Previous Update....... Updates Index


December 29 - January 4, 2021

Science Class Again to Expose Evolutionists

If you're waiting for Jesus to return, see Post-Tribulation Rapture

Just want to say up front that I've just checked the tracker for the first time in several months, to see that Julie is still reading. Also, the computer from Spain is probably Santiago. As I haven't been taking email for years, these are the only people I know by name on the tracker's list, though I do recognize some of the same locations that appeared the last time the tracker was checked. A hearty and cheerful greeting, Santiago and Julie, and others, hoping all is well. I always wonder where I'm taking you all with this strange work. Please don't feel bad if one day you've just had enough of me, I totally understand. Our Lord Jesus be with us all faithfully.

Trump pretended to be vehemently against the pork bill, then signed it a few days later. FAKE. The House then quickly passed a bill to grant Trump's demand for a $2,000 for-COVID gift, per American under a certain income bracket, with the Senate Democrats signalling thumbs-up too for this bill. How can Democrats give the bill a thumbs up unless they've got all the pork to make them so very happy? Trump = FAKE. His job is to knock the legs out from under his voters, first giving them hope that he's the do-right president, then doing the wrong and disappointing things. He's a brain-twister, a joker, the Tormentor.

Monday night's Lou Dobbs says that increasing the $600 to $2,000 for stimulus checks increases the total price by $463B, meaning that, at those numbers, the $600 deal costs $139B. This is $600 for 232 million Americans, or about 60 million families. That's nuts, but it does explain why it's called a "stimulus" bill instead of a help-the-unemployed bill. A stimulus bill is to throw money into the economy, but if you're going to do that, why not throw it in via the poorest people, those who have been put out of work by the poor management of COVID schemers? What kind of a fraud is this Trump and the House that they would give $2,000 per person, $4,000 per couple, and more for a family, to people who have not become unemployed this past year, while those amounts to the unemployed amount to a few bones to chew on?

The people who lost jobs for a longish term this year amount to about 15 million workers. If only they are the ones getting only the $139B of "stimulus" money, it would amount to about $9,000 per worker. That's more like the right thing to do, though it seems too high a payment for some because I assume that most of the unemployed this past year were able to collect unemployment money.

Here's an encouraging election-fraud update from Arizona (gets going good in the 2nd minute); figure that the same is going on in many liberal-infested states, and then blame out-to-lunch Trump for not prosecuting the election-fraud criminals (it's on his head, don't kid yourself):

As you can see, the Democrats have cheated their way to power from many years ago, and no one, not even Trump, did anything about it. It's one thing I can celebrate if Trump doesn't get four more years, because I've come to despise this fake. The nation is sinking into a quagmire under Trump precisely due to Trump, and the bulk of his voters don't realize it.

It took until Tuesday the 29th to file a Trump law suit (done by Mr. Eastman) with SCOTUS to challenge the recent abuse from the Wisconsin supreme court? Why so long, why so late? I've heard from one only that Trump's Pennsylvania case has been postponed, by SCOTUS, until January 22, such a disgrace if true. Put it this way, that by mid-week, I haven't heard that SCOTUS is going to take the Pennsylvania case at all. No story has been in social-media news I've come across, and I do lots daily. The country counts on SCOTUS to be the referee for important cases, and here it won't show courage / interest in an open-shut case against voter fraud in a presidential election.

The article below suggests that Louis Gohmert thinks Mike Pence is not on Trump's side for the big January-6 decision. News of this article was days old by Wednesday, and so one expects Pence to give a public indication / statement, immanently, to the effect of, "don't worry, I'm solidly on Trump's side for January 6." This article suggests that Pence is seeking to give Biden the White House based on an excuse. The headline is: Pence did not back lawmaker plan to overturn election results: lawyers. Maybe this is a trick. Maybe Pence is really for electing Trump. But if so, why isn't Pence more outspoken?

By Friday, Pence's lawyer asked the judge to reject Gohmert's case, instead of simply supporting Gohmert's goals by going along with the case, meaning that it's looking like Pence is going to betray Trump. How can we explain this, since Pence stands a shot at the White House if Trump get's another four years? Is there a body of people threatening key Trump supporters? Why wouldn't the victims gang together to expose the threats, asking Intelligence to discover the people making the threats?

Wednesday, Republicans hacked into some in-use Dominion voting machinery in Fulton county (Georgia) to prove that it can be done by cheaters. See Jovan H. Pulitzer for more information:

The aftermath / outcome of Pulitzer's announcement culminated with this:

The above likely means that Republicans will be trying to hack into the machines in the run-off elections next week to prove again that the machines are unsafe for use with elections. It's an easy way to eliminate these machines altogether, but, likely too, the fiends will make it against the law to try hacking into these machines even if it's just to test their security levels. There is no safe solution. COMPUTERIZED MACHINES MUST NOT BE USED IN ELECTIONS PERIOD.

If the tyrannical enemy is using death threats against Republicans wishing to expose fraud or get Trump re-elected, I suggest that Trump needs to go to all-out-war with use of the military before handing power to Biden. Once Biden gets in, he will have the military, the FBI, the DoJ, the CIA, and many other powers. It will be tyranny afterward, by every indication at this time.

If I knew for sure that Biden represents something like the last seven or eight years, I would suggest, ride it out in peace. But as I don't know whether Jesus may tarry for decades longer, or even more than a century (God forbid), I am willing to say, not for incitation reasons of course, that I would nervously welcome Trump's military bashing of his enemies, be it ever so severely, providing he's not going to sink his people deeper into persecution. There is always a risk. The decision may need to be made very soon, if SCOTUS is unwilling to give. By trying to save some city riots, judge Roberts may cause a full-blown, sea-to-sea civil war, though the catholic judges would be to blame also for not over-riding his will.

There would be no choice in a military action but to shut down the leftist media if they foment unrest or air lies for the purpose of destabilizing the military move. This would be exactly the reciprocal of what the big tech have been doing, but I have always believed that it's justified if the good guys do it to the bad guys.

The idea would be to take out the mobsters in government, discover the people who made death threats or used blackmail to twist the will of lawmakers etc., jail and replace the judges, governors, and lawmakers for something akin to treason who refused to look at the fraud evidence, arrest EVERY anti-Trumper who broke laws the past five years, and expose the entire system, for weeks upon weeks, on fair-to-unbiased media programs, so that the people generally come to accept that the right thing was done in using the military. There is no doubt that lawlessness is creating a crisis as we speak, for it is sickening for good people to live under lawless rulers, who obtained power lawlessly, and who plan to consolidate powers with other lawless dragons FOREVER.

A military injection into a crisis needs to be justified, and I dare say that as many as half the people would be favorable providing that civil disobedience doesn't get carried away. For this, Trump needs the FBI, for one. He could have it, I suppose, if he's permitted to replace Wray and other rebels overnight with loyal allies at his discretion. An FBI chief needs only to arrest MANY lawless, upper-level actors FAST, for once this takes place, the others will hopefully draw back and not incite a backlash.

Make-shift plans at the last moment creates nail-biting risks. A catastrophe might result. The alternative, if it's a Biden presidency, is a far greater risk that only piles on the need for armed rebellion. Better with Trump now than with Biden holding the arms, wouldn't you say? That's what Trump's voters are saying. They are hoping that Trump takes this option if it's the last option. Did you buy extra food yet?

Look it. If a city governor, for example, won't even agree that voter fraud took place in amounts that are horrendous to the average voter, then, because the city police chief won't arrest that governor for being complicit with the fraud, and if the FBI won't make the arrest of the governor (it doesn't matter whether the conviction is secured, make the arrest anyway, and shock all of his friends and family), then the military is justified to step in, if there are many governors doing the same (and there are), and if even other governors, outside of battleground states, can be reasonably suspect as being similar accomplices of election fraud. These people are hijacking the country, and so military is justified where there is no other option.

But, the problem is: are any Americans confident that the military is majorly on Trump's side? This is where he let the people down, because, had he had the proper FBI and DoJ, the military would not be needed now. The country is now at risk of full-blown upheaval.

It's hard to see how SCOTUS can ignore the decision (put out December 31) from the Pennsylvania legislature, for I think this holds more sway than the past decision of Pennsylvania's highest court. I think this is a big deal, with at least two more battleground states about to turn similarly to Trump, hanging Trump's fate on Mike Pence all the more, unless these state legislatures can over-turn the election fully into Trump's favor all on their own. I don't see why not:

Here's 15 minutes of Eye Opener worth your time:

Make of what you wish of these posts from Patrick Byrne:

About the same time this week of Lin Wood tweeting that Jeffrey Epstein is still alive (no evidence shared, not very good for Trump's fortunes at this time), Mr. Byrne said that he got inside information months ago that someone on the inside sprayed the guards with a sleeping agent in order to have access to Epstein. ???

NDT reported this week that at least four elderly deaths were reported hours or days after taking Pfizer vaccines, suggesting a euthanasia program afoot. We expect that, before this vaccine was released, Pfizer would do trials on elderly patients, no? Yes. Especially on the elderly. Will Fox carry this story and similar ones? Possibly not.

Here's Patrick Byrne (watch this video to the very end) on the real goings-on at the recent White House meeting that was leaked in twisted form to the press by the enemy. Byrne blames Trump's White-House lawyers for Trump's miseries over the past four years, but this is not the correct way to view things, because Trump has always had the choice to change his lawyers. It seems that Trump has the tactic of blaming others on his team as part of his fakery in appearing as though he wants to do his voters' will. At best, Trump has failed to form a powerful team on his voters' behalf, by keeping his own enemies on his team. How can we explain such a thing? (I say, don't sign in to Rumble)

If you listened to that video, ask: why did Trump get rid of Sidney Powell, yet keep his White-House staff which are clearly his enemies, and who likely pushed him to get rid of Powell? What kind of a president is this, a mental retard? How can Byrne claim that Trump's very smart while expressing these things?

In the 18th minute, we see how Trump changed his mind on Powell literally overnight. Pathetic. The enemy twisted his arm on something so very important as this to his voters, and to himself. How did they do it? How many times have they done it? It seems they have something on Trump that keeps him from firing them. So, his reputation means more to him than the country. Apparently.

In the 27th minute, Byrne says that Powell should lead the election-fraud team instead of Giuliani. I don't see why they can't both have leadership positions on two lines of attack. That was a good video as per both speakers. Praise to Mr. Byrne for laying things out frankly and fearlessly, concenred. We need a hat-trick here.

Late this week, Trump called the Georgia's secretary of state and argued with him to do the right thing, to make right the lawless acts of Democrats in giving Biden false votes. Instead of doing the right thing, the secretary of state, apparently, leaked the phone call so that leftist media could portray the call as loathsome begging on Trump's part. I think Trump did a potentially fruitful thing, to stick up for himself like that with a chief crook of the Georgia sector of the federal election. The president should call all the chief fraudsters to rebuke them all personally. That's what he should do in his spare time, and he should leak -- or at least describe in his own words -- those phone calls to show the criminality of the fraudsters. This is a great opportunity for the nation's better people to see how deep is the sin of the corruptocrat camp. Democrats are stark naked at this time exposing their obscenities. This election is a mark on their arses made permanent by a hot branding iron. I am so happy because they themselves have dished out, for all to see, the evidence against themselves. It's going to have repercussions.

Here's the full Trump phone call, noting that it could be illegal for Georgia to have leaked it:

I think the call amounts to a stern rebuke, and it even warns the secretary about his criminality, which is exactly what a president should do under such a grievous criminal condition. Sure, Trump's trying to leverage the man to do the right thing, and while the leftist media rails against it as some sort of foul play, it's NOTHING, nothing at all when the main issue is a country-wide attempt at treasonous foul play. A man seeking justice and rectification of misconduct against himself, by appealing to every piece of reason possible, is not guilty of foul play. It's the leftist media that's guilty of foul play by standing with, and giving comfort to, the corruptocrats.

The secretary eventually responds by taking cover with the corrupt courts, saying that because the courts haven't done anything to flip the votes, therefore the secretary is guilty of nothing.

Trump does too much talking on the call, and doesn't take advantage of this opportunity to get a promise of securing the records and the machines, as if he really doesn't care to prove guilt, but only to win the election. He could have made this call a month ago to demand the machines and ballots, but he did not. Guilty. Trump also provides evidence for his own guilt, in the call, because he claims that obstruction of justice continues with his opponents, yet he's not moved in on them to seize the evidence and machinery. He then says, at about 38:00, that all he wants is the election win. This is horrendous on Trump's part, so selfish, so disregarding the peoples needs to cripple election fraud now. He seems more interested is scaring his opponents than punishing them.

He makes a good case in proving their guilt at suitcasegate, but I don't sense that he'll punish them unless maybe, as his last resort to winning, they continue to resist to the bitter end. He got the opposition to admit that it didn't look into suitcasegate's super-high count for Biden, as if the opposition just didn't care that the vote count at that hour was way out-of-the-ordinary (that's good evidence against themselves of complicity with suitcasegate).

The opposition said that it doesn't want to give up the election records to the Trump team because it would break the law. Ridiculous.

Maybe the best part of this phone call is that the opposition is willing to resist to the bitter end, perhaps forcing Trump to do something drastic rather than just trying to get it to raise the white flag with a full pardon if they do. Still, he may have frightened the Georgia opposition enough that it will cave to opening up the records and the machines.

Here's the full Byrne video from Rumble if you'd like:

Science Class, Because Politics This Week is a Yawn

In the video below, the men do not understand what is happening, and thus do not explain properly what is happening. We are dealing here with the world's fastest shutter-speed for any camera, which is capturing on video the effects of a laser beam traversing a few inches through water. What do you think the camera is capturing in the 4th minute?

The light that's being captured by the camera is not from the laser beam itself, for, apparently, that beam disappears from human vision once it enters the water. You'll note that, instead of showing, with a standard camera, an image of the beam through the water, the Japanese speaker holds a plate at one end of the bottle to prove to the viewer that there is in fact a laser beam traversing the water. That is, the human eye doesn't see the beam traversing the water. So, the ghostly, blue image we see traversing the water is due to electron excitation (motion of captured electrons) upon the water molecules. Note that the blue color is not a straight line, as a light wave must be. The blue even bounces off the bottle near the cap. We are seeing only the light's effects upon the water's molecules.

The beam is a wave through or across the captured electrons of the water molecules, and the latter's electrons (acting as the light-wave medium) are put into MOTION, which is the start of a light wave. That's right. The true definition of light is, not the imaginary photon particle, but waves of energy flowing through an electron medium (an ether). The source of a light wave is the moving electron itself. In every instance of one electron striking, with motion, into an electron medium, one wave is sent through the medium.

How are captured electrons (the atom's compliment of electrons) put into motion in the first place? They're struck by light, and jiggle/vibrate repeatedly in many directions, and thus they send out one wave per outward thrust (of the vibration). The light-wave medium exists everywhere because stars emit electrons. The sun fills our atmosphere with this electron medium. It's the "ether" that evolutionists dopes rejected more than a century ago.

The ether is weightless because gravity force is, in reality, the negative charge of electrons at the core of planets and stars. That is, gravity repels electrons because electrons repel electrons. Anything repelled by gravity has zero weight. If electrons were attracted by gravity, they would all be pulled to the ground, and the earth would have no light-wave medium. The reality is that while the sun's gravity "pumps" electrons into the atmosphere on the sun side of a planet, electrons escape into space on other planetary sides as planetary gravity repels them away...assuring that electrons fill the atmosphere day and night.

It is impossible for electrons to orbit protonic cores; that's a fantasy of the atheists who came to control science centers. They chose orbiting electrons as their reality because they needed the SPEED (or motive energy) of electrons to prop up their other fantasy, the evolution of the cosmos from a big bang. Unless electrons have speed, galactic evolution is impossible. The reality is, however, proton-captured electrons go motionless if no light strikes an atom. Your mind can easily understand that, but evolutionists would argue to their deaths that this is not the reality. They have the mission of killing God in the minds of your children and even their own. Reckless demons. God will give these people control of the planet that He might come to judge them for their misdeeds when ruling. We are seeing their misdeeds plainly these days.

I apologize if you read this topic in the first update of this month, for I now need to repeat some things. Anyone familiar with physics can grasp what I'm saying, but not everyone can swallow it because they are in love with what they've been taught about the orbiting electron, etc. The things I say are patentable, sure-as-rock, assailable only by the lies of the yahoos or spiritually-retarded goons who control the knowledge of the sciences. Sure, I'm "wrong" because science has proven that every atom has gravity. If that's as far as you're going to allow my claims to go, then you're the one with the closed mind.

Nothing can be known about gravity, as they see it, aside from it's pulling ALL atoms by this law: an atom twice as close to a gravity source is attracted by four times the force. It just so happens that the same law exactly applies to the negative force of a magnet or an electron. So, my claim that gravity is defined as a pool of electrons is unassailable. The goons have never found their so-called graviton that they imagine in every atom, but if push comes to shove, creating the absolute need, they will "discover" it. That need would arise if a competing and opposing theory of gravity raises its head. Suddenly, the goons will come out with their experiment that proves the existence of their graviton, and the world just becomes more deceived by them. This is what they specialize in, deception, just like the devil.

Can we prove that the earth's core, or that of the sun's, has a pool of electrons sending out a massive negative force? Yes, for science knows that where there is heat, there also are electrons freed from atoms. Send sufficient electrons through a thin wire such as a bulb's filament, and heat forms along with light. The heat is defined as the electrons coming out of the wire, free into the air. Being freed from their steel atoms, these electrons can now enter your skin, which you can prove by touching the bulb's glass or the filament. The pain you feel from too much heat is too many electrons entering your skin.

The light from the filament is defined as the jiggling of its captured electrons into the freed electrons off-shore from the filament. The sea of free electrons defines the light-wave medium. There is a sea of electrons in the bulb even when the filament is cold because electrons fill the atmosphere, and they get through every material known to man. These things I'm saying are unassailable except by any erroneously-explained experiments of the goons.

Picture the big bang explosion as a goon might picture it. He's a goon because he believes this theory, the purpose of which is to kill God from all existence. "Goon" is putting it lightly. You must always view these people as sinister devils, and you must never show respect to them as Creationists do who wish to find honor with high-level people. Evolutionists are the destroyers of the planet, the destroyers of life as God intended it. Their fruit from their hard labor is Today. This is their hour, their world, they own it along with all of its sins and calamities, yet they will blame such things on Christians.

You just cannot be so stupid as to believe that an explosion in proto-space, as they see the big bang, is going to produce every electron alike, every proton alike. You just can't be that stupid, can you? It's horse manure, and they want you to eat it. If you ruin any of their theories, they will twist and twist, and create new physics laws out of thin air if need be, until they find a solution to their problem that no one can comprehend but their fellow deceivers. They then pretend to be far more intelligent than we to explain why we can't understand what they are saying.

Okay, so they envision electrons and protons flying into space, creating space as they go, because, in their minds, there was not even space before the big bang. They like to view nothingness as something, that's what lunatics they are. Space is defined, by a normal person, as nothing, but their space is some sort of fabric, some form of material that only a lunatic can imagine. If there was no space before the big bang, what shall we imagine where space is now situated?

Okay, so we see electrons and protons flying unimaginably fast through empty space, or, if you like, through the proto-space Zero (go ahead, have fun trying to imagine proto-space). There are many more electrons than protons, and as they race outward from the bang point, there can't move closer together, not only because their forward motion won't allow a deviation right of left, but because particles moving outward from a point are constantly becoming more distant...because space grows larger in volume with distance (I think it's eight times more volume of space per distance from a point or planetary body). So, evolutionist goof, if you're reading, how many electrons diameters will electrons be from one another if they are racing, say a million miles per hour, after a few million or billion years? You are such a stupid beast, gumba, yet you want the people to think that the big bang is solid science.

How will electrons come nearer to one another if they spread out progressively, further from one another, even while repelling one another? How will protons come nearer to one another if they too repel one another while becoming zillions of proton diameters apart? This is where the goofs need to envision that every atoms has a little bit of gravity, because they can then deceive you into believing that protons could come nearer to one another in order to form stars.

They would deceive you into believing that protons managed to attract electrons to themselves when slowing down at some point in cosmological history, yet they say that cosmic bodies / clouds / materials are still "expanding" (further from the big-bang point) to this day. They don't want to tackle the problem, with you listening, of how protons may have attracted electrons to themselves when they were all extremely distant from one another. They just want to jump to proto-stars, and begin there. They invent proto-gravity in a proto-star, you see, but they cannot explain how the proto-star came together in the first place. Or, if they do explain it, it's one of those things way over your head because it's non-comprehensible due to being laced with falsifications.

The smaller the diameter of their big-bang point, the less distance from that point will all particles achieve a distance of one particle diameter apart. When they reach twice that distance, they will be two particle diameters apart, and so on, for millions / billions of years. How possibly can a wee-bitty gravity force, per particle, draw those particles together as stars? Plus, if we imagine that stars did form here and there, they can't draw near to one another to form galaxies because that betrays their own claim that stars are constantly moving further apart due to the expansion of the universe. They shoot themselves like one might shoot a sick horse, but they never die, they never go away, they will continue, until the Return, to kill Jesus over and over again.

Now you know why they envision every atom as having a gravity force, and due to this need, they do not define gravity as either the positive force of the proton, nor the negative force of the electron, but rather they put gravity into a class of its own. The truth is, gravity is the negative force of clustered electrons, and you are a stupid beast if you insist of trying to figure out how electrons clustered together from a big-bang scenario. Sorry, loser. Put a Creator into the picture, and become a winner even though the losers say you're the loser. Be a loser for Jesus today. Losers for Jesus.

The heat from a hot filament in a bulb consists of free electrons. Where do you suppose those electrons go? Do you imagine them going into the atoms of the bulb's glass, entering orbits around those atoms? You just can't be that stupid, can you? Yet the science goons are just that deceptive, that they turn this world so stupid as to believe that electrons re-enter orbits naturally, just as soon as they arrive to other atoms. The deceivers totally disregard how difficult and unlikely the formation of an orbit is, and of course they would never tell you such a thing; they just expect you to believe them: electrons like to orbit atoms, and that's just what they do, zillions of orbits per second, they never fly out of orbit until disturbed by something. Wackos for satan.

The electrons that come out of the filament rise upward. That's why it's hotter on the top of a bulb than any other part of it. Heat always rises because gravity repels electrons, and heat is, in reality, the material of electrons. Heat always spreads out sideways, and even downward to a degree, because electrons repel one another. This is why the goons never wish for anyone to realize that heat is made of electrons, because it can then be realized by people on the street, who don't have science degrees, that electrons spread out from one another, and, oh-boy, down the tubes goes their cosmic evolution. How will they convince you that the big bang formed stars if you see with your own eyes that electrons spread out from one another.

But if they can convince you that electrons are orbiting like mad, you don't tend to know how electrons behave when they leave atoms. You get dizzy trying to figure it out, and they can play all kinds of tricks with dizzy electrons. You probably don't imagine them spreading out from one another. This smoke-and-mirrors to keep you off-track of the reality is a bonus by-product of their orbiting electron, though it's not the reason they invented it. They invented the orbiting electron in order to have a false definition of heat: speedy electrons put atoms into motion, and heat is moving atoms. Imbecilic delinquents, despised by Heaven.

Why does heat rise up a metal rod more than it goes down a metal rod? Because, if you put a flame to a rod, you are forcing electrons to move into it, and gravity then repels them upward while the electrons inter-repel with equal force in all directions. They spread out while rising. You've seen it in the billow of smoke from an explosion. The smoke goes up, and it spreads out too, growing from side to side, and from top to bottom.

If you put electrons into a rod with a flame, the electrons will come out of the rod because they repel one another out. You can't keep heat in any object unless the density of atmospheric electrons outside the object is equal to, or greater than, the density of electrons in the object. If the outer density is greater, it means the electrons are closer together and therefore inter-repel with greater force (known FACT), meaning also that they will spread themselves INTO the object i.e. increased heat in the object. And vice-versa for heat loss from the object.

Satan's friends will lie to you a lie they know to be a lie: heat goes up a rod because hot air around the rod rises. He's asking you to be his dope. You never think twice, because he's got you under his "professional" spell. You trust him because you trusted your government. The government sanctions these dopes to lie to students because the wicked have infiltrated governments by design, starting centuries ago in the "Enlightenment," with a design to kill God from the school systems. Your Western government is your enemy, Christian.

No, heat does not rise in a heated rod just because hot air around the rod goes up. If you encase a rod in a mile of concrete, and heat the rod from below the concrete with a wire wired to the interior (i.e. no air play), heat will rise both in the rod and the concrete, because heat is electrons moving upward. They don't "soak" upward, they get pushed upward by gravity because electrons repel electrons, and gravity is a massive pool of electrons at the core of the planet. I wee-wee have the truth, and the giants forsook it for their fantasies in killing God. It looks good on them; they end up being the big arse chewing gravel, and we get to move on to GREAT LIFE, don't miss out on it.

So, electrons constituting the gravity source move upward through the earth so that they maintain a certain temperature in the ground ten feet below your feet. God has this all figured out, not too much ground heat, not too little, for several reasons all at once. There is only one way for heat to form continually at the core of a planet or star: atoms must be crippled / destroyed so that they release some or all of their captured electrons. There are sufficient losses to form molten rock in the depths. My suggestion is that the sheer weight of the molten material destroys the rock atoms at the bottom of the molten mass. But there would be no weight of molten rock without gravity. Without the molten mass, there's no gravity, the rocks weigh nothing, no atoms are crippled, no heat is formed. So, I suggest that God first created the molten mass, which created its own gravity force to perpetuate the molten condition.

I do wonder what the crippled / destroyed atoms look like as a mass. I wonder if that's the hot crap that will become the beds of demons (in Hell) until the earth is done away with. They did make their bed, didn't they? Evolutionists did make their beds with demons, didn't they?

You know for a fact that metal atoms are not rising through metal as heat rises up the metal. So, heat can move through a material even if atoms don't. Hotter water does move upward through cooler water, and hotter air does move upward through cooler air, because the higher-density electrons in the hotter materials push atoms/molecules upward. All atoms are surrounded by free electrons in space, and there are atomic spaces in all material. There is no space on earth where electrons have not invaded. They get through everything because they push one another in all directions. The spread out. This is so simple, mommy, why can't the teachers get it? Why did they teach me that there's nothing in a vacuum of space? Why didn't they tell me that it's filled with electrons? Only now, they invented all sorts of vacuum particles, figments of their imaginations likely, a misreading of their experiments. They are bonkers and not to be trusted.

Know Your Atmosphere

If electrons go up, their flow pushes atoms along. This is not hard to understand nor swallow unless you are filled with love for the lies, or respect for the liars. Once Christians come to know that evolutionists are our arch enemies, we realize that they are liars too. Physics is based on evolutionary concepts. The goons married physics to their evolutionary needs, and therefore they lie where they need to lie about the laws and nature of physics, especially atomic physics. When they have special needs, they invent things that are not there to solve the problems in their theories, like neutrons, for example. There are no neutrons. There is no "strong nuclear force." They are CRAZY. There are reasons as to why they invented those things, and they won't tell you why. You can glean the reasons once you understand that their atomic models need to facilitate their evolution model of origins.

They have atoms racing around in all directions, even in the upward direction, meaning that, in their view, gravity has not the power to pull them down due to their speeds. How can anyone be so stupid as not to realize that any moving thing pulled by gravity is going to come to a stop soon enough? If we blow a bunch of balls around in a big box, they will collide and deflect around, staying in flight so long as there is wind coming from the bottom of the box, but as soon as the wind is shut off, they all come falling to gravity and cease motion. They cease motion when their energy transfers into the floor. Why do you think that is? Why does a rolling or bouncing ball come to a stop? Because it transfers energy into the earth / floor, and loses energy with every inch of roll, or every bounce, until it ceases to move.

Did you hear that? It TRANFERS energy into the ground, and comes to a stop. FACT.

In their view, two atoms colliding transfer their energies to one another with zero loss of energy. It's a trick of the wizards, nothing more. If atom A transfers 30-percent of its energy to atom B, they say that atom B absorbs it all and runs with it so that no energy is lost. This is true as spoken. No energy is lost, BUT it was used do work. Hello? What does that work accomplish? If we fire two balls (without the ability to bounce) at one another head on at the same speed, ball A will do work to stop ball B in its tracks, and vice versa. They both cease to move precisely because they transferred their energy into each other, and because no energy was lost. The energy of ball A was used up to stop ball B because they both have identical energy but are moving in opposing directions. Therefore, every collision from opposing directions causes a loss of energy regardless of the angle of striking.

The conclusion is that air atoms cannot be racing around as they envision them, and they know they cannot be, but they teach it anyway even though they know of an alternative view of air atoms: they can be repelling one another into the sky. There's no other option. Therefore, the truth is, air atoms repel one another. I win hands down; they lose because they decided to lie for evolution. Be happy today, trounce an evolutionist fool.

They NEED ever-moving atoms in their evolution scheme. There is only one reason mainly that they want ever-moving atoms: to claim that all atoms attract.

How can the full accumulation of air atoms, from top of the sky to the ground, weigh 14.2 pounds per square inch upon the ground (at 1,000' elevation), if one atom is not in contact with another? The fact is, one square inch on the ground does have a square-inch column of air above it that weighs 14.2 pounds. Pause and think about that, asking: how can atoms transfer their combined weights to the ground?

If a cannon ball falls to a weight scale, how much weight will it register on? More than it weighs when resting still on the scale. That's right, you can't weigh anything to get a true weight if it is crashing to a surface. It's got to lie still on the weight scale. If the only thing the air does in relation to the ground is to strike it with atomic collisions, how is that to be viewed as the combined weight of all air atoms? It's not, and they know it. If a bunch of balls are all bouncing around off the ground, how possibly can the forces of their combined bounces, at any given moment of time, be equal to their combined weights? The goofballs tell us that air atoms speed up in the sun, striking the ground with more force. Does this mean the air gets heavier in the sun? No, it does not. Therefore, the weight of air is not the result of air atoms striking the ground.

That's right, even though they define temperature as faster atoms, pound-for-pound of hotter air doesn't weigh more. An enclosed box of air having a weight scale for its floor doesn't weigh more with increased air temperature. The weight is not from the striking of atoms upon the weight scale. That's how they define air pressure, but not air weight. Is there a better theory? Yup. And I just gave it to you, a new thing you have never heard before (unless you've already read it from me).

So let's get this straight. An invisible column of air, one inch square, from ground to top of atmospheric ceiling, weighs 14.2 pounds regardless of air temperature. When it's hotter, the ceiling goes higher because the air spreads out, and it has only one way to spread: up. So the air weight doesn't change even though air pressure changes (decreases) in hotter air. And we know, from the box experiment above, that changes in air pressure have nothing to do with changing or registering the weight of air. So how do them pesky atoms register weight on a weight scale? Atoms repel one another.

When your weight scale is set at zero, it's really set at 14.2 pounds, which they call zero. The full weight of the air transfers in all directions equally as pressure only because air atoms resist coming together. They repel/push one another in all directions due to their accumulated weight. That is, gravity pulls them down as a collective lot, but they resist coming nearer to one another, wanting instead to get further, and so they are forced to spread out due to their collective weight. Call it the gravity squeeze. The stronger the gravity, the closer the atoms are forced to squeeze. Gravity is weaker up in the mountains, and air is consequently less squeezed. The air pressure under your home's roof, even though the roof blocks the downward push of air from the sky's air atoms, remains at 14.2 pounds per square inch.

The liars can't define both temperature and pressure as atom-bang-atom. They're going to have a conflict in their findings if they do, and they have discovered such conflicts, but you the student are not to know such things.

They know that a doubling of temperature (in K degrees) in a confined container of any gas doubles the gas pressure (the very definition of a doubling of gas temperature is a doubling of pressure). They thus know that temperature increase of a gas is proportional to increased gas pressure. If the gas volume is permitted to grow in a container, they claim that doubling its temperature produces twice the gas volume, a statement implying that the gas pressure remains the same during the doubling of volume, otherwise the statement makes no sense, because a gas can be allowed to expand to infinite volume at any temperature. If the stopping point is twice the volume, it means that it's at twice the volume while remaining at the same pressure as when it started. But if they squeeze the gas to half its volume, it does not anywhere near double in temperature. Therein is a BIG CONFLICT (ALERT: ERROR SOMEWHERE) for them.

They thus claim that temperature increase of a gas is PROPORTIONAL to increased gas pressure OR volume, one or the other but not both. Okay, yet when the temperature of the atmosphere gets hotter, they know that air pressure goes down. Well how can that happen? ALERT; ANOTHER CONFLICT, NOW LOOKS LIKE A LIE IN PLAY.

I will assume that they are correct about a doubling of temperature, in a confined space, doubling the pressure. They couldn't possible lie about that; it would be easy to catch them. It means that they view the atoms racing with twice the force when the temperature is doubled. If they then double the volume of that same container which experienced twice the temperature, the pressure goes down to half, which is where the pressure started before increasing the temperature. Only now, to keep their theory alive, they need to claim that the temperature stays the same when doubling the volume. But this cannot be correct, because there's twice as much space to heat with the same amount of heat that had been added to get the pressure / volume twice as large; i.e. the temperature has got to go down when doubling the volume. And it does go down because they know that increasing gas pressure nets increased temperature. It must be vice-versa too.

The reason they lie is that, at twice the volume, a gas has half the atoms, meaning, in their minds, it has half the punch for creating pressure, and they want to see pressure and temperature BOTH as the identical effect of atom-go-bang-bang. So, because they know for a fact that doubling the volume gets half the pressure = half the bang-bang in their minds, they can't reduce the temperature with a doubling of volume because they define temperature as the bang-bang itself. BUT, the fact is, the temperature does go down even though their theory predicts it does not. So, they lie to you online by not specifying this thing, because you might then get the impression that temperature increase is not identical with pressure increase. That's right, you might get the impression that the two have different mechanics at play.

The reality is: 1) heat is the free electrons surrounding gas atoms; 2) pressure is the inter-repulsion of gas atoms. When we force more free electrons around atoms, they increase in their inter-repulsion. Heal your mind, spit at an evolutionist today. Heated objects expand because their atoms become more repulsing. Mommy, this is so easy.

Yes, son, but you're never going to get into any physics field holding true ideas like that. They'll flunk you at school.

The reality: increased atmospheric temperature (= increased free electrons) results in lower air pressure because the increase in rising free electrons gives lift to air atoms. The greater the number of electrons streaming into outer space, the higher the atmospheric ceiling reaches. It just that simple. In short, the atmosphere expands upward. The reason that air pressure goes down with increased heat is because air expansion results in fewer atoms per volume of space (that's the very definition of reduced pressure).

They agree: the atmosphere expands with heat, wherefore there are fewer atoms per unit space. But they view this as decreased crash-bang = lower air pressure. Yippity-doodle, okay, but they now stay real quiet about their claim: gas pressure stays the same as gas temperature and volume increase proportionately. WRONG. The reality shows that a free gas gets progressively less pressurized with increasing temperature, meaning that their claim is untrue that doubling the temperature gets twice the gas volume. The reality is that doubling the temperature gets more than a doubling of volume. If they were honest with us, they'd tell us how much more.

We cannot compare a pressure increase due to temperature in a confined gas with a scenario where a heated gas is permitted to grow in volume. They are apples and oranges, which explains why doubling the temperature of both doesn't give matching results. The first scenario is a squeezing of more free electrons into a confined space. The second scenario is based on allowing the rise of electrons through the gas, to expand it. There is the same density of free electrons in both scenarios, but the electrons in the free gas are rising more freely while the ones in the container are severely restricted because they've got to go through the container wall. Besides, even though the electrons do rise slowly in and out of the container, the atoms don't go anywhere. So: the first scenario is defined as the increase the atomic inter-repulsion; the second scenario gives atoms lift but very little increased inter-repulsion. Apples and oranges.

If you take a jar of air, it will weigh the same whether ice cold or steaming hot. The weight of a gas is due to the total and combined weight of atoms (duh), and so the atoms have got to be weighing down on one another in order to register, as one body, on a surface or weight scale (hey mommy, duh-uh). Gravity is pulling the entire lot downward, and even though it's only the very bottom atoms that touch a bottom surface, yet the weight of all atoms above the surface is transferred to the atoms on the surface. How do you think that happens? Not by their racing around, half of them in the more-upward-than-down direction. In the scheme of the stupids, where they see all atoms attracting one another, the atoms moving more downward likewise cannot register weight. The only thing these bitties can do is bang on a surface to produce crash force. That's not weight. Save yourself from the experts. They lie, they lie, they lie.

Let's do a mind experiment. We have 3 magnets in the shape and size of a coin, and we stack them in a tube standing upon a weight scale. We stack the magnets with their north poles facing north poles, and south facing south, so that they repel one another...and so we imagine them hovering one above the other. Even though there will be only one magnet in contact with the weight scale, yet the weight of all 3 magnets will register on the scale because they are all sitting on each others' repulsion forces. That's how all air atoms weigh down on the ground. So why haven't the experts figured this out? They have. But they rejected it, deciding to lie instead, because they can't have cosmic evolution if all atoms inter-repel. God is making sheer idiots out of them as we speak. They shall go down in infamy for their crimes against humanity.

Evolutionists can't even explain why hot air moves upward in cooler air. They deceive on this matter by denying you the right to know that their view of heat comes without explanation. Dishonesty against humanity, don't kid yourself thinking that this is a trivial abuse. Their view of heat is atoms forever bouncing off of one another; the faster they move while colliding, the "hotter" the atoms in their view. But if you imagine a cubic foot of heated air with supposedly faster atoms, there's no reason that their going faster should cause them to rise versus sink lower to the ground. Case closed. The prediction of that scenario is that the heated air will speed of atoms in all directions equally, but this doesn't explain an upward draft of hot air.

There's no reason that a cubic foot of hotter water, just because it has faster-vibrating molecules, should go upward more than in any other direction.

They therefore deceive by saying that heated air / water is less dense and therefore lighter, and while true, this is a lookie-there-while-I-fool-you-over-here trick, because their view of atoms can't explain why lighter air rises. Lighter air means only that atoms are further apart (yet gravity still pulls them downward). Why should they move upward more than in any other direction? No answer. Go ahead, give yourself a respectable answer on why atoms in less-dense air should rise. There is no answer. A cubic foot of air is not like a beach ball submerged in water.

The losers lose in this picture because they have their atoms banging around with one another equally in all directions. Regardless of their speeds or variant speeds, they are banging each other EQUALLY into ALL directions. There is nothing under a cubic foot of heated air that is sending it upward. Even if we agree that the atoms under the cubic foot are striking atoms within the foot harder than atoms are striking the cubic foot from above it, it predicts only that the atoms at the bottom of the cubic foot will start to move faster, not upward. It's not going to create a physical movement of air upward. It's predicated only to make a few atoms in the surroundings move faster, but not to transfer the cubic foot in the upward direction. If you color that hotter air blue, you will see blue going up.

"Great" professors do not view air as one body of inter-connected atoms, but rather as isolated atoms. If we move one atom, in their scheme, no other atoms will move...until contact is made with another atom. In the real world, atoms inter-repel so that when one atom is moved in a direction, other atoms in that direction are pushed along. Air masses move as units, therefore. Gas atoms are all connected with invisible push-rods (not the best analogy) called, inter-repulsion.

Another mind experiment: there are cannon balls flying around in the air all over the countryside, every one of them repeatedly colliding with others and changing directions. They are flying and colliding a mile high. As we watch this spectacle, let's magically empty, in an instant of time, one entire region from the midst of these balls. Do you see any reason that the empty hole should be filled up by cannon balls in the way that water would rush to fill a waterless hole in the sea, or in the way air would quickly rush in to fill an airless hole in the air? No, the cannon ball will not do that because they do not repel one another into the empty hole, nor is there sufficient gravity force acting upon the whole lot of balls to force them down and into the hole, as occurs in a hole within water or air. You see, as the balls are flying around, they are also defying gravity. The latter has no mastery over them to pull them into a hole. And that's another reason why the bingety-bang-bang kinetic theory of atoms is not the reality.

In their scheme, ignoring wind: once air atom A contacts air atom B, the original direction of A's motion is carried into other directions at random. The accumulation of all collisions subjects the motion of A and B into zero direction because the collisions will go in all directions roughly equally. By moving one atom faster for its collision, even if it goes straight up, you cannot expect a continued upward direction of other atoms after the collision. Yet, even on a windless day with no upward draft, hot air soars off until its cooled. Hot air cannot contain / trap the electrons that sends it upward. As the electrons spread out, so the hot air spreads out, and so it cools quickly as electrons escape from its midst.

The inverse-square law dictates that, when atoms are twice as close, their inter-repulsion is four times stronger. When the volume of a gas is cut in half, the atoms are not yet twice as close. One needs to cut a gas volume in half three times to get the atoms twice as close. When a gas is cut in half three times, it's 1/8th the original volume, and consequently it has eight times the original gas pressure (known fact). Why should a gas exert eight times the force upon the container walls when its atoms, twice as close, are exerting only four times their inter-repulsion forces?

This problem gave me a little trouble. I had to prove that we need to double the 4-times to 8-times because atom A exerts four times upon atom B simultaneous with atom B exerting four-times on atom A. The math then becomes 4 x 2.

I was able to prove it with a simple magnet experiment, all done in my mind. Easy-to-conclude experiments can be reliably done in the mind, and it saves money and time, bonuses. The known fact is; if a magnet is brought twice as close to a piece of steal, it will attract the steal with four times as much force. That's how they discovered / proved the inverse-square law. But if the piece of steal is itself a magnet, then, when the two magnets are brought twice as close, they will attract with 4 x 2 = 8 times the force. Easy as pie, folks. That's why atoms inter-repel with eight times the force when they are twice as close.

By nature, the air in a balloon is heavier, per unit volume, than the air outside the balloon, when both airs are at the same temperature. It's heavier because the air in a balloon is under more pressure i.e. the atoms are closer together = more stuff per unit volume. Okay, so the balloon will not rise in air if it weighs more than the air. Let's blow the balloon up until it's at its maximum stretch and therefore at its heaviest. It will not rise, right? I say, wrong. My electron theory predicts that, if the balloon's air is heated enough, the balloon will rise.

The balloon stays the same size as we heat it. If we say it's rising because more air atoms are striking it from below and than above, the same rise should apply regardless of the internal temperature. But that rise is not the reality for a cold balloon. The reality is, the hotter the interior, the denser the electrons repelled by gravity, the more lift the balloon gets. If you would like to become famous, just prove it with experiments, but carry a big gun. They already know this but don't want it to be known. Balloons / balls with added heat get progressively lighter.

I predict that a cigar-shaped flying balloon will stay up purely due to electrons in the balloon. If it's cigar shaped (vertical), you see, the buoyancy principle doesn't apply to it because it has no bottom side versus a top side, for this balloon is fully open on the bottom end. Someone with a gas tank and flames fills it with heat. It has only a top side; no buoyancy happens to it. It therefore rises, not because there is less/lighter air in the balloon, but because it's packed-trapped with electrons.

What would happen of the cigar-shaped balloon is filled with helium (i.e. much lighter than air)? Would it rise if no buoyancy can act upon it? No, I don't think it would rise. It needs heat.

In fact, where was my head? Even the standard-shaped hot-air balloon, precisely due to its having an open end at the bottom, cannot be lifted by the buoyancy principle even though it does have "bottom" sides where it tapers on roughly a 45-degree angle toward the open bottom and riding cart. Outer air pressure would give the balloon buoyant lift only if it was fully enclosed i.e. without the open bottom.

Sooo, it means that the wise-guys science guys, liars and deceivers, know that air balloons are lifted purely on hot-air power, no buoyant principle involved at all, for air pressure exists on all sides of the balloon, both inside and out. The pressure on the inside of the balloon fabric counters the air pressure on the outer side so that net-zero upward force is exerted on the balloon due to outside air pressure. Do you get this? It is a key realization, brand new as I write this week.

The hot-air balloon rises solely on hot-air power, but the liar would have you think that this is a beach-ball-in-water situation. IT IS NOT. A beach ball is enclosed, receiving water pressure on the outside alone. That's the only way for buoyancy to work: pressure on the outside alone, or the alternative: more pressure on the outside than the inside.

The liars tell us that hot-air balloons rise by buoyant power. But lookie here: "The balloon stays inflated because the heated air inside the envelope creates a pressure greater than the surrounding air. ... This means that the pressure of the heated air inside the balloon ends up being only slightly greater than the cooler surrounding air pressure." Ahh, wunderbar, for it proves that the balloon is not afloat by buoyant power, for the downward force upon the inner side of the sloping fabric is greater than the upward force on the outer side of the sloping fabric.

The sloping ends near the top of the balloon. Its rounded top is where the upward power comes occurs, but this is NOT buoyant force. Rather, the power is from something in the hot air, but it cannot be from the hot-air pressure itself, because there is as roughly as much downward force from the interior air pressure (upon the slopes) as there is upward force at the top. Here's a video on an inflated air-balloon's principles; start it at 3 minutes:

In the 5th minute, the man repeats the lie that a balloon flies "buoyantly." He says (5th minute) that the balloon "floats, like a cork in water." He's been lied to by the wicked scientists. In the 6th minute, the woman says that the hotter air in the balloon weighs less by disposing some air atoms out of it, and this is correct. But it's also true that the balloon needs to be pressurized more on the inside then the outer air pressure, or the balloon shape would not form. We have lighter air (check, fact) but higher pressure (check, fact) even though we read earlier that, when it's hot out, air pressure goes down (check, fact). If that sounds like a contradiction, it's not. The latter can be true in the open atmosphere where there is no ceiling, but the balloon does have a ceiling.

The ceiling is trapping electrons whereas the sky doesn't trap them at all. The outer free air expands (get's lighter per unit space) with increasing heat while not increasing in pressure, but in a container having a ceiling, heated air increases in pressure due to the electrons trapped around the air atoms i.e. atoms repel one another with greater force = greater pressure.

But the greater air pressure on the balloon's interior cannot give the balloon lift because it's got about as much downward force acting on the balloon as upward force. So, the mystery is solved by the repulsion of gravity upon the partially-trapped electrons filling the balloon.

It's true that a pot turned upside-down in water, if the air is trapped in it, will experience a buoyant force. But this is not the same as an air balloon, for the balloon is submerged in air while filled with air. A pot upside-down in water, but filled with water, will not rise. Ditto with a balloon: it won't rise thanks merely to the air within it. It's therefore not buoyancy that causes it to rise; that's a deception.

Here's an electron-model prediction: a warm balloon will rise in a vacuum; no buoyancy required.

Here's another electron-model prediction: a ball (non-stretchable in size) filled with cold air will not rise as fast through water as compared to the same ball with hot air.

Just so you know, someone says: "Vacuum is created, and the helium-filled balloon sinks." It means that a gas-filled balloon (fully enclosed) rises by the buoyant force.

Cosmic Buffoonery

At the turn of the 20th century, science goons bent on evolution theory claimed that heat could not be a material (see "caloric") all to itself because, when they weighed heated objects, they didn't get heavier. Right, that's because heat particles don't weigh anything. No pull of gravity on them, no weight. It's not as though that idea didn't cross anyone's mind, but they had been stuck-on and committed to Newtonian gravity wherein EVERYTHING has a little gravity, and gravity pulls EVERYTHING. How do I make a buzzer noise? ENNK. They decided to be stupids for evolution.

An atom gets progressively lighter when moved away from a gravity source. That's because gravity "blows" progressively more electrons off of the atom the closer atoms are drawn toward gravity. The fewer the electrons on the atom, the greater the atom's net-positive charge, and consequently the stronger it will be pulled by the negative force of gravity. But as an atom (or pack of atoms in Newton's apple) is moved away from gravity, the protonic core is able to re-attract its lost electrons, because they are everywhere in space, thus the atom as a whole (or the many in your apple) gets less net-positive = lighter on a weight scale. This doesn't mean that all atoms are net-positive in relation to one another just because they are net-positive in relation to the gravity field. Net-positive or net-negative is a relative thing, depending on what's in play. How does it feel to be one of the very few people who know the gravity truth?

By other methods, an atom can be stacked temporarily with more electrons (net-negative to the scientist), or deprived of them (net-positive to the scientist), but to The Boss (gravity), an atom is always net-positive because gravitational "wind" makes it that way. Gravity never pulls electrons to an atom; it always blows them off. The closer an atom is to the gravity-wind source, the more the electrons are blown off, it's just that simple, no stretching of your mind to comprehend why things get heavier nearer to gravity. They haven't explained why their gravity pulls objects aside from saying, "just 'cause." The apply hit Newton's head, just because. In their minds the big bang was just so cool to happen to make a gravity force to create stars and planets, awwweeee, how lucky.

Negative gravity is why a comet tail forms pointing AWAY from gravity, because electrons streaming out of the rock are being blown away from gravity, taking pieces of rock with it. It is a delusion of the evolutionists that comets are made of ice. They cannot comprehend solid rock being strewn into space by a melting process alone, and so their pea-brain solution to the comet-tail mystery is to say that's it's due to melting ice. STUPIDS! How did the ice get into space, stupids??? They know better, but with evolutionary physics having hornedly rejected a gravity-can-repel-something possibility, a cosmologist today cannot realize why the comet tail forms, especially as he's prone to becoming a stupid of the stupids just to keep his job and any respect that comes with it.

As the comet moves away from the sun, the rock atoms reload with the number of electrons lost when nearing it, for space is a sea of electrons originating from the electron exhaust of sun and stars. If there is any part of space devoid of electrons, starlight cannot travel to our eyes through it. The electron is responsible for gravity, heat and light. Can you make something like that? No, nor can all the evolutionist screwheads combining all their knowledge and efforts, yet they want to murder the One who did make that bitty electron to do so much for us all. And they think they are holding self-respect to protect and traffic The Lie. It's not easy to point out bigger stupids than these.

It's a good question to ask whether starlight gets brighter or dimmer where the density of cosmic electrons is greater. I can't be sure one way of the other, but higher electron density might create both faster and stronger light. The colder space is, the slower the light might be, and, possibly, the less bright. Something tells me that modern science has banned (with threats) the free dissemination of what some have learned: that light at very cold temperatures moves much slower. If this news gets out, it will start to appear that light is a wave through heat particles i.e. free electrons, because the photon light particle that they invented is not expected to slow down just because the atoms are "cold."

Whether atoms are moving fast, slow, or not at all, the horned upholders of "quantum mechanics" expect the magical photon bullet to zip right past them. After all, these stupids imagine photon bullets getting through all of the air atoms with ease, though they can't explain it to anyone who has a head on his shoulders. How can photons not strike zillions of atoms en-route to our eyes from the light of the moon? yet the moon if a crisp, perfect circle in the sky, not fuzzy or spread out at all, as would be the case if its light were re-directed a zillion times through the air. If even wind causes stars to twinkle, imagine how erratic starlight would be if its light were made of particles zig-zagging to our eyes over many miles of air.

On the other hand, I can begin to explain how light gets through the air because I know that light travels through an electron medium. All atoms are covered in LOTS AND LOTS of that perimeters of atoms are electrons. God figured a way to make some atoms just-so in order to allow light waves to circle in all directions around atoms, and then to come out the opposite side of atoms in exactly the way and direction they entered that light is not weakened nor distorted much at all per track through a single atom. In my reasoning, this feat requires VERY ROUND atoms. If they were not perfectly round, light would enter the atomic electrons in one direction, but not exit in the same direction...rendering the rifle sight useless, for example, because things that we see far off would not really be where we see them.

In other words, there is no concrete wall, so to speak, to obstruct a light wave from passing an atom/ Light does not go THROUGH the atom, or it would strike the proton. That's why light can't be a photon, for photons would strike protons and then be bounced around erratically. Air atoms are not many atomic diameters from each other. Compress a gas to 1/12th or less its natural volume (brings atoms a little more than twice as close), and atoms are forced so near to one another that they begin to bond into liquids. There's no way for photons, no matter how small you imagine them to be, to get through miles and miles of air without protons acting as block walls to them. Only a blockhead would teach the human race that photons can get through the air, and so Einstein was just such a blockhead. In the same way that Democrat anti-Christs idolize, honor and uphold their political leaders on behalf of the anti-Christ agenda, ditto for evolutionists as per the "fathers" of their evolution-supporting science. Einstein (with others) did them a great service by replacing the light-wave medium with the photon.

Atom types with "transparent" capability are very few, yet God arranged that all air atoms have that feature because He knows what He's doing. If left to the big bang, you would not have had transparent atoms at all, because the big bang has no mind to design them. It is not a small feat to create a wave that goes straight. Sound waves do not go straight. If light were traveling in all directions as sound does, we would see nothing but a blur. To get light waves moving in straight lines, it needs to move through a medium not held to any planetary surface by gravity. Electrons are free, not held down. Energy therefore passes through electrons without being destroyed (much). Sound can only go so far because it moves through an atomic medium held with force to the ground.

The outer perimeters of atoms are barely held to atoms in roughly the way that the air atoms at the atmospheric ceiling are barely held to the earth. The outer surface/layer of the atom is defined as electrons attracted to the proton by only a wee-bit more force than the total force of outward repulsion due to electrons further down toward the protonic surface. To the contrary, electrons way down at the protonic surface are held on tight. An atom is a mini-planet with an electron atmosphere, so logical and to-be-expected.

It is devoid of intelligence to suggest that even one electron orbits naturally for aeons and aeons around the atomic core, circling zillions of times per second. MORONIC, but this is an absolute requirement for the viability of cosmic evolution, and so this is what they teach. The human race has been driven insane by these wicked people. If you're not feeling at ease / healthy mentally these days, they are to blame in more ways than by scientific deception.

It's not necessarily true that absolute-zero temperature (-273C), as scientists call it, is the point at which there is zero heat. google won't give me a scientific paper telling of specific light speeds per specific cold temperatures; I wonder why. google gives us bubble-gum these days. Wikipedia's article on "Speed of Light" has no mention / chart showing differences in the light speed per specific cold temperatures, making us assume that there isn't any difference. But I don't trust the science lords at all, for evolutionists want light to be as fast as possible everywhere in order to have the biggest-possible universe in order to better kill the Biblical Creation model.

I think light will go slower with reduced temperatures, until, with too-little heat, light won't propagate at all. In order for the light wave to continue moving, one free electron in space must move one electron to its front, but if the one to the front is too far away to be moved, the light wave comes to an end. The light wave is the forward bumping of electrons, electron-to-electron-to-electron. On a basic level (ignoring what other features God may have in play), light energy is nothing more complicated or difficult to grasp than the bump-bump-bump of electron motion. Anyone who tries to make a particle into a wave simultaneously is a moron who thinks he's got super intellectual advantages over the common thinker. It's called the fool.

I think light moves slow in space, meaning the universe is not as large as they claim. A light year of length in space may be far smaller than a light year on the earth's surface. If they discovered this, they are not expected to inform us, because the last thing they wish is to look like dopes. They need for the people to hold them up as the intellectually advantaged. Without that smoke-and-mirrors, more people might go back to the Creation model. They would never admit the true atomic model I am presenting here because it would be tantamount, if only for their looking like dopes, to their losing the war on Christians they started over a century ago.

Cosmic electron-density variation in outer space can make one star look different in size as compared to another of the exact same size and distance. If there is a thicker electron medium between one star and our eyes versus another star and our eyes, while both stars are the same distance and size, the two stars may not reach us with the same brightness. If that's correct, it makes a mess of the astronomer's star charts.

Plus, the particular direction of electron-ether flow through which a star's light traverses could make starlight weaker or stronger, and this could be the real reason for so-called red-shift / blue-shift. Don't mistaken ether flow with light flow. Light is a wave flowing against, with, or across the ether flow, same as sound waves moving against, with or across the atmospheric wind. Every star shoots out its own ether of electrons (stellar winds, just like our solar wind).

If, in the totality of stellar ethers between a star and earth, the ethers are flowing predominantly more toward a star, it is predicted to weaken that star's light toward earth, for starlight then goes against the wind. Sound in wind is in fact weakened "uphill" from wind direction. In that case, cosmologists should never be able to know how far a star is, or how large it is, using red-shift / blue-shift, IF color-shift is indeed caused by ether-flow directions. In this view, stars furthest away from earth might have the most red-shift because they have the most stars shooting electrons in a direction that's away from the earth. Our solar wind itself (very thick at earth), because it flows TOWARD the stars, might explain why red-shift stars predominate over blue.

Evolutionists claim that red-shift is purely the motion of stars away from earth. Increased red-shift, they say, is due to stars sailing away FASTER. They liken red-shirt to a train moving away from an ear, causing the sound to be drawn out longer, and thus every sound wave comes in weaker. Or, to put it another way, the totality of the sound is weaker per unit time. However, this may not be true with light due to the much-faster speed of a light wave. Sound waves are so slow by comparison that there is a noticeable effect from a train moving at a good clip from the ear, but if the star speed away from earth is inconsequential in comparison to the speed of light, I don't see much red-shift forming. For this reason, evolutionists prefer the biggest-possible universe in order to get the fastest-possible star speeds, so that their view of red-shift might hold more water.

The goons depend on red-shift to determine stellar distances by guessing their speeds and combining them with the birthday of the big bang...which tells us right away that their star charts are nutso. The older the big bang, and the faster the star motion away from our sun, the further the goons think that star is. Come to your senses, goons, and the people of God will embrace you; we will not hold your obstinance against you. Many Christians were stupid just like you now are. They abandoned atheism for Reality. I was half-stupid or more, and now I'm not.

My theory is that, the greater the light shift toward the red spectrum, the more the light has come to earth against the ether winds as oppose to with or across the winds. A study of what happens to sound when it goes against air flow might help to prove this theory. It's logical to suggest that, if a light wave is retarded in its forward motion, it's going to shift toward the weakest = red light. Do not mistaken such things as a flashlight pointed at a flashlight with starlight moving into/against the ether wind. The latter involves the carrier of the wave flowing physically away from the eye so that it's essentially a train-go-bye-bye effect. The light is in-coming to the eye, yet it's simultaneously being carried away from the eye.

The only thing in outer space that can retard light waves is the ether, yet not the ether alone, but ether moving against the flow of light. For this theory to be correct, one needs to explain how ether might produce a blue-shift. If starlight moves predominantly in an ether that itself moves more toward the earth than away, will that create blue-shift? I suppose it can. How possibly could there be a star moving more with than against the wind? To answer this, one cannot use a two-star situation, for in such a case where two stars are beside one another, the light from the furthest star travels half against, and half with, the wind of the nearest. But when we include all other stars shooting out their winds, then they can change the direction of other winds. But trying to figure out all their directions, after all wind collisions have been made, seems like madness to me. All I can say is that, in a few cases, some starlight might be able to get to earth going predominantly WITH the winds.

The more alone a star is in the sky, the more its light will traverse winds that cuts ACROSS the starlight path rather than pressing-in toward the starlight. I assume that starlight moving across/perpendicular to an ether wind causes no color shift.

There's got to be a clash point where one stellar wind strikes another, with all electrons from both sides accumulating there but becoming redirected depending on the angles of striking. I'm seeing river formation of electron flow in space, lots of rivers everywhere. When the light-wave energy of one star passes though the collision point, it moves through the ether of the other star but eventually reaches another collision point on any possible angle whatsoever. It's madness to try to map this out for all stars. Question: why do we almost never hear the astronomers talk about stellar winds? Why do we almost never hear them talk about cosmic electrons? I'm telling you why: they don't want you to know truths that spoil their lies.

Another lie they lie is that there are as many protons in a stellar wind as electrons, because in their daft minds, a proton can never be destroyed. They have detected solar-wind electrons in near-earth space, and, knowing that they stream out from the sun, they claim falsely that each of these free electrons has a proton counterpart. They make this lie because they claim falsely that a hydrogen atom consists of one electron and one proton. IMPOSTERS!

In reality, the hydrogen atom is probably the largest because it probably gets more heat-particle lift than helium particles. The hydrogen atom is not the lightest atom. They are deceived by their own errors. Hydrogen gas rises perhaps higher and faster than all other gases because it is at least almost the largest atom. It has at least almost the greatest number of captured electrons. The first rule here is understanding why "lighter" gas atoms rise in the first place. The goofball deceives himself by saying that gas atoms rise by a buoyant principle. That's stupid. There is no buoyancy applicable when it comes to a lone particle. It's stupid to say that air pressure under the H particle is greater than air pressure above the H particle. ABSOLUTELY STUPID. If there is one hydrogen particle mixed in air, there's no reason for it to be pushed up by air atoms getting in underneath it, especially as "experts" see all gas atoms racing around at hundreds of miles per hour, colliding with one another.

But if we pour out some hydrogen gas, up will all the H particles go. Why? Well, just appeal to the rising electrons, for those are what give lift. Obviously, where two atoms weigh the same, the larger one gets more lift, just like a bird gets more lift that has the bigger wing, or the piece of plywood is blown out of your hands harder than a 2 x 4.

The rise of electrons in the air is a gentle current. It raises water molecules to cloud levels, but there is a maximum height for water molecules where wind is not a contributor. On a windless day, a water molecule (larger than an H atom but nine times heavier) will be raised to a point where the pull of gravity upon it is equal to the lift power of rising electrons. I don't need to experiment to prove this; it's a no-brainer. There are many things we can claim correctly without experiments if we have correct knowledge of things to work with.

It is therefore predictable that pieces of H atoms, destroyed deep in the sun, might be brought to the outer atmosphere, and from there they get carried along with the solar wind, yet they may come in various, or endlessly-varied, sizes and shapes that scientists mistaken for "new" (newly-discovered, ha-ha) particles. The yokes on you, all over your faces, wise guys. The idiots smash atoms in accelerators to discover new particles. STUPIDS. If anything, you're smashing atoms and making pieces of them, stupids. It's one stupid thing after another with these anti-God clowns.

Almost no Creationist Christian gets to the top of the science fields. The wise guys brag that almost all the high-level scientists are pro-evolution, and they use this fact to claim that "most scientists believe in evolution" (i.e. because it's the truth). No, rather, most of them are evolutionists because totalitarian evolutionists arranged it that way.

The fact is, without their precious red-shift claims, they cannot prove that a galaxy is a galaxy, because it could be an exploded star i.e. within our own galaxy i.e. there are no other galaxies necessarily. What they claim to be individual stars of a galaxy could just as well be bits of one star, if they have no way to know the distance of the "galaxy." They so badly want to make the universe extra large, because it helps to kill the Biblical Creation model, that they're unwilling to abandon their pet interpretation of red-shift that allows them to measure the universe in much-larger dimensions than it is. They cheat, in other words, and they make the numbers support their atheist end-game, of course, when they cheat. They are foremost atheists / satanists using scientific knowledge as suits them best, and owning the establishments, they get to proclaim the going "truth." No worries, brothers, sisters, because we shall arise and rule the universe, even the New Heavens, without them.

Traitorous Christians

What kind of a nut is a pope when claiming that God created the universe with evolution? What kind of a nutbar says that God created the spider's web gland over millions of years, step-by-step, millions of years before creating the hole that releases the web material, and then made the spider walk around for millions of years more while creating the muscle that pushes the web material out the hole? All of that time the spider chased its food because it had no web by which to catch it, but, after millions of years more, the spider was given feet that could walk on the web without getting stuck, though it was still millions of years more before God programmed (it certainly didn't learn it) the spider to spin a web and wrap its catch.

What kind of a thinker thinks that way? Nobody to speak of. But this is what a "theistic-evolutionist" is implying when he wants to compromise. With what is he compromising? With evolutionist killers of God. That's the vatican for you.

Theistic evolutionists cannot be such due to any logic in God forming species slowly over hundreds of millions of years, and so the only alternative seems to be that they are ashamed of being lumped in with strict Creationists and their "young" universe. So, they place their reputations upon the alter of atheism even while sticking to belief in a God. The only explanation seems to be that they agree with the scientific evidence for a 15-billion-year old universe, or, at least, a billion-year old earth.

On the other hand, I think theistic evolutionists are worse off than described above because there is ample information from Creationists showing scientific evidence for an earth far too young for special changes in the animal world. If theistic evolutionists prefer the science of evolutionists over Creationists, are they not in-deep with the enemy? Won't God view / judge them as such? Creationists even tell why the science for an old earth is unreliable. There is no longer any excuse to be an evolutionist.

What kind of a moron (it's the perfect word, sorry) thinks that God would change the front legs of a crocodile-like animal into the wings of a bird over millions of years? Each change would be slooooooooow. The point would arrive when the croc's legs are no longer legs, and not yet wings. How is that croc going to feed itself, get around, or defend itself, if instead of claws on its front legs, delicate feathers are starting to form? What happens to the feathers as the legs are yet propelling the croc forward by pressing onto the ground? Questions like these are endless in regards to the endless changes required of evolution for other animals. The more a man pretends to be an intelligent thinker who espouses evolution, the more a moron he is. Sorry.

Okay, so if you're the type of person who hasn't got the stuff to figure these things out on your own, no problem, the fossil record is ample in fossils thanks to evolutionists seeking evidence for their fantasies, and, the fossil record has not one lizard with a half-leg half wing structure. There's no fossil bird that has anything but a full wing. Archaeopteryx, the evolutionist's poster-animal for reptile-to-bird evolution, has full wings. There is no archaeopteryx fossil showing progression from legs to wings. If this paragraph is not yet enough evidence to disprove evolutionists for those still professing it, then something else is going inside, folly of one type or another.

One doesn't need to find a lack of evolution for EVERY species in order to disprove evolution. If the evidence shows that just one animal did not evolve, then none evolved. The many fossils of animals looking like the animals alive today is as-would-be-expected if no evolution took place. Therefore, every full or near-full fossil found to date of animals still alive today is actually evidence that evolution did not take place.

That's right. If all we do is take 1,000 fossils at random of 1,000 creatures still alive today, and if all 1,000 are exactly like the creatures are today, then evolution did not take place, for if it did, the evolutionist would expect more than 500 of them to show different skeletal features than they have today. That's because he thinks animal fossils are as old as 25-50 million years, and so from that pool, more than half of the 1,000 are expected to be different than the animals alive today.

However, he's wrong all over the place, because, recently, dinosaur tissue, discovered with a certain scientific technique, has been found common upon dinosaur fossils. And to protect his empire, the evolutionist will not admit that these bones are far, far younger than 50-75 million years old. That's because he's a sorry idiot, a stooge of the empire. That's because high-level kings and queens of the empire have sent down the warning that, should any evolutionist capitulate to a young-dinosaur model, his/her job / reputation will be terminated. Besides, after telling all his career that dinosaurs are old, he doesn't want to look like the idiot he really is by changing his tune now.

This human behavior is identical with the childish behavior we see in Democrat judges, governors, secretaries of state, lawmakers, right on down to the Democrat street activist, denying election fraud on behalf of being able to cheat in future elections in order to keep anti-Christian dogma perpetual in educational channels. Atheists, evolutionists, the ACLU, and Democrat leaders are one and the same, different corners of the same fabric.

Below is a short and easy-to-digest video on the dinosaur tissue. Note in the 2nd minute that the young-dinosaur theory is wiped out due merely to the age of rocks that the schemers created for themselves. They had no other way to prove that animals were millions of years old but by their concocted rock-dating mechanisms, and so they never looked back. In everything they teach, the dates of rocks as they date them are undeniable facts. You can't make children like this see the truth because they are demons in human bodies, bent on killing God.

So, with the tissues staring them in the face, rather than confessing that their rock-dating methods are wrong, they devise more falsified error to pile on top of past error. The video makes sure to stress how hard the evidence is for rock dating, but this is as cheap as the claims you hear today of Democrat schemers providing evidence that no voter fraud took place. It's exactly the same attitude, no different in any way. The video's evidence, in a nutshell, is: science has proven the reliability of rock dating in many ways. Sure, because they are evolutionist scientists. In the same way, Democrats are saying that the election has been proven to be clean by judges and leaders. Sure, by Democrat judges and leaders.

As you can see / glean in the video, the first line of attack -- it wasn't really tissue -- was a dud eventually trashed. HALF-EXPECTED, no surprise. But, no problem, they just come up with an alternative line of defence, anything but young dinosaurs. In other words, these people are going to their graves at war with God. If you want sanity, see a Creationist's explanation of dinosaur meat under a microscope:

Notice that the other video, with the evolutionist, didn't bother to elaborate on the meat of this topic. Yup, the fossils have meat, and, probably, evolutionists had discovered this decades and decades ago, but didn't tell anyone. That's how they operate, just like the Democrat liars, because, I reiterate, they are one and the same Hell-bent beast.

There is nobody so stupid as the scientist who studies God's creations, God's miraculous living things, and says there is no Creator. You can take that statement to the bank. There is no more-appropriate word than "stupid," because it denotes folly and rebellion all at once. Who would be so stupid as to rebel to the death against the One having the intelligence levels to produce all the creatures and their countless features, most of them on a microscopic level? If it were just a few people, a dozen, 50, or 100, it wouldn't be a concern, but they number, and fight together, in the millions upon millions. It's a staggering rebellion, organized, energetic, committed, but STUPID. They lost already. What don't they understand about that?

Are they happy to go to Hell fighting? Looks like. Is that bravery or stupidity? It could be counted bravery if the evidence showed that God were evil, but He is not. To prove that He's not evil, God lets them live long lives, and probably saves them from harm many times so that, in the end, as He's dumping them into Hell, he can say something like: "do you remember when you almost died, when I caused your belt buckle to get in the way of the bullet? That was Me." They cannot be permitted to live in God's kingdom because they are inclined to ruin / alter life as God has intended it. They are human rot masquerading as angels. So, when you watch a presentation by an avid evolutionist, know that he's acting angelic in the same way that a Democrat lawmaker will, with the right/good mannerisms, the right/good aura, yet in their hearts they war against a society run by Christian values. If they were truly good, they would not reject the good words of Jesus.

We need to protect our children most of all. The enemy has no power over us who have strong faith, but they will take your children to themselves who have no faith at all as yet. The best defence, to begin with, is home-schooling, and secondly, common talk about God / Jesus as a natural part of family life. Or, when they see our faith, their won't have the criticism against us, as they develop into adults, that we ourselves didn't show faith / commitment / devotion.

It's not hard to keep faith in God if you just remember things like: the fossil record shows no proto-bird, no proto-elephant, no proto- giraffe; no proto-rhino, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.. Okay, that keeps you believing in God, IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to, you will come to believe the enemy to some degree to ease your mind in your rebellion against God.

If you want to believe in God, your next step is a decision on whether Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. This is where you come if you want to live forever, to KNOW God forever, to live in a kingdom ruled by Jesus forever. If you don't want it, don't be surprised if you take on some of the beliefs of the enemy, such as theistic evolution. Anyone who wants Jesus calls out to Him and finds him. He's right there because his NUMBER-ONE job is to receive anyone who takes him seriously in faith. God hired Jesus for that, for you.

He's not working for free, but is receiving a throne for His work, and you will never get to sit on that throne without Him, you will never be able to rebel against it. If you are okay with that, then Jesus is as near to you as you own mouth's calling, if you will live accordingly now. Because, if you won't live accordingly now, how is it proof that you will do it later, when He returns? A life lived now with His words in mind and at heart is evidence that your faith is real.

Is every conservative a Christian? What is a conservative, anyway? It depends on who you ask. It sounds like restrained liberalism. Like, okay, we'll go forward worldly, but not in the fast lane. In Canada, the conservative party called itself, "PROGRESSIVE Conservative." That's an injured horse that needs to be shot, or like the Garden of Eden over a pit-trap. It's why I don't vote. The last Conservative prime minister spent billions just to impress the global leaders when they came to Canada. He treated them like the gods. When I joined a Christian political party (federal), it developed a losing strategy with wishy-washy devotion to Jesus, and so I quit. So, I belong to the Nation of Jesus. I like to think that American Christians are part of that Nation, yet they frighten me when they speak so heart-felt for the United States even while the country has been commanded by the enemy for many decades. Below is a four-minute video by Conservative News telling that the dino tissue is not tissue at all:

Maybe I was wrong, because the speaker in the video above is a potential proto-RINO. I don't know what his problem is. He can't wrap his mind around the fact that soft tissue could be in the midst of fossilized rock. This speaker gives false information when he says that Schweitzer's rock was turned to fine powder, because that was not fully the case. Schweitzer showed some of her samples as stretchy tissue, i.e. it didn't come out of a fine powder. The speaker clearly doesn't want it to be tissue. If this is what some conservatives are like, beware.

The thing to do now -- but only due to rebels who won't accept the obvious -- is to find the same tissue in non-dinosaur fossils. If, for example, the same tissue, with the same level of deterioration (or non-deterioration) can be found in a rhino horn, then it's a win for Creationists because it's to be expected that the dino tissue should be much-more deteriorated if it's indeed 65 million years old.

Where is the proto-rhino without its horn? Where is the proto-elephant without its trunk? Where is the proto-giraffe without its long neck? Never mind theistic evolution; how can evolution of any sort be considered palatable, or school-worthy, if no evidence for special changes has ever been found? You can't say that similarity between apes and humans is evidence of evolution. It's not good enough. To prove that apes evolved into humans, you've got to prove that all animals evolved, but as the evolution of just the bird can be proven to be false, then apes did not evolve into anything, for if birds did not evolve, the only alternative is creation by God. In that case, apes were created by God to have peculiarities like humans. You can't say that anything said in this paragraph is crazy.

How can one be so egotistical for evolution when the evidence on earth denies it? If one doesn't know of such evidence, it's partially due to evolutionists not informing anyone, but each individual, including theistic evolutionists, should consider themselves responsible for seeking the evidence on their own, because it's no small thing -- it's a fool in any book -- to reject God whimsically, just because evolution science denies Him. Every evolutionist is responsible to take a hard look at living animals before them. If they do not, God will judge them for rejecting Him whimsically, like one treats a rag to be tossed into the trash. That's the sort of judgment theistic evolutionists face.

How many bird species are alive today? How many lizard species are there? Does any one bird species show half-way development from a lizard? Does any lizard show half-way development into a bird? Does any animal show mid-way development into a bird? Evolutionist: GUILTY of heavenly treason. Guilty of robbing God's glory and giving comfort to evolutionists.

Where is the proto-whale? Is it the dolphin? Then where is the proto-dolphin? Where is the fish half-way to developing lungs? Where is the fish with lungs still having part of its gills? Where is there any creature half-way to developing gills? Evolutionist: whimsical fool. You didn't even ask these questions for your own soul before you abandoned the glory of God for seeking respect from this world's fools. You jumped right into their boat like you belonged to them.

Where is the fish that can barely swim? Where is the bird that can barely land on a branch? Where is the squirrel that can barely climb a tree? Where is the spider that gets stuck in its own web? It's predicable that evolution would create more feathered birds that can't fly than birds that can (non-flying birds don't necessarily go extinct), and we expect horrendous wing designs, things looking like deformations of all kinds.

If evolution is the creator, imagine how many freaks there should be that can't do anything well. Where is the mammal with a head growing above its arse? Where are the monsters of all kinds? How did evolution know to put the head at the front of the body? Where is the animal with eyes on the back of the knees? How did evolution know to put the eyes on the front or side of the head? How did evolution know how to makes eyes work differently if they are on the side of the head versus on the front of the head? On and on we can go down this line of reason. Evolutionists: get on your knees an apologize to your God.

Where are the bodily features serving no purposes? Where's the dog with a 30-foot skin cord he drags around serving no purpose? Where's the fish that has a non-flapping fin making it harder to swim rather than better? Where are the internal organs doing nothing? Where's the crane with four legs, two sticking out its back? Evolution doesn't know what it's doing, so where's the falcon without that can't grab a branch? Evolution doesn't know what light is, yet it created eyes???

It doesn't know that ears need a hole in the head to let sound in, yet it doesn't even know what sound is. Where are the ears formed without a hole in the head? Where are the ears that no longer work? Why are there no ears on the stomach? How would evolution know that two ears are helpful and logical? Where are the animals that had their ears wired to their kidneys instead of to their brains? An animal can survive without ears; it won't necessarily go extinct? At least not immediately. Where's the dog having lost its sense of smell, or its nostrils altogether, now developing a green light on its snout instead, for no purpose whatsoever? A ram wouldn't go extinct if it grew its horns on its butt cheeks.

Where are the feet growing out the armpits? How would evolution know that a foot should be at the ground? How would evolution know what a foot should look and work like? Evolutionist: MINDLESS IDIOT. He hasn't even asked himself these basic questions, but would have us Christians think that he's on the high, intellectual road. It's obscene. He's mad.

WHERE'S ALL THE SPECIES / BREEDS OF THE PAST THAT WENT EXTINCT DUE TO LOSING NECESSARY FEATURES? The evolutionist would argue that any animal having lost something vital for hunting or for protecting itself would naturally go extinct. BUT WHERE ARE THEY in either the fossil or living record?

After more than 40 years a Christian, I still believe, and have believed for more than 40 years, that God conducted Noah's Flood, the most-powerful thing He's done, that we know of, in history. Here's a great start to a Creationist video:

In the 7th minute of the video above, the speaker, Steve Austin, begins to explaining that ocean-quantities of water flowed across the United States and thereby carried massive amounts of mud and rock, laying full strata in as little as minutes or hours. The problem is in trying to discover how such waters could move fast enough to later carve out the canyons. There's more than just continental canyons the world over; there's massive undersea canyons where the seas begin. There's only one way to get that carving action to take place after the entire globe was covered with water.

Let's agree that the ocean covering the globe was miles higher than the top of the grand canyon, for in fact sedimentary layers of rocks are that much higher than the Grand Canyon. There's no way for water to get that high unless its a global flood i.e. the surface of the water was relatively level the globe over. Well, water won't flow very fast, either on the ocean top or in the depths, if the ocean top is level all around the globe. So, of course, the crust of the earth had to break, and sink into the molten magma, in order to get water from over the unbroken parts to flow FAST into the sinking plates of crust. And, of course, the sinking parts are now the ocean floors. It's all very simple to achieve these conclusions, though the details of the crust's collapses (plural), and the actions or events of water flow that resulted, are filled with mysteries yet to be elaborated upon...because science won't talk about it, OF COURSE.

The video above does a disservice when it shows cartoon pictures of Genesis along with catholic paintings. I dislike when videos do this.

More Atomic Secrets

When the Christian/Creationist talks about rock "decay" in the 25th minute, he doesn't realize that he's repeating lies of the evolutionists. There is no such rock decay from one atomic material to another. This is a lie of the evolutionary physicists. The erroneous way in which he envisions atomic make-up, with every atom having exactly the same proton (one or more of them per atom), allows him to claim that an atom can change material just by losing one or more protons. In reality, every atom type has just one, but unique-to-itself, proton. It is STUPID to suggest that an atomic core consists of multiple protons when you also agree that protons are positively charged i.e. they repel one another. JUST REJECT THIS multi-protonic atom, and be done with it. BE SMART. Find another way to envision the atom.

Assume that God made every proton different per type of atom, and assume further that there's only one proton per core. For transparent-to-light atoms requiring a perfectly-round, outer shape, assume perfectly round protons...that attract and capture electrons all around much like a magnet attracts iron filings. At some point above the protonic surface, the captured electrons will begin to hover over one another due to the building of total negative energy from the accumulation of electrons further down toward the protonic surface.

In other words, at heights above the protonic surface, electrons are attracted by the proton but simultaneously repelled by the electrons further down. When the protonic attraction is weakened sufficiently with height, while the electron repulsion has increased enough, one electron layer will hover over the mass of captured electrons. With every layer of captured electrons above the first hovering layer, the electrons will hover progressively more distant from the layer beneath it. The atom will capture electron layers only as far as the outer layer is held on by the proton by a force greater than the negative force of gravity. This means that every perimeter of every atom has electrons hanging on to an atom by slightly more than the force of gravity (as was said earlier, gravity seeks to repel electrons from the atom).

I just gave you, free of charge world, a great secret. Everything else I revealed to you about atoms, earlier in this update, is rather bland and simple, expected and logical, but what we have here is profound. If every perimeter of every atom experiences a positive force equal to a small tick above the force of gravity -- or, for simplicity, equal to the force of gravity -- then gravity, because it attracts all positive forces, pulls every atoms with equal force, regardless of atomic type...meaning that every atom weighs exactly the same. It explains why a cannon ball and a feather, or any other object made of any other material, drops to gravity at the same speed/acceleration, in a vacuum. That, I tell you, was a crowning achievement of my observations, and it makes monkeys of my enemies, I'm so happy to report.

Wow, every atom weighs the same. Wow, who would have thought? It allows us to make further observations, for example: the atoms with the greatest lift in air are the largest, and the atoms with the least lift -- the metal atoms -- are the smallest atoms. It explains why metals weigh so much per unit volume, because it is so dense in atoms. The evolutionists have it arse-backward, with the metal atoms being the largest/heaviest, and hydrogen the smallest/lightest.

God has allowed me to have much happiness in these finds that make fools of his enemies. But, for the most part, I came to the end of my discoveries decades ago, because I could see nothing more to glean with the facts that I had resolved, though there are many mysteries yet to be solved that I was unable. For example, why are freezing and boiling points where they happen to be for compounds, and other such complicated atomic properties. I was able to learn that the water molecule is O8H not H2O. By O8H, I mean to say that a water molecule is eight oxygen atoms/molecules per one hydrogen atom/molecule (technically speaking, O8H is eight O atoms per one H atom). This was easy to figure once it was learned that all atoms weigh the same. To explain this: it's known that two volumes of hydrogen gas (which they call H2) mixed with one of oxygen gas (which they call O2) creates two volumes of water. They call it H2O because they think wrongly that every volume of gas has the same number of atoms. How do write a buzzer sound? ENNNK. That's stupid. Evolutionists are stupids, they really are, out-to-lunch with erroneous ideas. By what cosmic coincidence could every equal volume of gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure) have exactly the same number of atoms? This is just stupid. To hang your hat on that theory is plain foolish. Where's the logic?

The known reality is that a volume of oxygen gas weighs 16 times as much as hydrogen gas, which tells me that there are 16 times as many O atoms, per equal volume, than H atoms. So, as two volumes of hydrogen with one of oxygen gets two of water, the water molecule must be O8H. They tell us that the result of the three-volume gas mix makes two volumes of water.

I'm not convinced that oxygen gas has diatomic oxygen molecules i.e. O2, and prefer, at this time, so see them all as individual atoms. In this picture, where oxygen gas weighs 16 times as much, it seems accurate that for every H2 molecule in a hydrogen gas, there are 32 oxygen atoms in the same volume of oxygen gas, 16 O atoms per one H atom. And so when two volumes of H2 gas is mixed with one of O gas to make water, there result eight O atoms per one of hydrogen, and so water looks like O8H.

Another way to put it is that a half-volume of oxygen mixes with one of hydrogen to make one of water. Where the one volume of hydrogen gas weighs one, the half volume of oxgyen weighs 16/2 = 8, wherefore each volume of water weighs 1 + 8 = 9. That is, one volume of water gas weighs nine times as much as an equal volume of hydrogen gas where their temperatures are the same. (If that's not true, then the scientists are not being honest with the amount of H mixed with O to produce steam.) The prediction from O8H (or O8H1) is that a water molecule weighs nine times as much as a hydrogen atom, and so it seems that my water molecule is correct.

The reason that hydrogen makes so much heat when ignited with oxygen is that the hydrogen atom is probably the largest of all atoms, and so when eight O atoms (not small) are merged (partially submerged) into a hydrogen atom, that's a lot of electrons that will be freed into space as heat.

I was unable to discover by some easy / accurate method (I didn't have the time to get the data needed) the relative sizes of atoms, though I think one can get a pretty good idea in that, for example, eight is the maximum number of O atoms that will squeeze into an H atom (if nine could fit, then water would be O9H). Hydrogen peroxide, which they call H2O2, is in reality O16H, but the second set of eight O atoms may be merged in the first set of eight O atoms, the latter being the ones merged into the H atom.

I can glean, as a guess that could be wrong, that hydrogen liquid consists of H atoms merged by very small depths. That's because hydrogen liquid refuses to remain a liquid i.e. the hydrogen atoms pop out of one another with very little heat in the gas. The pop-out point is called the "critical temperature." Every type of atom has a different critical-temperature point. Hydrogen's critical temperature is way-down near absolute zero. If H gas is mechanically compressed at a temperature below its critical temperature, the hydrogen will remain a liquid once the compression is removed. But above its critical temperature, the H liquid will instantly disintegrate to a gas because the little heat between H atoms pops them out. I do not think this would take place at such low temperatures unless the H atoms are barely merged together. The mystery I can't explain is the reason that H atoms don't merge more deeply when mechanically compressed.

As I see atoms, I see nothing to obstruct the deep merger of H atoms except the inter-repulsion of all atoms that's built-in to them by their electron atmospheres. The starting point of understanding both liquid and molecule formation is: atomic merger cannot begin until atoms are forced to make contact by some method. Until the contact point, atoms will inter-repel. The inter-repulsion between water molecules is so slight that mere gravity forces water molecules to make contact on the top of a leaf or blade of grass. Gravity will not, however, force H atoms to merge. Why should this be? Because, the water molecule is not twice as large as an H atom, but is nine times heavier.

Put it this way. The larger the atom, the more lift it receives from rising electrons, yet the lift is obstructed to a degree by gravity. A water molecule may get nearly twice as much as an H atom, yet it gets nine times the downward pull from gravity, so, gravity can force them into contact much easier than forcing H atoms into contact. Once atoms make contact to merge by a little depth, the proton of one atom will attract the electron atmosphere of the other atom, and so an atomic bond will be made if nothing else pulls them apart. Evaporation is the pulling apart of atoms/molecules due to electron lift at the surface of a liquid.

There is a strong force that resists sinking/merging atoms deeper than they do naturally. They say that compressing a liquid beyond a small point is impossible. The only thing I can see resisting liquid compression is the inter-repulsion built-in to every atom. It remains active even while the atomic bond takes place. Whenever any liquid is formed, the same amount of heat is always produced per pound of liquid formation. But as this heat formation from liquid formation is due to the very process of merging atoms (more specifically from the captured electrons going free from the merged region), it means that merger always goes to the same depth in every instance of liquid / molecule formation, but no further.

If God wanted us to have labor-free, cheap heat, he would have provided a way to squeeze water molecules together to get more electrons out of it. Instead, he gave us trees, and the healthy work of getting our fire wood. Imagine how much work it was prior to the chain saw, assuring that people in cold climates kept their winter-living spaces small.

Two things work together to pop atoms apart: 1) the heat invading between merged atoms; 2) the rising electrons under the merged atoms. The 2) factor probably does nothing much for popping chemically-reacted molecules apart, but is a main factor for popping liquid atoms/molecules apart.

Why is it so easy to get H atoms to merge (as liquid) to a small distance only, but no further even with more than ten times the compression pressure? What puts on the solid brakes to compression? Trying to thwart those brakes might be equal to cheating God. Should one even try to figure it out?

I don't recall ever reading the results of compressing a hydrogen-oxygen gas mix. I'm not up to speed on even basic chemistry, but I don't think water can be produced by compressing such a mix. The only way I know to form water is to ignite hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. If compressing the two gases produced water, it would be very explosive. The fact seems to be that even the heat of a small spark causes oxygen to contact and then sink into H atoms. It seems that sufficient heat in the presence of oxygen and other combustible materials causes oxygen to bind with those various atoms, whereas the same does not occur with any other substance (but oxygen). Why? What makes oxygen the unique combustion material?

It's wrong to say that hydrogen burns without also saying that oxygen burns. The heat/flame of combustion is coming from electrons freed from oxygen too. The merger frees electrons from all merging atoms.

One of my theories, probably the best thus far, for explaining the mechanics of oxygen-based combustion starts with a scenario in which hydrogen gas consists of two bonded H atoms (that's how evolutionists see free hydrogen, by the way). For example, a hydrogen-oxygen mix ignites (explosively) when it reaches a temperature of 997F (no flame or spark needed), suggesting that two bonded hydrogen atoms (what they call a diatom) are popped apart at that temperature to propel them, via the inter-repulsion of H atoms, into collisions and mergers with surrounding O atoms. Once the mergers begin, they release heat from the merged regions to perpetuate the hydrogen-popping process (in neighboring hydrogen) as a chain reaction.

We could extrapolate this view to other combustible materials, asking why it happens only with oxygen. That is, why don't the popped H atoms, or popped carbon-monoxide molecules, or popped wood atoms, merge with nitrogen atoms in the air, or with argon atoms in the air, etc., to produce flames, or any sort of combustion? It could be that other atoms in the air are already molecules (for example, N2) that refuse merger with hydrogen, carbon monoxide, gasoline, wood, etc. It could be that oxygen is uniquely a lone atom in a gaseous condition.

Assuming this is all correct, why won't three H atoms tend to merge if two are already merged? Why might nitrogen be two N atoms merged but not three?

Questions surrounding combustion have perplexed me for decades. I've not been able to explain combustion scenarios. A difficulty arises when an electric current is run through water to get the H separated from O atoms (they call it decomposition of water) to form hydrogen gas combined with oxygen gas. The difficulty: if hydrogen gas consists of two H atoms bonded, what causes them to bond once released from their bond with O atoms? I'm stumped.

Electricity is the linear, atom-to-atom travel of captured electrons along a metal wire. I expect that the river of electrons moving down the wire jiggles O atoms free from H atoms, putting them both in solution within the water. For all I know, this is not H2 hydrogen gas, but may be lone-H gas. Wikipedia says: "Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) due to an electric current being passed through the water". Yeah, but this information is from evolutionist-based scientists whom I don't trust for much.

I've never had cause to agree with their diatomic H atoms until now, as per my new explanation above for the mechanics of combustion, though I don't yet see why O needs to be diatomic. "Diatomic" means that such "atoms" come as two merged together. There are only seven-claimed diatomic molecules (including oxygen), some or all of which may have been invented due to problems in their atomic-weight schemes.

The best I can do with their reports is glean that, because they assign oxygen with a weight of 16, and because they view both hydrogen and oxygen as diatomic, one volume of hydrogen gas is roughly 16 less in weight as compared to a volume of oxygen gas. Similarly, they view nitrogen gas as consisting of two nitrogen atoms merged, and so, as they assign it an atomic weight of 14, we can be sure that a volume of nitrogen gas weighs roughly 14 times as much as hydrogen gas.

On the other hand, carbon (non-diatomic) is complicated because I don't think a carbon gas can be produced. If not, how do they assign carbon an atomic weight of 12? I'm suspicious of an error. When I think of wood = carbon, I don't see it as comparable to nitrogen or oxygen. Do you? They say that a carbon atom weighs six times as much as a hydrogen atom, though a carbon gas, if they could make one, weighs 12 times as much a hydrogen gas.

What they call "CO" is not really one carbon atom merged with one oxygen atom. However, we can perhaps take advantage of their "CO" because it's intended to mean that one volume of carbon atoms mixed with one volume of oxygen atoms makes carbon-monoxide molecules. They make the mistake of viewing both volumes as having the same number of atoms so that one volume of each produces many instances of one carbon atom merged with one oxygen atom (and here they do not mean one diatomic oxygen atom). If they are correct in saying/implying that the atomic weight of a carbon gas is 12 (3/4 as much as oxygen gas), then, because the atomic weight of oxygen gas is 16, a carbon-monoxide molecule is, in reality, three carbon atoms merged with four oxygen atoms, for it is a fact (they have yet to discover) that all atoms weigh the same.

That is, as all atoms weigh the same, while a carbon gas weighs 12 relative to the 16 for oxygen, then the fact would be that there are three carbon atoms in the gas per every four in the oxygen gas. As they all react when forming carbon monoxide, then we have no choice, that I can see, but to view a carbon-monoxide molecule as three carbon atoms merged with four oxygen atoms. This is the far-better way to define molecules because I can explain very logically why all atoms weigh the same while they cannot even begin to present evidence as to why all gases at STP should have equal numbers of atoms.

Their view of equal-atoms-per-volume-of-gas is what determines the speeds they assign to gas atoms. Keep in mind that atoms don't race about, but they assign them fast speeds anyway, because they envision gas pressure from atomic collisions on the inner walls of a container. So, if there are two volumes of gas at equal pressure (and the same temperature too), one volume of H and the other of O, then, because there are equal numbers of atoms, the H atoms must be striking the container walls with greater velocities because they see H atoms weighing far less than O atoms.

As they see the H atom weighing 16 times less, and as pressure = velocity x mass, then the H atoms must be made more than twice as speedy than O atoms, for if they were twice as fast, it would amount only to 4 times the pressure. If we double the speed again (four times faster than O atoms), that gets us 4 x 4 = 16 times the pressure. Therefore, I assume, they have H atoms racing about, in their whacked-out brains, 4 times faster than O atoms. And this is what they call "science." They can at times use correct science and true laws to achieve error by introducing and maintaining error in their situations. They are not stupid in applying science, but they are stupid in the false ideas they lay upon their inspection tables. Those ideas are not just honest mistakes, but down-right rebellion against God.

The O atoms in a volume of gas exert exactly as much pressure as the H atoms in their gas. What does this really mean where O atoms are smaller than H atoms? I know O atoms are smaller because they get less lift from rising heat. The scientists probably know the lift rates of all the atoms, but I'm not familiar with them, otherwise I could venture a good guess as to the relative sizes of all atoms. I don't think a chart, showing the lift rates of all atoms, is a thing anyone can easily obtain. But what I can conclude is that the O atoms at their center-to-center distances exert as much pressure, from their inter-repulsion forces, as do the H atoms at their particular center-to-center distances. As there are 16 times as many O atoms in their volume, I can say further that the O atoms are about 2.33 times as close as the H atoms are in their volume. For, when atoms are twice as close, there are 8 times as many.

Here's how you can know that cutting a gas three times in half (to 1/8 the volume) cuts the distance in half between atoms. There are three dimensions in a six-sided, square/rectangular container: 1) up-down; 2) horizontal east-to-west; 3) horizontal north-to-south. If we cut the container's distance in the 1) direction, the atoms will be brought twice as close in the up-down direction only, but we still need to bring them twice as close in the east-west and north-south directions to get them twice as close in all directions. That's it, a tidy-little way to solve the problem without a computer.

So, my conclusion, depending on whether oxygen gas has lone O or diatomic O, is: when we place the centers of two O atoms (or a diatomic O atom) about 2.3 times closer than the center of two H atoms (or a diatomic atom), the O will repel with as much force as the H. Without doing the math, I can glean that nitrogen atoms will be about 2 times as close as H atoms to produce the same inter-repulsion pressure.

As eight O atoms combine with one H to form water, I imagine (without taking much time to figure it out) that the H atom is maybe less than twice the diameter of the O atom. I'm looking at this like eight one-inch ping-pong balls sunk partly into a 2-inch (or less) tennis ball.

Wikipedia: "Triatomic hydrogen, H3, is unstable and breaks up spontaneously" (see photo half-way down the page, keeping in mind that the writer doesn't correctly know half of what he says he does). Why can't two H atoms merged accommodate a third? Probably for the same reason that H liquid disintegrates: the depths of merger are too shallow, and the large areas for heat particles to exploit, in separating the merged atoms, makes it easy to do so. It suggests that two merged hydrogen gas atoms are merged fairly deeply.

As you would know if you know liquid nitrogen, the quick disintegration of such liquids (due to being well above their critical temperatures) causes instant freezing of things like your hand. I've never touched a tank of liquid oxygen, but assume it's as warm as the room its in. Only after the liquid is poured or sprayed into the room will nitrogen atoms cause extreme cold by fleeing from one another (= disintegration process) to re-collect the free electrons they had previously ejected.

To separate the diatomic hydrogen molecule (called "disassociation"), one can fire "bullets" at the molecule when a hydrogen gas is at a low pressure. The reason that a low pressure is advantageous is that pressure is, in reality, defined as H atoms repelling H atoms, which tends to deepen the mergers (which is, of course, the opposite to pulling the atoms apart). An H2 molecule can be separated also by extremely high heat. If they say (I don't know whether they do) that two H atoms will go back together as H2 due only to cooling, I would doubt that they had separated the H2 completely in the first place.

The claimed disassociation of the oxygen molecule, O2, takes place admittedly spotty at such high temperatures, 5000 C, that I doubt they actually do it. I think this is just another example of wacko science. I would suggest that my theory, that oxygen best facilitates combustion as a lone atom, is still alive in my mind. To put it in other words, the fact that combustion has a different temperature point per combustible substance suggests that O atoms are always alone at those points, and since the kindling temperature of wood is only about 300 C, how can we even talk about the persistence of O2 at 5000 C? I'm doubting very much that oxygen can facilitate combustion if its an O2 molecule, you see.

However, these topics are so complicated, more than half due to the nutty ideas one needs to wade through in science articles, that I might say something quite different the next time I speak on the combustion process. But for now, I think I'm liking the idea that it is the combustion substances which experience a popping (separation) of their atoms while O is always a lone atom. Pity the one who follows the science as though it were all factual, boy-oh-boy, what a nut he/she becomes. It's using lie on lie to build truth. Yikes, insanity.

The reason I delved into this area of study was because I would have liked to find a way to manipulate atoms in order to get some easy / cheap energy in time for the tribulation. I thought that my more-correct view of the atom and its basic workings might cause a stumbling on something beneficial for producing heat. That's when I started to ask whether God is simply withholding easy / free energy, for reasons, since the beginning of man. Why didn't he provide a material to get man lots of cheap solar power? Maybe He did, but it's reserved for great-tribulation survivors, or the Millennium.

This Snowden video (shared in the last update) is frightening because it signals that the U.S. federal government wants to turn on the people to form their lives as it sees fit, for its own benefits, like the government = God. The irony is that Snowden voted Democrat, and yet it's Democrats who want totalitarianism, whom have been engineering an anti-Christ society for decades and decades. In the video's comments, I don't think I saw one comment taking the government side over Snowden's. Yet, Trump opposes Snowden, and in his list of pardons, Trump was not good enough to pardon this man who exposed the crimes of Intelligence, which were also the crimes of Obama and company. Shame, Trump, you fake. He always talks like he's on the same page as his voters, but he's a big fat fake. It's about time his voters hold him to account.


Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:

Table of Contents

Web Analytics