention of the whole world, and to let the other strange events follow on the heels of that main event. This chronology supports another theory, that the Earth will lose its normal orbit, and start to spin out of control, as a direct result of the sun going dark. For one of the first things I realized as I delved into physics was that gravity is nothing more mysterious than the bulk negative energy of free electrons in the interiors of bodies...such as stars and planets.

In other words, as the sun goes black and ceases to produce free electrons, solar gravity will accordingly diminish, increasingly with time. I realize that I say this and the following at the risk of being taken for a wacko, but it scares me nothing to tell what I believe is the reality. I have reasoned with some very straight thinking that all atoms (i.e. all substances/objects) are attracted by gravity simply because gravity is negatively charged while, as scientists would agree, all atoms have protons (i.e. positive charge) at their core. Certainly this idea is not ludicrous but rather logical.

If someone would object because even neutral atoms are attracted by gravity, I would reply that atoms have been made neutral, positive, or negative, only after gravity took its attractive bite into them long ago. Or put it this way, that even a magnet can attract neutral iron atoms...as the magnet repels the electrons of the atoms and thereby gains an attraction on their protons. Ditto for gravity; it repelled electrons from atoms long ago and simultaneously took an attractive bite into their protons. The atoms are then considered "neutral" by scientists who don't know how gravity works.

Proof of my gravity theory is in Io, the only moon with an atmosphere, and not likely by coincidence the moon with the most volcanic activity. That is, an atmosphere existing on any moon would indicate that the moon's gravity force is unusually high (so as to allow the atmosphere to form in the first place), wherefore it's not a coincidence that Io's volcanic activity is high, since the very source of planetary gravity, a concentration of free electrons in the planet's interior, is also the source of interior heat/magma.

If gravity is indeed the negative energy of free electrons, wherefore gravity must repel electrons, then electrons (and consequently the ether itself) are not only weightless particles (since weight is defined as gravitational attraction), but are anti-gravity particles, in contradiction to the Newtonian belief, held to tenaciously to this day, that gravity attracts all particles (Newton was a Rosicrucian and Rosicrucians co-invented the theory of evolution).

Scientists can only prove that electrons have mass, but cannot prove that they have weight. The established weight of an electron is based on their assumption that everything is attracted by gravity. My contention that electrons are repelled by gravity answers those scientists who discarded the ether because they could not detect its weight nor the friction due to its weight (a weightless gas poses no friction). It also answers the scientists who long-ago discarded the theory of "caloric" because they argued that it, the substance of heat, should increase the weight of heated objects if indeed heat was a substance (modern scientists do not believe that heat is a substance, but merely the motion of atoms).

Gravity can be made to repel electrons at anytime, but only when substances are brought nearer to a source of gravity. Take a comet, which, as it falls to the sun's gravity, has many of its electrons repelled away so that a strong electron wind forms a bright tail constantly pointing away from the sun. Yes, this explanation for comet heads and tails is my personal conclusion; you haven't heard it anywhere else, and it's a far-better theory than what good scientists know is dead wrong: that comets are ice balls scraped physically by merely the solar wind so that the fiery light of the comet's head and tail is due to physical friction.

Nay, but that idea was proven right off the bat to be ridiculous as scientists insisted that comets must be made, not or rock, but of soft, easily-scraped and easily-melted material, that being water/ice. Scientists had no option but to take this view because they did not know that gravity could electrically erode the hardest rock if only it was brought nearer to a gravity source. So, the truth is, the light of both the comet head and tail is formed as electrons are ejected from comet atoms, into the cosmic ether. And the ejected electrons, because they are ejected not only from the comet surface, but throughout its interior, create internal heat so that electrons screech out of the comet rock with great ferocity.

Evolutionists reject electromagnetic gravity (i.e. that gravity is either negative or positive) because galactic evolution is impossible if gravity were to be either positive or negative. Gravity must therefore be viewed, at all costs, even to the cost of their integrity, as a special force all its own, capable of attracting exploded Big-Bang material into globs that formed the stars of galaxies. You see, if this mysterious gravity force that scientists believe in did not exist, and if stellar gravity was therefore either positive or negative, star (or proto-star) material would repel star material and for that reason could not form, from cosmic dust, neither stars nor galaxies. This is why stars are said to be neutral (neither positive nor negative) but harboring the mysterious gravity force. And while this gravity force is said to exist in every atom as the "graviton" particle, no one has discovered it nor explained how it works to attract another atom.

In reality, no one can prove that stars are neutral, and evolutionists have been telling for decades, ever since they discovered electrons in the solar wind, that for every electron the sun ejects, the sun ejects one proton...so as to stay constantly neutral. Ha ha, only in their dreams! NASA has recently sent out a ship to discover exactly what the solar wind contains, and I half expect them to maintain, in hushed dishonesty, their one-proton-per-one-electron theory. After all, that idea is already in the books, so if they just let it be they won't be guilty of lying, or so they might think.

I say what is far-more scientific, that stars are all negatively charged due to their great production of free electrons...probably freed from deep interior atoms that are no doubt damaged/destroyed/fused under the great weight of stellar surface material and/or by some other process taking place in stars. Consequently, stars, especially large stars, have the potential to repel one another, and this can in itself explain (i.e. we don't need a Big Bang to explain it) how all the stars could be moving away from one another so as to constantly expand the size of the universe.

Yes, I realize that some stars are said to be orbiting (i.e. attracting) one another, but this is no means for contradiction, for negatively-charged stars may attract one another for the same reason(s) that our sun attracts negatively-charged planets: the free electrons in one body (such as planets and weak stars) are so few as compared to its atoms that a second body (such as the sun) having a great number of electrons attracts the first body's atoms more strongly than it repels its free electrons.

Believe it or not, I am still on topic. If I am correct, then the planets may be spinning on their axes simply because the sun repels their hottest rocks. Assuming that it's true (as reported) that a planet has a molten pool at its core, solar gravity, in repelling the "electron soup" that the molten pool translates to, contributes at least in part to the pool's motion. The motion of a fully-enclosed pool must be a spin, for the motion of a pool cannot (at any one time) be in more than one direction (i.e. a pool moving in one direction translates to a spin).

A molten pool rotating in this way at the core of a planet would provide friction against the adjacent hard(er) rocks higher up, causing the planet to rotate as well, in the same direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the pool were spinning due to forces originating inside the planet, the planet could not for that reason spin, for any level of force acting in one direction would be exerted in the opposite direction to counter-balance it. For example, a man standing on a boat can hit that boat anywhere with a bat, as many times as he wishes, to get it to move forward, but the boat won't go forward for that reason. But if he gets out of the boat, his striking the boat will cause it to move forward (because the backlash from his striking the boat will not go against the boat, but against the surface upon which he is then standing).

Therefore, only if the core of a planet is spinning due to forces entering from outside the planet could the planet go into a spin as a result. If this is true, then I should be correct concerning in my solar-based mechanism for planetary spin. The direction of pool spin would be equivalent to a planetary equator. That is, the direction of spin determines the location of the equator, and the direction/angle of a planet's so-called "tilt" i.e. the locations of planetary poles.

The point is that, when the sun goes dark, resulting in a diminished solar gravity, the Earth may slow in its spin, and may even stop altogether so that, for sometime afterward, there is "no day or night" in accordance with Zechariah 14.

Although the Earth would simultaneously move outward from its normal orbital path, it would do so only a short while, over a very small part of the entire solar orbit...meaning that I wouldn't view it as a spiralling out of orbit. When the sun is turned on again, the Earth would be pulled back to a closer orbit, but could consequently wobble in its orbit for some time while it's regaining a smooth, normal path.

In the meantime, the sudden reduction of gravity force on the Earth's "plastic" (soft but not molten) rocks would allow those rocks to fall back, sending unusual energy throughout the planetary interior...so as to cause quake-like phenomena. I can't be at all sure that the planet's rocks will, in the future reality, be violated for this very reason, but it's a theory that connects well with a blackened sun, making the blackened sun the very trigger for violent activity inside the Earth:

"The windows from on high are opened, and the earth's foundations quake. The earth is breaking, breaking! The earth is crashing, crashing! The earth is tottering, tottering. The earth is staggering, staggering, like a drunkard. And it rocks to and fro like a hut, and its trespass is heavy upon it" (24:18-20).

The Hebrew for "breaking" means: "to spoil by literally breaking into pieces."
Where it says, "crashing, crashing," the Hebrew means: "to break up."
Where it says, "tottering, tottering," the Hebrew means: "to waver."
Where it says, "staggering, staggering," the Hebrew means: "to waver."
Where it says "rocks," it is yet another Hebrew word meaning: "to waver."

Clearly, there are two things happening: 1) a breaking up, and 2) a wavering, both of which may have the same cause, or one causing the other. It's difficult to determine if the wavering here is a spinning on the planetary axis, off the axis, or a wobbling in the solar orbit. If it turns out to be a spinning, then note that the spin will not be in one direction continuously, but instead a back-and-forth spin. That could suggest that the interior molten pool will become chaotic.

Again, I don't think that explosions or any other motions, if the forces that cause them originate inside the planet, could cause the planet to move in any way, unless there were an (unimaginable) explosion at/near the surface, or a high number of smaller explosions at the surface (e.g. volcanic explosions), that shoot into the air and thereby act like propulsion/rocket engines. If any of that sounds too fantastic, then I would suggest that the planet will waver due to the alteration of solar gravity.

The internal breaking that the above scripture implies is supported in Zechariah 14:4, where we read that, at that very time just prior to Armageddon, a large east-to-west crevice in the Mount of Olives is to be formed:

"...half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Thus, an east-to-west crevice. It will have the purpose of creating an escape route away from the Old City of Jerusalem, the city in which a surviving remnant of Jews will be trapped at the end of their tribulation period. Since the Mount of Olives is east of the Old City, the east-to-west direction of the crevice is evident in that alone. This then allows me to conjecture that the crevice will continue east of Olives, where we find the lowest place on Earth, the steep-cliffed Dead-Sea basin. The crevice is to reach an unidentified place which God called, "Azal," which, I believe, means, "reserved" (i.e. these remnant Jews suffering the wrath of God are yet reserved for salvation).

The point is, though in merely my opinion, the crevice has as one of its purposes the protecting of Jewish escapees not only from the military projectiles of Armageddon, but from the burning heat as per the predictable nuclear-weapon blasts, and therefore from the fierce hot winds blowing across the land above them. The route of the crevice into the extremely low Dead sea basin may suggest an Intended protective measure against heat...since the lower one is, the better it will be to escape the heat, for heat rises.

In order to maximize this measure, the direction of the planet's rocking/spinning, if it will indeed occur, must alternate north-to-south and south-to-north so that the resulting apparent winds are in the same direction...so as to pass over/across the crevice rather than sweeping straight into it like a train. In this scenario, the stars will appear to fall on the northern and southern horizons.

The result of a tottering planet is an apparent wind, by which I don't mean an unreal wind, but the sort of real current one feels with a hand out of a moving car's window on a windless day. However, if the Earth were to spin at just .04 rpm, which translates to a speed of about 1,000 miles per minute, the apparent wind upon an object/person affixed to the ground would not translate to the same speed, for air is tied to the earth's surface to some degree (by gravity) and would therefore accelerate to some degree with the spin.

Moreover, air between mountains and other continental elevations would tend to move with the spin of the planet more-so than air above the elevations. The invisible boundary between this band of faster, ground-connected air and the higher, slower-spinning air may act as a barrier to precipitation, kicking back water droplets and/or ice crystals (i.e. the possible cause of the huge hailstones)...much in the same way that spitting out the car window kicks the spit back onto the side of the car. Would loud windy noises (i.e. the Peter's rushing sound) form high in the sky where slower air meets faster air?

You might have noticed that the shaking of the heavens occurs in conjunction with the shaking Earth, as in the next quote, but I wouldn't limit God. He can, and may, shake the heavens literally:

"The earth shall quake before them, the heavens shall shake. The sun and moon shall grow dark, and the stars shall gather in their light, and YHWH shall give His voice before His army...for the Day of the LORD is very great and terrifying" (Joel 2:10-11).

I don't know if the events in this passage are listed chronologically correct, for at times a quaking of the earth and the shaking of the heavens are listed after the darkening of the sun and moon. I am confident that there will be at least two great quakes, one before Armageddon in conjunction with the darkening of the sun and moon (the one above that develops a crevice at Jerusalem), and the other after Armageddon (i.e. that ends Armageddon). Note the first quake mentioned in the contents of the 6th Seal (Rev. 6:12), not to be mistaken for the second quake of two verses later (see quote below)...that I think is equivalent to the great global quake seen in the 7th Bowl wherein the islands and mountains disappear. An island is, by the way, often/usually a volcanic mountain.

The islands and mountains disappearing, although one might imagine them collapsing into the sea floors/sub-terranean cavities, are more likely to be blown off, as for example Mount St. Helen blew much of her top off. For the Biblical language implies this, as for example where we read in the 7th Bowl: "every island fled" (Revelation 16:20). That language is more pronounced in the aftermath of the 6th Seal: "every island and mountain were moved out of their places" (Revelation 6:14). That speaks of heat build-up in the planet's interior, and the associated pressure build-up.

While in Matthew 24 Jesus reveals that the moon "will not give her light," he tells John in the 6th Seal (Revelation 6:13) that the "whole moon" would glow a deep red. This is not a contradiction at all, but rather tells that the darkened moon is to be eventually melted as far as the surface. One wonders if the turning off of the sun is somehow a trigger causing the interiors of all planets to heat up.

Recall the comet, that as it nears the sun from about as far away as the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, it begins to turn into a molten, fiery ball due to solar gravity repelling electrons from all its atoms. A planet, no matter how near to solar gravity, cannot ordinarily become comet-like simply because a planet does not ordinarily approach the sun. But if the Earth is to waver in its orbit around the sun, it will alternately veer further, and then nearer, to the sun, so that on its way nearer it may lose sufficient electrons from its interior atoms as to heat unusually.

And since the moon is tied to the Earth, the moon will be forced to near the sun when the Earth does, wherefore the moon's interior atoms will likewise lose electrons and heat up. But if the Earth is to experience this heat build-up, due to the turning off and on of the sun, why not the other planets?

If this situation is to occur as stated here, then the moon will not turn blood red until the sun is turned on again, wherefore the moon will in fact go dark so as not to be seen at all (during the time that the sun is blackened), followed by its going blood red after that. If the sun is turned on again so that Armageddon can be fought in its light, as is reasonable to assume, I would suggest that the moon becomes red closer to the start of the battle, nearer to the brink of Christ's Return.

In this picture, the moon and Earth together heat up unusually before the rapture occurs, whereafter Christ steps on the Mount of Olives just as it rips open (Armageddon then begins), meaning that the rapture may occur just prior to the massive quake and volcanic activity ("fiery coals") that is associated Biblically with the dark sun and red moon. A dire melting of the hills and rocks is scheduled after that time, according to multiple Old-Testament texts, and as for example Peter wrote: "...and the burning elements will melt, and the earth and works in it will be discovered" (2 Peter 3:10).

SHAME AND DISGRACE

We know that the stars have always been on fire and melted, so that Peter's prophecy could very well include planetary bodies, including our moon, where he wrote that "the heavens will be set on fire" (2 Peter 3:10). It's hard to tell with Peter because he speaks in the same passage on both the Armageddon events and the New-Heavens events, as though they were one event...because he did not know that there would be a thousand years separating them. Just the same, what he says is true and not contradictory, and I hope I have dissected it correctly.

If his statement is meant to be applied to the stars (I'm not convinced that it is so intended), and moreover to the stars at Armageddon, then we can either assume that the stars will become much brighter for a time while they literally burn out, or that they will merely appear to be in flames as for example in an extraordinary twinkle-effect due to the great winds of that time. In the following quote, rather than being on fire, the stars are to be waned, which of course is not a contradiction because burning things do dissolve and/or come to a waned or "wilted" condition:

"And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together like a scroll; then all their host shall wilt, as a leaf wilting from the vine, and as the wilting from a fig-tree" (Isaiah 34:4).

Obviously, when applied to stars, "dissolved" does not refer to scientifically-correct melting (since stars are already beyond melted), but the term could refer to scientifically-correct disintegration. The Hebrew term means to "consume away" or "dwindle," as happens to dying leaves. Apparently, starlight will fade away gradually.

But because stars are being compared to wilting leaves, the language seems figurative as well. The last thing coming to my mind when I think of fading stars is fading leaves on a fig tree. Fading fiery coals, or fading volcanic rock, maybe, but not leaves. But, then, coals do not depict Israel at all, while the fig tree apparently does. Consider how the same prophet, in describing elsewhere the same heavenly event, uses terms ordinarily applied to human conditions:

"Then the moon shall blush, and the sun shall be ashamed, when YHWH of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders is His glory" (Isaiah 24:23).

The term "blush" carries the idea of "shame" so as to reinforce the text's "ashamed" condition of the end-time sun. The use of "ashamed" is apparent where the blackening of the sun is likened specifically to sackcloth. Jesus could have said black like coal, or black like tar, but he instead used "black like sackcloth" to fuse disgrace into the event, for sackcloth is what one is commanded to wear before God in a disgraced condition. A blushing red moon and an ashamed black sun are appropriate for portraying both the Jesus-snubbing condition of end-time Israel and the moral poverty of the world's wealthy kingdoms.

The stars were a representation of Abraham's offspring when God first made the promise to him. The prophet Daniel compares the saints with stars on more than one occasion (8:10; 12:3). Just as the fading stars in Isaiah 34:4 are called the "host of the heavens," so the falling Israelites -- where the anti-Christ is over-powering them -- are likened to stars and then even called the self-same "host of the heavens" (Daniel 8:10).

The good news is that, at the very time that the host of Israel and host of literal stars are ashamed in that day, the host of Christ are simultaneously raised (raptured) to the sky to shine "like stars for ever and ever" (Daniel 12:3). He raises the saints to the skies as though the saints replace the glory of the stars...as though the stars were only a copy of the glorified saints.

Read the following Old-Testament description of what I claim includes the rapture, for someone is being saved at the brink of Armageddon, and I can only understand that someone, clearly the Lord's servant, acting as a representation of end-time Christians when enduring the great tribulation:

"The cords of death hemmed me in; yea, the floods of ungodly men overwhelmed me; the cords of Sheol surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me. In my tribulation, I called on YHWH and I cried to my God; He heard my voice out of His Temple, and my cry went before Him, into His ears. Then the earth shook and trembled, and the foundations of the mountains were moved and were shaken, because it angered Him. A smoke went up out of His nostrils, and fire devoured out of His mouth, coals were kindled by it. He also bowed [contextual meaning uncertain] the heavens and came down; and darkness was under his feet; and he [Christ] rode on a cherub [the "white horse"], and flew; yea He soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, His pavilion all around him, darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies. Out of the brightness before Him, his dark clouds passed through, hailstones and coals of fire. YHWH thundered in the heavens; and the Highest uttered His voice -- hailstones and coals of fire. Yea, He sent out His arrows and scattered them; and He shot out lightnings and confounded them. Then the stream beds of the waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were bared, at your rebuke, O YHWH, at the blast of breath of your nostrils. He sent from above. He took me; He drew me out of many waters; He delivered me from my strong enemy [the beast], and from those who hated me; for they were stronger than I. They went before me in the day of my calamity, but YHWH was my stay. And He brought me out into a broad place [the sky, of course, and what follows]; He delivered me because he delighted in me..." (Psalm 18:4-19).

Awesome language, awesome Day. Truly. I don't know if the list of events are fully chronological here, but we do see that the battle of Armageddon, when he scatters his enemies, follows the "bowing" of the heavens. The Hebrew word for "bow" (Strong's # 5186) means "to stretch or spread out," and while it may mean "to bow" when relating to a person, it may not have the same meaning when relating to the heavens. If it does have the same meaning, then it would suggest that the heavens are humiliated, and that then speaks to me of darkened heavens. On the other hand, the meaning may be that God spreads or moves aside the heavens (still being figurative/poetic) as he arrives through to the Earth.

In the quote, Armageddon occurs before the foundations are laid bare (i.e. no doubt the second, global quake wherein the islands and mountains are blown away). But I still cannot deduce whether the first, pre-Armageddon quake occurs prior to, or after, the skies are darkened. Nor can I discern how great/wide it will be, though it will obviously not be sufficiently destructive to keep the rulers of the world from bringing on Armageddon. If the quake comes first, one can be led to deduce that the heavens are darkened due merely to volcanic smoke/debris. In the quote, the quake is listed first, followed by volcanic activity, followed by the bowing of the heavens. Yet the text doesn't use the word "then" (i.e. "thereafter") so as to make the bowing of the heavens occur after the quake and volcanic activity.

The events are listed in reverse in the Day-of-the-LORD segment of Jeremiah 4:23-24, showing that God was not apparently concerned with showing chronology on this matter:

I looked on the Earth and behold it was desolated and vacant; and at the heavens, without their light. I looked on the mountains, and behold they quaked. And all the hills were shaken. I looked and behold there was without man...I looked and behold the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities were broken down before the face of YHWH, before his glowing anger...yet I will not make a full end. The earth shall mourn because of this, and the heavens above will be darkened..."

Now there will be an earthquake when Gog is destroyed, and because Gog is the anti-Christ, it must be the second, global quake. And indeed so it appears to read:

Surely in that day [when Gog is destroyed], there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel. And shall quake at my face all the fish of the sea and...all men who are on the face of the earth. And the mountains will be pulled, and the heights shall fall, and every wall will fall to the ground...And I will judge him [Gog] with a plague and with blood and an overflowing shower, and stones of hail; fire and volcanic debris...and I will magnify Myself, and sanctify Myself. And I will be known in the eyes of many nations and they shall know that I am YHWH" (Ezekiel 38:19-23).

Amen, Father, Amen. You are He.

The Hebrew word where I use "volcanic debris" is commonly translated "sulfur/brimstone," but that term is likely representative of volcanic material in general, and not specifically the element, sulfur. Yet the fact that volcanic smoke may logically accompany/surround Jesus when he returns does not mean that the heavens cannot be abashed by some other method other than smoke/clouds. The words in Joel's quote below lend some inconclusive support to those who feel that the sun and moon will be blocked out solely by clouds, smoke, and dust particles. Notice the sequence of events, pre-tribulationists, in that quote (italics mine):

"I will give signs in the heavens and in the earth: blood, and fire, and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome Day of the LORD." (Joel 2:30-31).

There you have it, pre-tribbers, the cosmic lights must first fade away and be ashamed before the Day of the LORD can arrive. Why then do you teach that the Day of the LORD is the tribulation period in its entirety? Just so that you can teach wrongly that He returns years before the cosmic lights are darkened? Is it not clear to you that the tribulation period is the "day of Satan," and that God cannot call it His Day until he returns visibly to remove Satan? Not until the time arrives to destroy Gog do the many nations glorify God and get to know Him for the first time, wherefore the Day of God cannot arrive until then. Therefore, place Gog's destruction at Armageddon, where it should be, and place the burning of Gog's weapons seven years into the Millennium, for on account of Armageddon the trees will not be available to provide for Israel's fuel...until after the seven years, when under a new sun seven times brighter than the sun we have now, there will be sufficient trees for fuel.

For those of you who believe that the moon will be red due to a total lunar eclipse, read the following (by Phil Plait, astronomy expert) that may discredit that view:

You might think that the Moon would be completely dark at totality. Not so. The Earth's atmosphere bends and refracts sunlight...[which when passing] through Earth's atmosphere most of the blue-colored light is filtered out. The remaining light is a deep red or orange in color and is much dimmer than pure white sunlight. The exact appearance [of the eclipsed reddish moon] depends on how much dust and clouds are present in Earth's atmosphere. Total eclipses tend to be very dark after major volcanic eruptions since these events dump large amounts of volcanic ash into Earth's atmosphere. During the total lunar eclipse of December 1992, dust from Mount Pinatubo rendered the Moon nearly invisible." (online quote)

In other words, for those who believe that the Earth's atmosphere will be full of dust at the end of the tribulation, you can't easily believe at the same time that the moon will go blood red due to a lunar eclipse. For those who believe that Jesus returns close to Rosh Hashanah (as I do), you can't teach that he returns at a lunar eclipse, for lunar eclipses occur only at a Full Moon while Rosh Hashanah is at the New moon.

AFTERWARDS

After the destruction of the wicked, the sun and moon will be reinstated in greater glory, with a moon shining as bright as our current sun:

"And the moonlight shall be like the light of the sun. And the sun's light shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day of binding up, YHWH binding up the break of His people [Israel], and healing the wound of His blow" (Isaiah 30:26).

We can be certain that neither the sun nor moon will be destroyed during the "shaming" process of Armageddon, for they are yet required for the Millennium. Today, the moon reflects only 1/14 of the sun's light received. Therefore, the Millennial moon must reflect 14 times as much light as it does today in order to appear as bright as the current sun. And because the Millennial sun becomes seven times brighter, the Millennial moon must reflect only twice as much sunlight (as it does at present) in order to appear 14 times brighter than it is today. That seems possible enough due to a meltdown of lunar dust, and the re-solidification of the lunar surface afterward. In other words, the fact that the moon will be 14 times brighter than it is today tends to prove that the moon's surface will be melted during Armageddon.

It has been my opinion that the moon was fashioned by God to represent His Son slain from the creation of the earth. I can see the suffering body of the Lamb in the pelted, pierced and dry lunar surface. I see that the moon serves to reflect the light of the sun just as Jesus reflects the light of the Father. I see that, from our perspective, the sun and the moon are virtually the same size, speaking of the Father-Son equality. I see only one moon, for there is only one Son. I see the constant devotion of Christ to mankind in the fact that the same lunar surface always faces toward the Earth. I see the phases of the moon as the changing levels of Christ's peace with us, sometimes strong, sometimes as though he were not with us. But as the moon is always there, even when it looks completely gone, ditto for Jesus! I see in the red hue of a lunar eclipse the crucifixion. Jesus died on Passover, a holy day (to be celebrated throughout the Millennium) that always falls on the full moon, the only time that lunar eclipses may occur. What will the Millennial eclipses look like??? And in the solar eclipse with its ring of fire around the moon, I see the crowning of the Son by the Father, or the Son taking his place upon the throne of God, where the Two become One. I see the Millennial increase in lunar brightness -- i.e. the moon becoming exactly as bright as the current sun -- as a new and greater glory of Jesus in the Millennium. And I see a Millennial sun with seven-fold brightness as the fuller glory of God falling upon the people. So much for the European Union, and the whole lot of rulers who together sought to copy-cat what only God can accomplish.

Let me take you to the prophet Zechariah now, as he relates the coming of the Lord to split the Mount of Olives in two:

"And it will be in that day, there shall not be light, the glorious ones will shrink. And it will be one day which will be known to YHWH; neither day nor night, but it will be that at the time for evening, there will be light" (14:6-7).

Well, is there, or is there not, going to be light, Lord? Yes, of course, but where there is no light in the first statement, where "the glorious ones" (the stars?) will shrink, He is referring to the fading away of the current cosmic lights prior to Armageddon. Then He says that there will be no day or night, an impossibility in my mind, for if the sun's shining, that's day, and if the sun's not shining, that's night. But then it's not an impossibility if it refers to the planet ceasing to rotate on its axis; perhaps this will last for just one day since it says "it will be one day..." Apparently the sun will be shining again on that one day, for we read that there will be light when evening is normally scheduled, and since this can't be sunlight because it doesn't shine on the evening side of the planet, it must be the light of the Millennial moon.

Note that a moon shining as bright as the sun does today not mean that it will produce as much light as the sun does today, because the moon reflects only a very small portion of total sunlight. If I remember correctly, the current full moon shines like a 200-watt light bulb from a distance of 200 feet, so that the Millennial moon will shine like a 2,800-watt light bulb from the same distance, or like a 40-watt bulb from about 20 feet away (light decreases/increases by four times for each doubling/halving of distance).

Light will shine from God's Being in the New Jerusalem, where that City has "no need of the sun nor moon," where "the glory of God lit it," and where "it's lamp [i.e. moon] is the Lamb" (Revelation 21:23). The sun and moon are clearly shown in this Revelation text to depict the Father and the Son, but the question is: does God likewise shine Light from His very Being during the Millennium? Psalm 72 suggests that this is not necessarily so, for we see there the sun and moon. While speaking of the Millennium, after "He shall crush the oppressor (Anti-Christ)," it says of the survivors:

"They [the oppressors/nations] shall fear you [Israel] with the sun, and before the moon in all generations...In His days, the righteous shall flourish, with plenty of peace, till the moon is not" (72:5, 7).

Well, is the moon going to continue forever, or not? There is no contradiction here, for we know that there will be neither male nor female in the New Earth, meaning no marriage (which is exactly what Jesus told the religious leaders) and, consequently, no more childbirth/generations. So, the moon must continue "for all generations" only until the New Heavens and New Earth puts an end to generations, but that's not until a thousand years pass after Armageddon. Those who don't wish to believe that this thousand-year Millennium will take place (i.e. who believe that the New Heavens/Earth takes place immediately after Armageddon), have the problem of explaining how the sun and moon, not to mention the human death reported in Isaiah 65:20, can exist after Armageddon.

When in the Isaiah quote below it says that the everlasting Moon will not "withdraw," we realize how it cannot be the current lunar situation, for "withdraw" refers to the phase changes that result from the lunar orbit:

"The sun shall not still be your light by day, nor the brightness of the moon give you light; but YHWH shall be an everlasting light to you, and your God for your beauty. Your sun shall not set anymore; and your moon shall not withdraw; for YHWH will become your everlasting light..." (Isaiah 60:19-20)

Nor can that Moon be the Millennial moon since it, too, will orbit and withdraw. In Psalm 89, where the moon is likened to Christ, I can get the impression that the phrase, "faithful witness in the sky," is an absence of phase changes. In any case, Christ is the everlasting Moon that will never again withdraw...so that it will never again feel as though the Holy Spirit were absent or abandoning us, but even before we pray, His answer will come to us. On the other hand, we see post-Armageddon features that are not in the New Earth in an Isaiah chapter devoted to the Millennial situation:

"YHWH will create a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night, over all the site of Mount Zion, and over her assemblies, for over all the glory will be a canopy. And there shall be a booth for a shade by day from the heat, and for a refuge, and for a hiding place from the storm and rain" (Isaiah 4:5-6).

Who says that there will not be a period of quasi-paradise prior to the New Heavens? What is this heat from the sun that we see here, and what are the storms doing on Earth after Armageddon, if this refers to the New Earth? Is not the New Earth devoid of both sun and rain?

Might the "flaming fire by night," to give glory to the "assemblies" of the people, be the renewed moon? Both Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles are week-long feasts beginning by Design on a full moon, wherefore the Millennial moon will indeed provide extraordinary light during the evenings in which the people celebrate.

I have possibly come to understand how sunlight can be seven times brighter while producing little added heat. If I am correct in defining heat as free electrons in any body, then atmospheric heat is proportional to the number of solar electrons entering the atmosphere per unit time (this is called "amps"). On the other hand, light intensity is produced by both the number of electrons per unit time, and the force (i.e. volts), by which they are emitted into the ether (e.g. ultra-violet is high-voltage light wave). If it's possible, therefore, to increase the voltage (which I believe is equivalent to the velocity) of the electrons that emit from solar atoms, while not increasing their over-all number per unit time, God can increase light intensity while not increasing heat output.

Now a scientist might at first think that such a situation would increase dangerous, cancer-causing light waves, but not if its the infra-red waves (located on/near the "surface" of the sun) that are increased in voltage...increased to visible red/yellow/green/blue light that is yet below UV (ultra-violet) intensity. Indeed, scientists tell us today that it's the invisible infra-red light that provides most of the heat from sunlight! Therefore if a certain amount of solar infra-red is converted to waves of visible color, there can be seven times the light intensity (and a richer green in plants, a bluer sky, etc.) and yet no increase in heat.

Heat build-up from light is the result of light waves forcing free electrons (next to the lit surface) into a lit surface. But, as Einstein knew, the more-intense light also ejects some electrons from the atoms of the lit surface (called "photo-electricity"). Therefore, if in the process of shining light on to a surface one electron were ejected per one electron forced in, there would be no increase in heat in the lit surface. And this would explain why low-intensity light, such as infra-red, causes more heat build-up in lit surfaces, for infra-red, as it pushes free electrons in nice-and-easy, doesn't eject many/any electrons.

As another interesting aside, the idea of galaxies plays into the hands of evolutionists because they need a very old universe and therefore a very large one. I have taken note that the best photographs of so-called "galaxies" may be nothing but single stars that have spilled their contents outward, for the dots and blobs of light that appear in "galaxy" photos cannot be proven to be individual stars as claimed. That is, there may be no galaxies whatsoever, and all "galaxies" may be nothing more than individual stars in our own galaxy, meaning also that our own galaxy is the Created universe in its entirety. This is preposterous to evolutionists only because they have been brainwashed to believe that a Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, an unprovable event that by now would have sent star matter flying much further out than our own galaxy's limits. Otherwise, my suggestion is not preposterous at all.

I have a feeling that the changes about to be effected by the Creator to the physics of His universe will knock all our socks off, not including anyone who despises Him to his/her death, whose shameful place is in the Lake of Fire. But for those who have a change of heart toward Him, and who begin to honor Him as only he deserves, through Jesus the only Son and only Saviour, they will be filled with His Light, which is more than truth and wisdom, for it's also a comforting joy that sustains our Faith until that Day.