It was nice while it lasted. Hall of Names is no longer showing the descriptions of the Coats of Arms presented at House of Names, but I have many of them recorded in my past updates from which to borrow. I have a hard time seeing a good motive for taking this excellent material offline, excellent for customers to discover what exactly is in their Coats of Arms. I've passed on both companies lots of money through my heraldic work, but google suppresses it greatly.

I waved at Kim Thomson as she was entering a PHONE BOOTH. This story was in my last update, investigated to see whether the phone booth would point to the phone pings in Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules. I found evidence, but will enlarge upon it here. The Booths/Boths are being assumed to be the basis of Bothwells, who are in turn in the colors and format to Payens/PAIONs, suspect from the Paioni peoples who had a city, Stobi. I trace Paionians (or PAEONi) of Stobi to the Stop/Stubbs surname because they use Paeoni-like pheons. As you can see, that picture is like the Phone and Phoenix surnames, and mythical Phoenix was code for Phoenicians, with the Greeks called, Poeni. So, if true that Bothwells are in Payen/Paion colors and format due to their having been related, then "phone booth" makes a lot of sense as an item God would use.

Load Bothwell link now to have access, on another tab, to other Coats of Arms.

The next thing of note is that Payens/Paions are Pagans too, and it just so happens that English Pagans come up as Pings. Phone pings at our service, but there's more. The Pagan/Payen/Paion Coat shares the triple hexagrams of Mule-like MULLets/Mollets, and the latter add a hunting horn in the colors of the boar head of MOLE's, and the latter use a phoenix in Crest. It just seems that there had to be Intelligent Design behind my waving at Kim Thomson, but why her? How do her names point to election fraud by phone pings?

Next, we go from the Mollet variation of Mullets to MOLTons/MOLSons, first found in Devon with Mule's/Mules' and Moline's/Moulins. Lot's to play with here. Here's on the Moulins: "Historians know the de Molins came from MOLINEAUX-sur-Seine, near Rouen..." The name of this place is French, not Norman, and so it was named before Rollo conquered Normandy (had his capital at Rouen). Rollo's share the black boar with Booths/Boths, the latter first found in Yorkshire with Rolls.

We now go to the Molyneux surname, and it has a moline cross, as do Moline's/Moulins. The Molyneux cross is in the colors of the English Crozier cross, and French Crozier's were first found in Auvergne with Mullets/Mollets, and with the ancestry of MumMOLIN in Tullia of Lyon. She married Mr. Rusticus of Clermont-Ferrand in Auvergne. Mummolin ruled Chalons-en-Champagne, and the Arms of that place is the English Crozier Coat. Thus, Moline's appear to be named either after MumMOLIN, or whatever named him.

The CROZiers can be gleaned as Cross liners, and one Cross surname is also "Croce" while Robert Croce married Eschyna de MOLLE. The Molle's/Moles', first found in Roxburghshire with English Croziers, use stars that are at times called, 'mullets," in honor of their ancestry in Mullets/Mollets, and, if the three Mole/Moles stars were gold, the entire Coat would be in the colors and format of the Mullet/Mollet Coat. English Croziers were more specifically in Liddesdale, and Liddle's (Roxburghshire) use the spur while Payens/Paions call their hexagrams, "spur rowells".

Thus, Kim Thompson's pointer to Payens/Paions and Pagans/Pings just got us to Mule-like surnames in Devon, but also to Moles'. Moltons/Molsons have three stars too that might be called, or that may have once been called, mullets. Tullia of Lyon should be to the Tews/Tewells (Wales, same as Thomas') who can be suspect in the "To" term in the translated motto of Welsh Thomas'. Tulls/Tullia's have one of the triple pale bars of Tews/Tewells. Tulls/Tolle's share the lion of Tewell-like Tools, the latter first found in Kildare with Eustace's while Eustace II was father to Godfrey de Bouillon while Bouillons were first found in Auvergne with Mullets/Mollets and Tulia of Lyon. The Bello's/BALLOTs, feasibly in the "bello" motto term of Bouillons, almost have the Chief of Welsh Thomas'. Eustace II married Godfrey-like Goda, and "TO GOD be thanks" is the translated motto of Welsh Thomas'.

Scottish Sheds/Sheddens, first found in Ayrshire with Thomsons, look related to the Bello/Ballot Chief because the Shed/Shedden Chief-Shield colors are reversed from those of Saluzzo's, and Welsh Thomas' use the Saluzzo Shield as per Thomas of Saluzzo. Likewise first found in Ayrshire were Shed-connectable Skits/Skeets/Skeochs who share the potent cross of Chads and English Sheds/Scheds, both of whom have the vertically-split Shield of Welsh Thomas' in colors reversed. This allows us to go to the Keith/Keth branch of Kettle's (Perthshire, same as Justine's) who share the cinquefoils of Scottish Sheds/Sheddens. The Hermits in the latter's "hermit" share the border of Justine's. The latter were first found in Perthshire with Cluns and DURE's, both of whom share the Saluzzo Coat. Perthshire is also where Lyons, Wings/Winks, and Seaton-branch Sutys/Suddys were first found, a branch of Side's/SCYTHES'.

Justine's were related to Wings/Winks in the wings of Tews/Tewells (compare with Italian Belli's), and the latter come up as "Tewer," like the Dewers variation of Dure's, perfect because Dure's/Dewers were first found in Perthshire with Lyons, from Tullia of Lyon, we must assume. Tews/Tewells share blue wings with Hermit-branch German Here's/Herrs (share Hermit / Justine border) who in turn use "scythes." The Mens/Mame's and their Sinclair kin (both first found beside Keiths/Keths, Seatons/Sittens, and Scoots/Scougals) both share "God" in their motto with Welsh Thomas'. The Frasers who are said to have been of the Keiths share the Thomas and Kim cinquefoils, which looks like a big deal.

Keiths/Keths come up as "Mascals," and English Mascals (Sussex same as Saddocks) have the Saddock escutcheon while Saddocks have a black-Shield version of the CHADwick and Chaddock Coats who in turn almost have the Enfield Coat while the fox-head griffins of Welsh Thomas' are called Enfield griffins. There is a fox head in the Crest of Bello's/Ballots. It all looks like a pointer of Kim Thomson to fraudulent ballots, for while Frauds/Friths even use a "scythe," Scythe's are listed with Skits/Skeets/Skeochs (Ayrshire, same as Saluzzo-connectable Thomsons).

Next, we note that Bothwells have a Coat like that of Fellers and Fallis/Falls' (beside Keiths/Keths). Just compare "Fallis" to "William of Moulins, Sire de FALAISE, ", in the Moline/Moulin write-up. It was explained, in the last update, why Joe Oullette pointed to the election-fraud audit in Phoenix, and it just so happens that Oullette's are said to have been at Ouilly-le-Basset in Falaise! Bassets were first found in Staffordshire with Stops/Stubbs. The latter came up with my event at the bus stop of Lorraine, and a week or two later, she got her babe symbol from Joe's brother, Mike, or Michael. Not only is the Babe Coat a little like that of Oullette's, but Babe's were related to Podebrady elements...that being a city in Bohemia, where German Michaels were first found. Bassets happen to share the triple-wavy fesses of Drummonds, and it you check the last update for "Drummond," you'll see why they trace to Podebrady!

Babe's were once said to be first found in Dorset with Beaks because they are related, and Beaks use triple-wavy fesses too. The Beak fesses, without the WAVES, are over the "gold gate" in the Arms of Podebrady, and Babwells/Babels (look related to German Drummond Coat) use a "gold gate" too. The Stops/Stubbs (same place as Pipe's) ate in Pipe colors and format, and Pipe's have the bend-with-fleur of Webbers in colors reversed. German Webbers are also WEAVers, which is why, i think, Webbers have WAVY bars. And this must be why I WAVED at Kim Thomson as she was going into a phone booth. That booth was, at most, 50 feet from where I recall Michael Oullette saying, "what a babe," when he first saw Lorraine (the two events were a couple of years apart). As he spoke those words, I turned and looked at Lorraine, and she was barefooted with beautiful feet. The image is burned in my memory for a reason.

One day, when I was telling readers about her feet, I was saying the both Lawrence Kepke and Lorraine were "SUN-bright blonds." I therefore checked the Blonde surname to find that its six, fessewise bars were almost the six of Babe's, but it then floored me to learn that the Blond Crest has a "foot" on a SUN. Babe's have a sun in Crest too, is that not amazing? Yes, it is, because the last update told why Kepke points to Webbers, and the six fessewise bars of Webbers are in the colors of the same of Blonds. The latter were first found in Suffolk, where Babe's are now said to be first found. It's also where English Golds were first found, in case the gold gate is partly code for Golds.

As Babwells are now said to be first found in Sussex, it was gleaned (last update) that they were kin of COURTs/Coverts, and thus the SUPReme court made be pointed to here by Kim Thomson's pointing to election fraud. Remember here, that Lorraine's bus stop points to Stops/Stubbs, from the Paioni, and her bus stop is at the traffic lights where I was waiting for a red light to turn green when waving at Kim Thompson. Her phone booth points to Paioni too, especially the Mollet-related Payens/Paions using "SPUR rowells." Note only were SPURRs first found in Devon with SUPReme-like Supers, Mule's, Moltons, Moline's/Moulins and Billets, but both Supers and BASSETs/BESANcons use billets while Billets share the Coat of Bellows/BALLOTs (Cheshire, same as BESSINs). It's pointing to fraudulent ballots, right? English Bassets (same place as Stops/Stubbs) look like the Beaston variation of Bessins, explaining the Besancon variation of French Bassets. Ouilly-le-Basset, if not in the Bessin, is close to it.

Blonds are Blunds too, and Bessins named Beeston. The BLUNDville's were Meschins, from the Bessin, explaining: "The surname Blundville was first found in Cheshire at Beeston..." Though not in the same colors, Blundville's share trefoils with Bothwells. The latter's trefoils are in the colors of the same of Rods (Devon again). I knew very little about Kim Thomson aside from her dating ROD Gardner in high school. I'd have coffee / breakfast every school-day morning with the Gardner brothers. Kim and I dated a couple of times after she and Rod broke up, but I don't remember a thing we did. I saw her a few years later (my age 22), I don't recall how. I was in her home, but remember nothing of what we did there. At around that time, she stayed the night with me (no sex) at my place on Demaine crescent, and a couple of weeks later I drove by her phone booth (in a Firebird).

Rods are from Rodez, likely from Hugh of Rodez, husband of Miss Roquefeuil, the proto-RockeFELLERs who use trefoils. Both Rocks/Rookers and Rods use green trefoils and blank Chiefs. Fellers and FALLIS'/Falls' use trefoils, and we just saw Ouilly-le-Basset in FALAISE. The Arms of Roquefeuil (Rock/Rooker colors) use billets. We can only guess at how much the supporters of Hillary RODham Clinton were engrossed in election fraud, but the amazing thing here is that Blondville's (not "Blundville") share six black fitchees with Hillarys and Clintons. Blondville's were first found in Suffolk with Babe's, and Blundville's were at Beeston in BUNbury while Bunns were first found in Oxfordshire with Clintons. Rocks were first found in Worcestershire with Hillarys and the Clent Hills. Clents/Clints share the garbs of Blythe's, and Bill Clinton's birth father was Mr. Blythe, like "Billet." Had it not been for ROD Gardner, this paragraph would not have been written. Thomsons have a Beest-like "best" motto term, and their star is shared by French Bests/Bes'.

Kim Thomson stayed the night at my place at Demaine crescent, and Demaine's were first found in Maine with Billets/Billiards while English Billiards are listed with Hillards. It seems that God went to pains to set up this heraldry. The Gardner brothers and a few others would play plenty of billiards during school hours because there was a billiard hall about a three-minute walk from the school.

The Bunns are also Bone's/Bonns, and have a Coat version of the English Bone's (Sussex, same as Babwells/Babels and Courts. The point here is the Bohun variation of Bone's, looking Bohemian, and we were on Bohemia above when transitioning from Kim to Lorraine and realizing that they were to be connected on common ground. I've just found Bohemian-suspect Bohmers/Bohme's in Mole format, sharing their three stars to boot, and adding a dove, symbol of Schims/Schiens who share the Mole boar head. Thomsons share the Bohmer/Bohme stars too.

Then, loading Bombers, they probably share the tree of BAUMgartners/Baumgardens (Prussia, same as Bohmers/Bohme's.) BaumGARTNERs, fitting in nicely with the Gardner brothers, use a "fence" while the Fens'/Venns are like the Fenwick variation of Phoenix's and the Fane/Van variations of Phone's. Is that not perfect? We see Intelligent Design in Kim at the phone booth whom I knew little about aside from her dating Rod Gardner. Bohemia was named by the Boii, and there is a "A BOY pulling down a green PINE tree" in the BOTHwell Crest. What are the chances that Kims share the cinquefoils of French Pine's?

I've just realized that Kim (sun-bright blond) may have been chosen by God for this because she's petit. That's the perfect word for her. The Petits are in the Malcolm/COLUMN motto, and so see "Malcolm" in the last update to see why Scottish king, Malcolm III, connected to the column of German Franks, first found in Bohemia. Baumgartners are also Bogarts, and German Bogers have a nail (unless it's called a spike) while Neils/Nails/Nagle's share the Malcolm/Column saltire.

I've only just realized further, all new on the petit aspect, that Thomsons share the red stag head of Malcolms/Columns!!! Surprise.

Scottish Banners, with Malcolm/Column saltire in colors reversed, were first found in Aberdeenshire with Schims/Schiens. The Banner saltire is the flag of Scotland, "Andrews Cross," which is named after Andrew I of Hungary (though nobody today seems to know it but some in secret societies perhaps), father of George, husband of Miss Podebrady. It just so happens that the pale-bar-by-banner of Scottish Banners is in the colors of the pale-bar-by-column of German Franks.

Heraldry has a big mouth and makes dopes of guess-working family historians. Some of them might say that Banners were named by someone who made flags. Two sparrows have more value than such misinformationists. The Banner family apparently wanted to hide its Bohemian roots, for in the write-up of Scottish Banners we read: "The [Banner] family claim that their progenitor was standard-bearer [flag holder] to Malcolm Ceanmore [Malcolm III] about 1070." They lied. Scottish royalty didn't want Scottish "peasants" to know that the Scottish flag was in honor of George of Hungary, and that's probably why the English flag was called, St. George's flag. George's son, Maurice, married Malcolm's sister, begging whether their children ascended the throne at some point.

The Gardens use a "JUNGunter" motto term, and I've told of the Gardner brothers moving to Gormley, the village I lived in, shortly after high school. They were living directly across from the JUNK yard. It appears that God set that up too in order to go to the German Jungs/June's/Youngs (Bavaria, same as Bombers), and from there we go to the English Jungs/June's because they have fleur-de-lys colors reversed from that of Jewish Baumgardners (not "Baumgartner"). Both the Jung/June and Baumgardner fleur is with German Banners/Bainers (East Prussia, same as Baumgartners), who are split vertically in the colors of the horizontally-split Baumgardners. Scottish Banners have a motto, "pro patria," and Patria's/Peartree's share the Trump stag head, in the colors of the German Jung/June/Young stag.

English Jungs/June's were first found in Staffordshire with the Bassets sharing the Scottish Drummond Coat. Bassets were looking like a branch of Bessins/Beasts, and the latter share the bend of Sales' (Cheshire, same as Bessins/Beasts), phone-booth important below. Sales' share the Baumgardner / Banner fleur i.e. the Jung/June fleur in colors reversed. Kim Thomson's phone booth, and Lorraine's feet, were both on YONGE street at essentially the same spot, and Yonge's are listed with English / Scottish Youngs. Feets/Fate's share the Coat of Pavia's, and Patria-branch Pierro's/Pero's/Petri's were first found in Pavia. Patria's/Peartree's were first found beside the Aberdeenshire of Scottish Banners and Fothes'/FETTE's and PROphets/ProFETTE's, you see, to go with the "PRO patria" motto of Banners (phrase shared by Saluzzo-related Dure's/Dewers). There is clearly a link between Pavia and the line of Andrew > George of Hungary, and it's been many years since I've traced, by other means, the family of king Andrew I to the Ticino river, the one running through Pavia.

The Sales' are from "Saluzzo." The thing that makes Saluzzo important to heraldry is where the Alans of Dol married Alice of Saluzzo. These Alans made it to the Scottish throne about the same time that Drummonds did. Alice's father was THOMAS, explaining why one Welsh Thomas Coat shares the Chief-Shield colors of Saluzzo's. The VITAL POINT that God seems to be making here is that Thomsons share the Chief-Shield colors of Saluzzo's too, along with Clintons, and both Thomas' and Clintons add two stars to their Chiefs! This is huge, because we distinctly saw, shortly above, that Kim's phone booth was pointing to Hillary RODham Clinton! She must have gone made in 2020 because her team had devised election fraud to super-snaky levels, and yet she still lost only to see election fraud put the bumbler in the White House instead of she. BORN LOSER, beauty, it looks wonderful on the rotted, scornful witch (she reaps what she sows).

Lookie from petit Kim Thomson: English Petits are said to have married Arundel, tending to explain why Petits and English Stewarts share the same giant lion, and why Petits were first found in Kent with Rundels/Roundels (share Alan fesse). Alice of Saluzzo married FitzAlan of Arundel!!! Plus, Alans of Dol removed from Shropshire to Renfrewshire, where Smalls were first found too! God arranged to put petit Kim together with Rod Gardner when I was part of the Gardner gang, and later had me get together with this Kim.

King ROBERT Bruce I married Miss MAR of KilDRUMMy, highly suspect by me from MARia of Kiev. Italian Maria's almost have the Coat of Italian Marina's, and Spanish Maria's were first found in Castile with Spanish Marina's/Marins who in turn have the triple-wavy fesses of German Drummonds in colors reversed. The Italian Maria's have four fesses of the Varangi-like Varns (Ayrshire, same as Thomsons). Marines'/MARYners (Alan / Rundel / Drummond colors) were first found in Kent with Arundels, Petits, and Perts/PETTs. French Marins were first found in Brittany.

A couple of weeks before meeting Lorraine at her bus stop, I saw her, a blond like the Budini, walking toward me while I was smack at the corner of Lorne and Yonge. As she walked by me, God blurted through my mouth, "I'm going to MARRY you." I was too afraid to turn around to see what her reaction was. Marrys, sharing the Petit / Stewart lion, have the Ross lions in colors reversed, and Ross' are said to descend from an Andrew i.e. must have been from Andrew I, patriarch of Drummonds. As per, "I'M going to marry you," the Ims have the royal lion of Scotland, red, like the Marry lion, and the Im fesse is the Alan fesse too while Scottish Drummonds have three of those fesses. The Mary lions are colors reversed from the lions of Mars, and the I'm lion is colors reversed from the Maurice / Morris lion.

"In September 1305, Edward ordered Robert Bruce [I] to put his castle at Kildrummy..." Rod Gardner's brother is ROBERT, and king Robert Bruce was the son of Marjory (or Margaret) Carrick while Carricks share "Garde" with Lawns/Lane's who in turn share the Robert lion. Is that cool or what? Lawns/LANE's love the Roys in their motto who were first found in LANarkshire with BOY-loving BOTHwells. Ahh, Roys share the lion of German Rolls while English Rolls share the dancetty-fesse of Carricks. English Rolls may be using the lion of Bohners/Bohns (not "Bohmer"), and the latter's Coat looks related to the Misl Coat which in turn has a bend-with-mouse that I connect to the bend-with-lion of Welsh Davids (Cheshire), from king David I of Scotland. This is very cool. Bohners/Bohns probably share the harp of French Davis' because Welsh Davis' share the Welsh David Coat. French Davis', in Bothwell colors and format, were first found in Brittany with Alans of Dol.

The Alans of Dol were made "Steward" of Scotland by David I, son of Malcolm III (!) whose sister married the Drummonds. I read that David I built Haly ROD House (or Holyrood) for his mother, MARGARET. Is that Rod-Gardner cool or what? As soon as the Alans took the Scottish throne as Stewarts, they seized the island of Bute, where KIMs were first found! Bothwells, I had read, were named after Bute...is that Kim-Thomson cool or what? Lawns/Lane's were first found in Staffordshire with the Bassets who share the Drummond Coat. Italian Lane's were first found in Bruce-line Brescia, at lake GARDA. That's why Lawns/Lane's and Carricks share "Garde."

Watch: as I've said a million times, Lorraine's BUS stop (where I met her) was at the corner of LORNE and Yonge (it's also where I first saw her before meeting her at the bus stop). LORRAINE herself lived a block away at Lorne and Church, the first point being that Lorraine-like Lorne's (Aberdeenshire, same as Banners) are in the write-up of Lanarks/LURNacks (share Bus cinquefoil, white like the Kim cinquefoil). Kim's phone booth was maybe 100 feet north of Lorne and Yonge (see any map at Richmond Hill, Ontario), and Bothwells were first found in Lanarkshire, yet more reason to connect Lorraine to Kim.

King Robert Bruce had an heir, David II, who in turn married MARGARET Drummond, daughter of MALCOLM Drummond, and thus this looks like the line of king Malcolm's sister with Maurice Drummond, grandson of king Andrew I. Kim Thomson's phone booth was on Yonge street, a Hungarian name, in my opinion. I've wrongly been under the impression that king Robert Bruce II was the son of Robert Bruce I. Sorry if that's what I've said. Bruce I had a daughter, Marjory (named after Marjory Carrick), wife of Walter Stewart i.e. from Alans of Dol, and parents of king Robert Bruce II. His son in turn, Robert Bruce III, married Anabella Drummond. God made events in my life a history book.

The sleeping bag dream taught me that Aids/Ade's were David kin, and that Aids/Ade's were from Ada, wife of Henry of Huntingdon, son of king David I of Scotland, the Haly-Rod guy. Henry of Huntingdon was likely named after king Henry I of England because he had married the sister of king David I. However, there was also Henry I of MILLau, count of RODez, and this is why I think David called it, "Haly ROD." Henry I of Rodez had a son (Hugh) who married Miss Roquefeuil, resulting in the Rods and Rocks/Rookers sharing trefoils. The point is, the David and Aid/Ade Coats are much like that of RODhams so that we have another pointer to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As much as Kim's phone booth points to Bothwells, the Booths work into it too, where Booths almost share Swynford Coat, Catherine Roet (Root branch) married both Mr. Swynford and John of Gaunt while gauntlets are shared by Phone/Fane's/Vans and GUNTERs expected in the "junGUNTER" motto term of GARDENs/JARDens. The latter share the giant and black boar head of French JARRETs, first found in Dol...I realize it's unbelievable because Swynfords and Booths both have the same boar head. I'm God's history book, a short story only, providing proof of God's existence for those with weak faith. Hold the Vine, hang in there. The Brittany Marins have a Coat like Italian Tonys while English Tonys were first found in Leicestershire with Swynfords and the Root-connectable Woods who share the Baumgartner tree (same colors).

English Jarrets, first found in Shropshire with Root-related Bagleys, share the Crest of German Drummonds. Roets share the Bomber tree, yet BaumGARDENs use a tree too, with a fence around it, and Roets were first found beside the fence-like Fens'/Venns (Devon, same as Rods, Stewarts and Tony/Antony-related Flowers). That's another reason that God put Kim together with Rod Gardener. English Antons/Antonys share the leopard faces of the Bohemian Franks.

New: Rod's brother is Robert, and Welsh Roberts happen to share the horizontally-split Shield, in colors reversed, of Jewish Baumgardners! Zikers. Welsh Roberts may have the lion in the Chief of Parrots (Wales) because Baumgardners use what looks like a parrot. I've said it before, that when Kim stayed the night at my place, she laid down fully flat (facing down) on my back in the morning, as I slept on my belly. Welsh Bachs/BAGHs were first found in Denbighshire with Welsh Roberts, and the Bag Chief is connectable to Bagley-related Roots. [I didn't realize until two days after writing here that Bachs/Baghs share the seated, black dog in Crest with one of the English Thomas Coats!]

French Roberts share the Chief of BLONDville's (Suffolk, same as Babe's), and Kim is the blond who was at the phone booth smack where blond Lorraine got her babe symbol. ALMOST FORGOT: Suffolk is also where Babons were first found who share the black boar head with Booths! Recall MumMOLIN above, for Babon was his son, and while Mummolin liners were bumping into Mule-like surnames, Babons share the double fesses of Wake's who in turn almost have the Mule Coat. The Babon Shield has the boar head of Scottish Rose's (share harp with Davis' and Bohners/Bohns) whose "True" motto term is suspect as a pointer to True the Vote, the star performer in 2000 Mules. Scottish Rose's (share Yonge roses), who have a different-colors version of the Mole Coat, share the water bouget with Bag-like Bugs. Babon was father of Grimo, and Grimaldi's share the Bag Shield.

BEAUTY. I saw Rose-line Roxolani stamped on the BUZau river, and the Harps/Harpers in the Rose Crest were first found in Lennox. Wikipedia says that Roxolani were on the neighboring Ialomita river, anciently the NAPARis, and so here's the Peerless/NAPIER write-up: "The first record of the name in Scotland is c. 1290 when John Naper obtained from MALCOLM, earl of Lennox..." It explains why Lennox's/Levenax's (Stirlingshire with Drummonds of Drymen) share the Peerless/Napier saltire, and the kicker is: the Peerless/Napier Coat is a near-copy of one of the German Frank Coats! Lennox's/Levenax's share "defend" with the Woods first found in Leicestershire with English Tonys, and the German Franks substitute the roses of Peerless'/Napiers with the Anton/Anthony leopard faces. The Lennox saltire is probably related to the one of Tease's/Tecks.

I've just accidentally loaded LenNOIX's to find the French Lannoys sharing the lion of Lyons (Perthshire, same as Drummonds). I was on Muschatov's ANTENna KNOCKing at her window. Her antenna pointed to phone pings. The Noke's/Nochs share the Bug fesse, and red leopard faces with German Franks and Antons. The Noix's/Nauds have the Chief-Shield colors of Rods, and a giant ship while the "bellows" of Ships leads to the Ballots sharing the BUS cinquefoils.

Parrots share "ut" with Stone's who in turn share the motto of Carrick-branch Craigs (Aberdeenshire, same as Banners). Craigie's were first found in Ayrshire with Carricks and Thomsons, and Carricks share the fesse of Bugs while the Neuri on the Bug river are suspect (by me) from Nahor, father of UTs (Uz) and Buz. Stone's almost have the Gate Coat, and as the Arms of Podebrady uses a gate, Gate's are suspect from "Agatha" of Podebrady. I thought I had seen an Agatha of Podebrady that was not Agatha, mother of Margaret, and this page has Margaret's mother of Podebrady, and wife of George of Hungary.

George, the patriarch of the Drummonds, who was in Scotland in 1055, must have brought Bohemians to Scotland, especially if his wife was Agatha, mother of queen Margaret the ATHELing. If she's from AETOLia, location of Calydon, it can explain the Caledonian Picts of Scotland. Caledon-like Celts/Colts (Perthshire, same as Drummonds) share the stag head of Malcolms/COLUMNs (and Thomsons), and this very Margaret Atheling was wife to Malcolm III. Is that a cool hoot? COLTers/ALTERs (Catherine wheels of Roets), suspect in the "alteri" motto term of RODhams, were first found in Lanarkshire with Bothwells. Kim Thomson's phone booth has already pointed both to Rodhams and Bothwells, and I read that Roets descended from Croys of Groys (can't recall which), both of which are listed with Greys (share Andrew-of-Ross lion), first found in Northumberland with Rodhams. I dare say, Margaret's HalyRod House was the line of Rodhams.

Bohemian king, George of Podebrady, developed four centuries after George of Hungary married Podebrady. On this king George: "George was the son of Victor of Kunstat and Podebrady, a Bohemian nobleman whose ancestors were of Moravian origin, one of the leaders of more moderate faction (called Utraquists) of the Hussites during the Hussite Wars." As Huss'/Hesse's share the sun with Babe's and Bradys, it could be that Hussites were named from Hesse. As Huss'/Hesse's share a Hessel variation with Hazels, we note that the fesse-with-crescents of Hazels looks connectable to the fesse-with-Besants of English George's.

Note the UTRaquist branch of Hussites in the quote above, how it's like mythical Uther Pendragon, for I trace Pendragons to the Penestae Illyrians (beside the Paioni) on the Drilon river that goes through HAS (Albania), where I've several times suggested a trace of Hazels and Hesse's! It works even better where "Uther" was code for Utters/Otterburns and Others/Otters, for the latter share gold crescents with Hazels. Ahh, the Utter/Otterburn crescent is the Hazel crescent in BOTH colors! Zinger. If Julie's reading this, she's been highly interested in the Moravians / Hussites. Note that the Jewish Cohens/Kagans use both the Hesse sun and the MORAY stars, for Morays were probably related to Moravians...because Moray has been historically called, "Moravia." Utters/Otterburns were first found in Roxburghshire with the Maxwells who share the lodged stag under a holly tree/bush with Haslips/ISLIPs, a branch of Hazels (use "hazel SLIPs").

Khazar kings were kagans, and Hungarians, about one-third Khazars at their founding, had developed partly from Magyars adjacent with Khazaria. There is a KABARDINo area out that way, named by the Kabars who were the Hungary-based Khazars, which explains why the Leslie Hungarians settled ABERDEENshire. This is child's play, family historians, roughly Sesame-Street-level word-play. Try it, it's fun.

The Sinclairs came the Scotland with Maurice Drummond, son of George of Hungary. The Sinclairs (almost the Maxwell saltire) may therefore have developed their Sun variation from marital links to Hesse/Huss / Babe / PodeBRADY liners. Henry Sinclair of Roslin was the cup-bearer of queen Margaret (wife of Malcolm III).

Near the end of the life of George of Hungary, Conrad I was the Bohemian king, and ConRADs (Bohemia) may have been Rod liners. Or, CONrads may have been red Cohens/Cons, suggesting Hohens. The Cone's have a Coat like that of Biss', and the latter have two snakes "respecting each OTHER." The Sinclair cross is shared by CONans. The Bucks sharing the Cone antler have a horizontally-split Shield in the colors of the same of Jewish Baumgardners. Rads happen to share the hexagram of Hagars, the latter first found in Perthshire with Drummonds. Rats/Raids, sharing the cross of a Thomas Coat, were first found in NAIRNshire with Scottish Rose's. The fesse-with-three-stars of Conrads (Stone colors) is in the colors of the fesse-with-three-lions of English George's, and the Conrad stars are the three in the Chief of French Alans. The latter's martlets were once ducks, symbol of a Thomas Coat (no surprise since FitzAlans married the daughter of Thomas of Saluzzo). The three Conrad crowns are shared by Scottish Grands suspect in the motto of Courts/Coverts, the latter now realized as kin of Bohemia-liner Babwells/Babels.

Now that we're back to Courts, it's about time I struggle with finding, if possible a Kim-Thomson pointer to supreme-court justice, Clarence Thomas. I've looked at the Clarence Coat for this purpose before, but could see nothing to say. However, I now have something to say. The Clarence's are listed with Larins/Clarens ("Creag"), and they have two of the triple fesses of English Clare's, first found in Sussex with Courts/Coverts! Bangity-bang, that's a purdy-good start. Stick-em up all your fraudsters, the sheriff's comin' to town.

The "Creag an TUIRC" motto of Clarence's can now be deciphered for the first time with Scottish Turks/Torks (share rock in flames with Grands!), and German Turks too, for the latter share the Craigie crescent! This keeps us on Carricks, first found in the same place as Thomas'. Turks/Torks were first found in Dumfries with the Lise's/Lease's who share the double chevrons of Clarence's/Larins. French Larins were first found in Provence with LIZarts/Sarde's in turn almost sharing the Coat of English Lise's/Liss', and the latter's six pale bars are those of Babels/Babwell, beauty. We are coming back to Kim-Thompson topics by following Clarence's. Six pale bars in a different color are with the Italian Bello's in the "bello" motto term of Turks/Torks. English Bello's are BALLOTs too! Beauty. They share the Lanark/Lurnack cinquefoils while the latter share the heart with Bullys.

Until 2021, Lise's/Lease's were said to be first found in PERThshire. Turks/Torks were first found in Dumfries with the BULLys (heart in flames) sharing the lozenges of Perts/PETTs "BULrushes" in Crest, first found in Kent with Malcolm-beloved Petits. Kim the petit blond.

English Lease's have a "CLARior" motto term to go with Clarence's, and these Lease's share a sun in Crest with Babe's and Blonds, first found in Suffolk with the Rush's in the Pert/Pett bulrushes. BathGATE's (of the gold gate of Podebrady?) use the sun too, and were first found in West Lothian with the ELIAS' sharing a Thomas Coat! BATHursts (Sussex, same as COURTs and BABwells/Babels!) have a Coat version of Felthams (Middlesex, where gold-gate Babwells/Babels were once said to be first found) who in turn share the Babe leopard face. Baths (Somerset, same as ROETs), having the RHODES Coat in colors reversed, share the lion of Greys, first found in Northumberland (beside Rhodes' in Yorkshire) with Lease's and RODhams. The Rhodes lion can therefore be in the Lease Crest. Marc ELIAS was Hillary Rodham's corrupt attorney, and is now spearheading some fights against those who wish to reveal election fraud.

Thomas of Saluzzo

Through the last update and this one to this point, I haven't studied the Welsh Thomas Coat until now. Aside from its Chief, which points to Kim Thomson, its Shield is a good reflection of the Bump/Bumpus Coat. Therefore, let's repeat from the last update:

The Ballo/Ballotti Shield is split vertically in the colors of the same of Bumps, and God showed me by a fistula bump (its job is to issue PUS) on my gum (at the tooth) that Bumps/BumPUS' share the same, giant griffin as Tooths, which is also that the giant one of Letters and Aliotto's. It just so happens that Bumps/Bumpus' were first found in Gloucestershire with LETTs/Late's and the Samsons with a "letho" motto term, and then as the giant crane of Leto's/Alitto's is in the colors of the griffin above, this looks like a pointer to Sam Alito. But why?

The last update also had election fraud on the BUMPer of Joe's van. But in this update, there is cause to believe in a pointer by Kim Thomson to Clarence Thomas, who's as energetic / inspired as Sam Alito in correcting the corrosive damage of the liberals over my entire generation. Welsh Thomas' were first found in Breconshire with Clements who are in turn in the motto of Morleys/Mauls who in turn share the vertically-split Shield of Welsh Thomas' and Bumps/Bumpus'! In the sleeping bag dream, David Morley (pointer to David Clements?) pointed to Aids/Aids because they, kin of Welsh Davids and Davis', share the specialized leopard face of English Morleys, and her we can add the "ADjuvat" motto term of Bothwells. But there's more.

Bothwells have "A BOY pulling down a green PINE tree". Again French Pine's share the Kim cinquefoils, but so does the Chief of the Welsh Thomas' who have the Chief-Shield colors of Thomsons. Clearly, God set me up with Kim Thomson at a Bothwell-pointable phone booth to point both to Thomas' and to Clintons. I get it. And David Morley likewise pointed to Hillary Clinton. French Pine's were first found in Limousin with French Clairs, and English Clare's almost have the triple chevrons of Clarence's/Clarens! The phone booth just pointed to Clarence Thomas! Ping. The same French Clairs share the Clement Chief because the latter come up when we enter "Clermonts" (not "Clermont"). I think this paragraph is amazing. The other French Clairs (Brittany) share the Coat of Yonge's, and the phone booth was on Yonge street!

By the way, if the Pine cinquefoils were gold, the entire Pine Coat would be in English George colors and format.

"Thomsons have a Beest-like "best" motto term, and their star is shared by French Bests/Bes'." Bessins/Beestons share the bend of Saluzzo-line Sales', and the Bee's/Bees', sharing the bend-with-fleur of Sales', are thus probably in the translated Thomas motto, "To GOD BE thanks." Bee's/Bees' almost have the Coat of Malls (Cheshire, same as Bessins/Beestons and Sales'), and their Marlybone variation speaks to Morleys/Malls. I feel sure that "God" is a part of that motto (which I could never decipher in its Welsh version) because English Bests/Beasts, in GODfrey colors, share a "libertas" motto term with English Godfreys.

Mall-like Malahule of More (Rollo's uncle) was the ancestor of Tonys/Tone's of Leicester, on the Legro river, perhaps explaining the "legibus" motto term of Bests/Beasts. The Welsh Thomas Coat that shares the split Shield of Morleys/Mauls also shares the split Shield of Tone-like Tunnels/Tunno's. The Best/Beast Crest shares the white ostrich with LOIS' while LUIS of Ceva was the wife of Thomas of Saluzzo. Lois' were first found in Artois, location of Boulogne, where the father of Godfrey de Bouillon was count. Bests/Beasts were first found in Somerset, where Meads were once said to be first found who have a version of the English Godfrey Coat. The "legiBUS" motto term of Bests/Beasts can be for Busch / Bosch / Bush liners because Saluzzo is beside Busca. Reminder: Kim Thomson at her phone booth links to Lorraine at her BUS stop. It's just amazing that English Bush's/Buschs (Yorkshire, same as Booths) share the black boar with Booths.

Bus' (Norfolk, same as Portis'/Porch's) share the PORTIS/Porch cinquefoil, which is on the horse in the Welsh Thomas Coat under discussion. "Best" is a Thomson motto term. PORTIShead is in Somerset with the first-known Bests/Beasts, and then there is a Dutch Beest/Best surname with four fesses in the colors of the four-and-four fessewise BARs of Portis'/PORCH's. The latter's Crest has been resolved with the Best- / Beaston-like Bassets. I had read that Bassets used the PORCupine, and French Pine's share the Kim cinquefoils! While Barrs were first found in Ayrshire with Thomas', it's amazing that Irish Godfreys (suspect in the Thomas motto) share the Barr lion heads. The Barrs share the eagle of Segni's/Segurana's while the latter have a Coat much like that of BARRels, both sharing the Saluzzo Chief-Shield colors! Bill Barr is the criminal supporter of election fraud who's allowed the crimes to go unpunished...probably because he knew that Bushites were using election fraud too.

It was while writing on the Malls/Marlybone's that I applied the following insert above: "I didn't realize until two days after writing here that Bachs/Baghs [Wales] share the seated, black dog in Crest with one of the English Thomas Coats!" That was as per Kim LYING on my BACK, and there is even an English Back surname, first found in Somerset with Thomson-loving Bests/Beasts! God made her lie on my back, shocking. The three fesses in the Portis/Porch Crest can be the three of Sturs with a Steer-like Styre variation because the Stour river flows from Somerset, location of Portishead. German Bachs/Backs love the Steers. The Meads, once said to be first found in Somerset with Clapton (smack beside Portishead), married Arthurs of Clapton, and we can now take the Mead martlets and their pelican to PEllicans, first found in Maine with DEMAINE's and the Josephs sharing the Mead martlets. Arthurs use the pelican too. As I've said, I lived on Demaine crescent (Richmond Hill), and that's where Kim stayed the night with me, and got onto my back in the morning.

God made her LIE on my back. The Lie Coat to find it listed with LEGHs (Cheshire), perhaps the reason for the "LEGibus" motto term of Bests/Beasts. Lie's/Leghs are also Leigh's/Leys while neighboring Leightons/Leytons have the Bee/Bees' and Mall/Marlybone quadrants in colors reversed. Leightons/Leytons share a dragon in Crest (different colors) with the Bee/Bees Crest, and the latter uses the green dragon head of Lewis', first found in Glamorganshire (Wales) with Lois-like Louis'. LUIS of Ceva was the mother, with Thomas as the father, of ALIS, explaining the "ALL IS in GOD" motto of Clovis'/Clovile's who in turn share the nail with German Bogers/Bogeners who in turn share the vertically-split Shield of English Thomas'. Clovis'/Clovile's even share a white ostrich in Crest with Bests/Beasts. I see the OSTrich as code for Osts/Hosts and Rich's, and here we can add that Osts/Hosts, with a bull head in half the colors of the "steer" bull of German Backs/BACKs, were first found in Somerset with Bests/Beasts and English Backs.

Steers have a "Tu ne" motto phrase that can be for the Tune's/Towns, in the colors and format of the other English Thomas'. Tune's/Towns, with the spread eagle of English Backs in colors reversed, were first found in Suffolk with the Clare's whose Coat is connectable to Clarence's/Clarens so as to provide a pointer to Clarence Thomas. But why should it be the Steers that got us to Clarence's amongst the Thomas'? Or better yet, why should Miss Thomson lying on my back have anything to do with election fraud cases arriving before the supreme court? If I recall correctly, it was a multi-state suit spearheaded by the Texas attorney general that got election fraud to this top court, but the liberals on the court managed to shun the case, refusing to take it up. Will another election-fraud case find its way to the supreme court? I don't see how it can be avoided.

Scottish Towns, sharing the Tune/Town chevron, were first found in West Lothian with Tenants who in turn have a "mast" with "sail," and Sails happen to be listed with Sales' so as to get us to a Saluzzo liner from the motto of Back-beloved Steers. It just so happens that while German Bogers/Bogners almost have an English Thomas Coat, Bogers/Bogys/Bolgys share the Tenant boar head. The other English Thomas' (Rice kin) are in Tune/Town colors and format). BOLGers/Bulgers almost have the Chief of Bug-like Bags. As French Louis' share blue lozenges with Bagleys, these Louis' look to be from Luis of Ceva too. Ceva is near the Genova location of Bag-connectable Grimaldi's and Segni's/SEGURana's. Seconds/SEGURs were first found in Limousin with Clairs.

The Segni's/Segurana's have the MOLINE of English Seagars (Devon, same as Moline's, Mule's and Moltons/Molsons...and BILLETs) in colors reversed, and I'm pretty sure that the Seagar Crest has a "caDUCeus." The Duce's/Doocys (Staffordshire, same as Bassets) look like they use two lions to form fesses in honor of same-colors Bassets, and the Bests/Beasts were first found in Somerset with the Ducks having lion heads in the colors of the Duce/Doocy lions. German Thomas' use the duck. Thomsons have a motto, "HonESTy is the BEST policy," and the Este eagle is shared by Segni's/Segurana's. As per "HONESty," Billet-loving Hone's/Hones' were first found in Hampshire (beside Somerset) with English Josephs, Ports and Porters. As per the "legiBUS" motto term of Bests, we take it to Dutch Bush'/Bos'/Boschs sharing blue billets with Hone's/Hones', and Billet-branch Bellows are also BALLOTs, both of whom share the BUS and Portis/Porch cinquefoil. Why does "legibis" look like "legal"?

German Ducks almost have the bars of Haydens (Norfolk, same as Bus' and Portis'/Porch's) and Cavetts while Luis of Ceva was at the Cevetta river. Haydens were a branch of Hades'/Hats, first found in Dorset with Bugs, and the latter share the fesse of Cords/McCOURTs, first found in Ayrshire with Thomas'. That's another way in which Kim Thomson can point to the supreme court.

The Thomas' with nearly the Boger/Bogden Coat were first found in Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire, and the latter is where Bracebridge's were first found who have a motto, "Be AS GOD wills." Bee's/BEAS' are the sone sharing the Sail/Sales Coats on the Mall / Massey quadrants. The split Shield of Thomas' and Bogers/Bogdens is shared by Austrian TURNers, and TURIN is near Saluzzo. The Grimaldi's of Monaco are beside Imperia, also called Oneglia, the line to NAILs/Nagle's, and the only difference between the Thomas and Boger/Bogden Coats is that the latter add a nail.

Back to the other English Thomas' sharing the cross-with-crescents of Alis like Elis' and Elias'. The latter were first found in West Lothian with the Scottish Towns who in turn have crosslets upon their chevron in the colors of the same of this Arms of Basset. It comes with hunting horns, as does the other Basset Coat shown below it that's in the colors and format of English Towns/TUNE's suspect in the Steer motto. Honesty is the BEST policy, election cheats. The Best-like Bassets just took us to Clarence Thomas again because the three WAVY Basset fesses are in the colors of the triple chevrons of Clare's, (same place as English Towns), and Clarence's/Clarens have two of those chevrons. The I WAVED at Kim Thomson at her phone booth.

The French Bassets/BESANcons look very linkable to Bessins/Beastons and Bests/Beasts, and that French branch shows nothing but Ballot-connectable billets. At the link above, or at the top of this page, a Basset Coat is shown that's also the Brecon Coat, and Welsh Thomas' (Town/Tune colors and format, share Kim and Pine cinquefoils) were first found in BRECONshire with the Clements/CLERmonts, kin of French Clairs. Tullia of Lyon, who had linked to Thomas Saluzzo above, was married to Mr. Rusticus of CLERMONT-Ferrand.

The Cords/McCourt we bumped into above share the Bug fesse who in turn the "WATER bouget," part-code for the Bucket bloodline, and it just so happens that the Brecon Coat is exactly the English Bucket Coat. The Waters (Essex, same as Muschats) are excellent here because they share the triple chevrons of Muschats, all red like the triple chevrons of Clare's.

Unassailable Physics

If you would like to know the secrets of the atomic world, I have many of them. Hee-hee. This can be fun. I've been working out an entire system for many years, and now know how best to present it by now.

Take an iron cannon ball, and an iron pebble a quarter-inch in diameter. They fall to gravity at the same speed when dropped from the same height. What's in a pure-iron ball? You know the answer. There's nothing in an iron ball for gravity to bite into but iron atoms. If we make the iron ball so small we can barely see it, it still falls to gravity at the same speed as an iron ball three feet in diameter. It falls to gravity at the same speed as a plastic ball of any size, a lead pole of any size, an aluminum cube of any size. Regardless of the material or its shape, every material falls to gravity at the same speed. It's a real head scratcher, but don't worry, I'm able to say what the evidence is saying because I don't care about my standing or reputation in the scientific field or any "respectable" field.

The obvious conclusion that the establishment has kept from you is: every atom weighs the same.

Gravity attracts every individual atom, very logical, unassailable. We can't say that gravity attracts packets of atoms but not individual atoms, as that would not be logical. A single atom is attracted by gravity, even the establishment believes it. Therefore, you cannot deny that every atom weighs the same, for if every material falls to gravity at the same speed, then every atom is attracted by gravity by the same force. INDISPUTABLE, yet the science nerds won't breathe this your way.

Let me put it this way. If we had a very strong magnet versus a weak magnet, you know that the strong one would attract a steel ball FASTER than the weak magnet. FASTER is the big word here. Therefore, the stronger the force of attraction, the FASTER the attracted object moves toward the thing which attracts it. The speed of an object under attraction depends on the specific force of attraction, a no-brainer. Therefore, if all atoms fall to gravity at the same speed, all atoms are being attracted by the same force. A NO-BRAINER. There is no FASTER-falling atom. They all fall at the same speed. But why don't the experts divulge this basic law of nature to you?

Define weight. My definition, unassailable: weight is the pull of gravity. Doh, you don't say? Yessir, you can't argue with that. It's not a trick answer. Here's another definition: weight is the gravity force. Doh, unassailable, you can't argue with that. You might say that, no it isn't, gravity is not weight because gravity is in the earth. Wrongo, buddy. Gravity has tentacles around your atoms. Gravity yanks your atoms.

You are standing on a weight scale, and gravity is pulling all of the atoms in your body down upon the scale. Your total weight is not just the numbers on the weight scale. Your total weight is the full force of GRAVITY YANK. You can't say "gravity" without it meaning "yank" too. Gravity is not gravity unless it yanks.

I've got you right where I want you, in a knot, because you now need to admit that I'm correct: all atoms weigh the same. If all atoms are attracted toward gravity at the same speed, then the force of gravity acting on all atoms is identical. As weight is defined as gravity force, then all atoms weigh the same. What is it that you can't understand about this? Why do you suspect a trick on my part? Why are you squirming to get away? Come back here. You're frowning on me because the experts tell us that different types of atoms weight differently. They think an oxygen atom weighs 16 times as much as a hydrogen atom, but I can show you how they're wrong. What are you going to believe, the bare-naked fact I just showed you, or the evolutionist dressing? Beware the highbrow, evolutionist masquerade.

Here's where they went wrong. They first assumed foolishly that every gas at STP -- same temperature and pressure -- has the same number of atoms. It's foolish to believe such a thing because there is no explanation for why such a cosmic coincidence should be the truth. But I, on the other hand, can offer a viable, logical explanation as to why all atoms weigh the same. Go ahead, try to dream up a means by which every gas at the same pressure has the same number of atoms, regardless of the type of gas. Oxygen gas, nitrogen gas, hydrogen gas, iron gas, they supposedly all have the same number of atoms at STP. It's ludicrous, it's wrong, but on that basis did they create their atomic model. On that basis did they create the look of their molecules. Is that just a small error? Can it be corrected with an pencil eraser?

So, here's where they went wrong: they weighed a volume oxygen at a certain temperature and pressure, and found that it weighed 16 times more that an equal volume of hydrogen at the same temperature and pressure. Therefore, under the premise that all equal volumes of gases have the same number of atoms, their conclusion was that O atoms must weigh 16 times as much as every H atom. And as a nitrogen gas weights 14 times as much as hydrogen, they assumed WRONGLY that N atoms weigh 14 times as much as H atoms. Same "logic" goes for all atoms and all gases. They got ALL atoms looking wrong. They don't have one molecule looking as it truly does. This blunder is going to be on the sign over their heads when God returns to crucify them. "King of the Blunders."

Here's how they justify their fallacious theory that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms: two volumes of H gas combined with one equal volume of O gas, when combusted together, produces two equal volumes of "H2O" = steam gas each weighing NINE times as much as hydrogen. That's a fact. Their math works with NINE if all gases have the same number of atoms, not at all meaning that all gases have the same number of atoms.

Then again, their math doesn't work because they need to tweak their theory with "diatomic" atoms to make it work, whereas I don't need to tweak my explanation. By creating diatomic atoms out of thin air, they confess they have a problem.

In the three volumes above (two of hydrogen and one of oxygen), as they see it, there are only enough O atoms to combine with the first volume of H gas but zero remaining O atoms to combine with the second volume of H gas. That's going to make only one volume of steam, yet the experiments show that two are formed. What to do? How can this be fixed by the physics fairy? They viewed each H atom as two H atoms combined, and they also viewed each O atom as two O atoms combined, and called them "diatomic" atoms. If they ever need a triple-O atom, all they need to do is call up the fairy, and they've got one. After all, they rule the establishment, they can do anything magical and call it a textbook fact.

They therefore created for themselves double the number of atoms in all three volumes -- 4 H atoms per every two O atoms -- so that they could now obtain two volumes of H2O steam. They have never seen a water molecule with their naked eyes as an H2O molecule. It's merely a figment of their imaginations. And you're so mentally disabled after hearing all your life that water is made of H20 molecules that you are ready to stick me with a pitchfork if I say otherwise. Too late, I've already said it.

Here is their "proof" that all gases have an equal number of atoms, and that one volume of steam at STP has the same number of molecules as H and O gases have atoms. Here it is: one volume of steam weighs nine times as much as one volume of H gas. That's it, that's their proof. That is, they can view two volumes of H gas as weighing two units of weight, and as the O gas weighs 16 times as much as H gas, they can view one volume of O gas as weighing 16 units of weight. Therefore, when mixing 2 units of weight with 16 units, the result should be exactly half way between 2 and 16, which is 9, and because steam does weigh 9 units, that's their proof that all gases have the same number of atoms.

However, the following is the reality...because it can be proven that all atoms weigh the same. Therefore, rather than there being the same number of atoms per volume of gas, there are 16 times as many O atoms in one volume of gas as there are H atoms per one volume of gas. It explains why O gas weighs 16 times more than H gas. It's child's play. We can now know what the true water molecule looks like. When we mix (combust) the three volumes now, every H atom (no diatomic atoms involved) merges with eight O atoms to form steam as an HO8 molecule. And you of course are conditioned to think I'm nuts for saying such a thing. You're a cripple; you can't get off you wheel chair to come take a look at what I'm saying. You are speeding away as fast as you can.

In the three volumes, half of the O volume mixes with one H volume, and the other half of the O volume mixes with the second volume of H gas, and the result is child's play: every eight O atoms merge with one H atom. And the weight of steam is therefore predicted to be: 8 + 1 = 9 units, or 9 times as much as H gas. SO, even if you can't bring yourself to accommodating an HO8 molecule, you've got to admit that my "theory" has math that works. You cannot rule it out, therefore. You as the judge are REQUIRED to give me a chance to prove that all atoms weigh the same. And I showed you above why it must be true. I win, the establishment loses. Put the brakes to that wheelchair, and come back to get healed.

I can go on, and have gone on, to explore what it might reveal further to have this new way of looking at atoms. The first thing that came to mind is that there cannot be eight O atoms merged with one H atom unless the H atom is far larger than the O atom. You can't sink eight tennis balls into a ping-pong ball. You've got to sink eight ping-pong balls into one tennis ball. That's what a water molecule should prove to look like.

Yet they tell us that the H atom is the smallest and lightest. Bonk. Wrong. The fact must be that there's sufficient H-atom surface to accommodate eight O atoms, and this makes the H atom HUGE in comparison to how they see it. I'm going to show you proof that the H atom is the largest atom of all. Fact: hydrogen gas has the greatest power of lift. Fact: hydrogen gas rises more powerfully, and faster, than all other gases. The reason is, not because H atoms are the smallest, but because H atoms are the largest.

You cannot easily accommodate into your brainwashed brain how the largest atom has the greatest lift force because you are conditioned to view a larger atom as a heavier one. But where H atoms weigh the same as all other atoms, there is ONLY ONE EXPLANATION for how H has the highest lift force. No atom rises in the air under its own locomotion. They don't have wings. They don't rise under the buoyancy principle, as you are brainwashed to believe. The liars and the fools (don't be offended by the truth) tell you that, because H atoms are lighter, they rise to the top of the air just as a bubble of air in water rises. You should be ashamed for allowing yourselves to be spoon-fed like babies who have no power of thought. An H atom in the air is not a bubble in water. Can you point out the difference? There is no reason that a single atom, in the absence of any other force, should rise versus fall.

The H atom is continually under the power of gravity, yet some force makes it rise upward. What force could that be? Before revealing this arousing thing, let me explain why an air bubble rises in water. There are two ways to explain it, both correct. As the bubble is lighter than the surrounding water, the latter continually "drains" to the underside of the bubble, displacing its space and forcing it upward continually. The establishment puts it this way: the water pressure on the bottom of the bubble pushing it upward is greater than the water pressure on the top of the bubble pushing it downward, wherefore there is a net upward pressure. Okay, fine, it works.

But no such drainage of air occurs to the underside of a single atom, H atom or otherwise, because all atoms weigh the same. We can't say the air pressure at the bottom of an atom is greater than at the top in order to provide lift to the atom. In fact, H atoms will fall through the air if the air is made cold enough. That's because gravity continually pulls them down, and when the thing providing lift is weaker than the pull of gravity, atoms fall toward gravity. This is child's play. Be aroused, get off of that wheel chair, stop being sick to your head by your own free choice. LEARN: something mysterious gives atmospheric lift to atoms.

When the sun comes out, water molecules/droplets rise, but at night, as the air cools, water molecules/droplets fall. It tells us something. Congratulations, you just learned that the upward force that gives gas atoms and molecules lift is...good-ole heat. Ahh, heat, but you haven't got a clue what heat is because the establishment has given you a false picture of what it is. I'll bet you can't tell me the mechanics of how water molecules/droplets go up and down in the air. I'll bet that they not only put you into a wheel chair, but wrapped a towel around your head at the eyes. It's not good enough to say, "hot air rises." Do you know the particle mechanics of how water particles go up and down? What makes hot air rise? There is no buoyancy -- no bubble-uppa-she-goes effect -- with single particles. Single particles are not air balloons. Can you tell the difference? We're hoping for the best.

The first order of business now is to smash their theory of heat. There are multiple ways that I can do it, but I'll just show one smasher for now. Once their theory of heat is cast into oblivion, only one other explanation for heat remains, and it's called, the truth. I'm here to save you from the establishment demon. Hearken.

If a log is moving through space with 2,000 units of force, how much force is needed coming from the opposite direction to make the log stop in its tracks? It's not a trick question, go ahead, venture a guess. Yup, you need 2,000 units of force from the opposite direction to cancel the log's motion (we ignore bounce-dynamics here). If a lead ball shot with 2,000 units of force is met by another lead ball coming dead-on with 2,000 units of force, not only will the first ball stop in its tracks, but the first ball will stop the second in its tracks. Yup, that's right, the one ball will cancel the force of the other so that both lead balls cease their motion through the air. You don't need to do an experiment; you know the answer without the experiment.

Fact: any two, moving objects colliding upon their front sides, be it dead-on, at 45 degrees, or at 89 degrees, will SLOW each other down. The energy of the two objects has not been destroyed, but has been used up. Some or all of the energy of the one object is transferred into the second object to SLOW it down. The energy has not been destroyed, but has been used up. Tolerate the echo, let it sink in; two colliding objects which cease to move, or slow down, is NOT destruction of energy.

Atomic scientists tell you that when two atoms collide from their front sides, there is no slowing down at all. They convince you that, should atoms slow down, it's a "destruction" of energy. They claim correctly that energy cannot be destroyed, but they fool you into thinking that the slowing down of atoms, upon collisions, is a destruction of energy. And that's just another way they make you science-sick.

Here is what they tell you, or at least imply with their cartoon drawings, to trick you: an atom at a velocity of 100 mph colliding head-on with an atom at 200 mph will result in the first atom bouncing away at faster than 100 mph while the second atom bounces away slower than 200 mph, where the total, combined velocity of the two atoms remains 300 mph after the collision. No energy can be destroyed, they tell you with a straight face, and therefore the total-combined velocities of the atoms cannot be slowed, they argue with foam around their mouths.

Can you grasp why they have left you with mad-cow disease? It's because they chose their "facts" based on their evolutionist needs, and wish for you to support them rather than oppose them. Because they are wayward souls who prefer the lie over your believing that God is the Creator. To keep the world from latching on to the Creator, they formed their atomic system to suit there evolution theory rather than go the way that the facts lead them. When Galileo taught them that all atoms weigh the same, they shunned it, and went forward with ALL GAS ATOMS AT STP HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF ATOMS. What old dishrags. Can they explain how possibly such a theory can be true? No, they cannot, and I'm in the middle of explaining to you why all gases cannot have the same number of atoms. Be free, be healthy, know God's atomic truth, for it's a wonderful creation.

Here's a trick question: are atoms objects? Yes, they are objects. It's a trick question only for those stoned on science dope. Anyone who's stoned out of their minds has been taught that atoms do not follow the laws of physics as do all other objects. They are lawless particles not required to follow the laws. All objects slow down when they collide, but atoms, oh no, they never slow down because they are not ordinary objects, we are to believe. Atomic particles -- atoms, electrons, photons -- they are "magic" little critters. That's how the science wizards make you stoned-stupid. You should be ashamed of yourselves, all the stupids who ape the theory that atomic particles never slow down. Photons strike electrons continually, thy morons teach, but they never lose their total velocities. Photons always speed around at the same speed no matter how many collisions they endure. THY MORONS. You who believe them are mere babies without the power of your own thinking.

Atomic particles cannot be in constant motion. Take that to the bank and get rich for a change. The "kinetic" view of atoms is the lie of the big-bang evolutionists. The motion of particles set off by the big bang is still with us today, they think. Yet they falter because their big bang requires that it exploded atomic particles much faster than they move today.

We now move up to some high-school level physics. We consider the ramifications of kinetic gases all having the same number of atoms when at the same pressure. Identical gas pressures, in their minds, means that the force of collisions with the inner walls of a jar are identical both for the H gas and the O gas. Therefore, in order for their smaller H atom to impact the jar with a force identical to the O atoms, the H atom needs to be moving faster. How much faster? Exactly as much in order to provide exactly the same punch as the O atoms has.

Problem: by what cosmic coincidence do the H atoms move just-right (perfecto) faster than O atoms so that, when the H and the O jars are equal in numbers of atoms, the total impact force of H atoms equals the total impact force of O atoms? It sounds like a fairy tale to me because the "experts" -- let-you-downs -- say that the very same takes place for EVERY gas. No matter how different in mass atomX is than the H atom, the atomX somehow manages to be speeding along at just-the-right speed so as to create the same total-impact force as H atoms do, when there are equal numbers of atoms per respective jar. That's not reality, that's dreaming like an idiot, especially when the idiots should know that kinetic atoms (never-ceasing in motion) cannot exist due to breaking the law of physics. It's like piling idiots on top of idiots; they all facilitate their own stupidities but speak as though they have the cutting-edge on scientific knowledge.

The sober reader will shun the kinetic theory of atoms, asking what atoms are truly doing in a gas. I'm here to save you from the dizzy atom: if no energy is allowed into a gas, the atoms remain motionless at equa-distance from each other. There is only one way to explain how gas atoms can be at equal distances from each other. There is only one way to explain how gas atoms can be motionless. There is therefore only one way to explain how a gas exists in the first place (defined simply as atoms not in contact): all gas atoms REPEL one another, and in so doing they repel one another as far apart as they can get, meaning that, when confined in a jar, all gas atoms take up positions equa-distant, as far apart as possible, from each other, and they lock into those positions MOTIONLESS. There is your true gas.

Be free, because I just set you free from their dope, which is: all gas atoms ATTRACT each other while flying dizzily about in the jar. They cannot attract themselves while motionless in the jar, but must be flying about in order not to bond into liquid atoms. If the atoms were motionless in the jar, they would fall to gravity and form a liquid at the bottom of the jar. Therefore, the evolutionist clown act decided that, since they absolutely required inter-attracting atoms, they would make them have everlasting speed in a gas. Bonus: they could claim that this speed came from the power of the big bang.

The evolutionist came to teach that the big bang sent atomic material into an ever-wider, ever-more-voluminous, space. As such, the particles were spreading wider apart from each other, oh-no. How could the flying-out material form stars, let alone galaxies, if they were spreading wider apart. Atoms had to attract each other. They could try to convince their fellow fools that atoms attracted one another as they screeched though black space at unimaginable speeds.

They assigned atoms inter-attraction force. There is nothing in lab experiments to prove inter-attracting gas atoms because anything they can "prove" can be proven better by the truth: gas atoms repel one another. Their huge problem is: the fallacy of the kinetic theory alone makes inter-attracting atoms impossible. If it's impossible to have ever-colliding atoms in a gas, neither can they be attracting one another. By default, atoms must be repelling one another. The matter can be settled that simply, if only evolutionists were reasonable, truth-seeking respectables. But, alas, they are rats determined to kill God to their dying day.

That's right. If atoms are not all colliding constantly, neither can they be attracting each other. A balloon is formed, they say, from the atoms crashing into the inner walls of the balloon. The air in your car tires holds the entire weight of the car because, they say, the air atoms are crashing constantly, without slowing down, against the inner walls of the tire, maintaining the ballooning of the tire all night while you sleep, and all day as you walk like the living dead infected by establishment disease.

If the atoms in your tire were to slow down, that would reduce the air pressure in the tire, they say, and so these clowns define gas pressure as the crashing of atoms against surfaces. THEN, low-and-behold their definition of heat in the tires of your car: atoms colliding with the tires. This is no joke. They define gas pressure and heat exactly the same, because they have no other choice unless they latch on to the truth: heat is a material all its own. They didn't want to view heat as a material all its own because they realized experimentally that heated objects have no extra weight. It gave them the impression that heat was made of weightless particles, and they killed that idea straight away because it implies an anti-gravity material. They couldn't tolerate a material repelled by gravity because it tended to kill their own view of gravity, which they badly needed for cosmic evolution. Their gravity attracted EVERYTHING.

That's right, they define both heat and gas pressure as atoms crashing into things, even though they have witnessed with their own eyes that a gas doubled in pressure does not double in temperature, not even nearly. And so they came to claim that heat is the SPEED of ever-colliding atoms while pressure was defined as the SPEED x NUMBER of colliding atoms. They could increase the number of atoms in a container to increase pressure, but it wouldn't increase temperature enough to kill their theory that heat is speed of atoms alone. I don't think that latter theory can stand the test of experimentation, and so they knew, in order to get away with turning their evolutionary needs into laws of physics, they had to control the physics establishments and wipe out any dissenters.

In order to explain to you how heat gives lift to H atoms, and all other lone atoms / molecules, you need to know the true nature of heat. If you are first convinced that atoms cannot be racing about and colliding because the law of physics doesn't allow them, then you are ready to hear a new theory of heat too. The only other option is that heat is a material all its own, and, bonus, if it lifts water molecules from sea level to cloud levels (even without wind giving extra lift), then you can know what I know: heat is an upward force.

Every plumber knows that heat rises UPWARD in a copper pipe as he holds the torch to it. You can encase that copper pipe in a mile of concrete to keep hot air from getting to it as you hold the torch to it, and heat will still climb up the pipe (or solid metal rod) within the concrete because heat is an upward-bound material. Let that sink in. HEAT FLOWS UP. Let me say it again: HEAT MATERIAL GOES UP. Let me say it again: HEAT MATERIAL GOES UP EVEN WITHIN A SOLID MATERIAL. You thereby have enough clues to know what it might be that powers heat into the upward direction. I've been tipping you off, I'm not leaving the punch line for last.

Upward heat flow gives lift to the H atom more than to a water molecule because the lift force of heat, at any given time, is the same, while water molecules weigh nine times more than H atoms. At any given time, the air temperature is the same, and thus the force of heat lift is the same. Temperature defines the specific upward force of heat. NOW IS THE TIME: because an H atom weighs the very same as an O atom, the only way to explain why an H atom gets more lift than an O atom is because the H atoms is larger. There's more heat lift because there's more heat material forcing the larger atom upward.

That's an important piece of fact sprung from the all-atoms-weigh-the-same realization. One correct entry into the fact book led to another discovery. Law of physics: all atoms weigh the same. Law of physics: the H atom is the biggest of all. Law of physics: heat material rises by nature (but can be repelled in the downward direction).

If you point a water hose upward, and spray water to the underside of a beach ball and a tennis ball both weighing the same, the beach ball goes higher because there's more water striking it. This is child's play. Take a whiff of fresh air, get sober. The flow of heat on the underside of the larger atoms makes them go higher, and faster, into the sky.

All I need to do now is tell you what the upward force of heat is. What kind of material could this be that it goes upward, and what causes it to go up?? This is primary-school education, have no worries. I'm not a quantum-mechanics pusher. I'm not asking for your money. The only thing I want as my reward is the complete downfall of the evolutionist establishment in conjunction with the correction of all its falsifications. I don't have enough time left in my earthly life to be rewarded in these ways...or, surprise me, Jesus.

The metal atoms are the smallest of all atoms. The scientists have it backward because they have been listening to evolutionist demons on their ears. The reason that a cubic inch of metal weighs more than a cubic inch of plastic or water is that there are more metal atoms compacted into any space...because they are the smallest. Hello? Metal atoms don't weigh more than plastic or water atoms, because all atoms weigh the same. Trust Galileo at the Tower of Pisa, he informed you so, but the rats didn't want you to think-out his experiments to their natural conclusion: all atoms weigh the same.

Electromagnetic Gravity

I know how all atoms weigh the same. I know what causes all atoms to weigh the same, but only because I was willing to look closer at Galileo's implications. If you go out into the right direction to begin with, you will find more truths strewn along the path just waiting for you to pick them up. Hey, what's that? I pick it up. Hey, gravity is a negative force. It's a truth I found strewn along Galileo Way. The reason that gravity attracts atoms is that gravity is a negative force. But of course. Prove me wrong. You can't. My negative-gravity is just as good as the gravity-attracts-everything that evolutionists created for themselves.

Evolutionists don't want gravity to be a negative force, because it ruins their big bang, and so they act like they are the great masters, the keepers of true scientific knowledge, then lie to you, saying: all atoms have a gravity particle within by which to attract one another. They lie further: all atoms attracted one another to form stars and galaxies out of the big bang. They dictated their own "truths" by their big-bang needs.

There is no way for all atoms to weigh the same unless some of their outer electrons are blown away. Atoms must become positively charged, in order to weigh the same, because the earth's interior is filled with a heavy-duty negative charge from the free electrons that define the heat of the interior. This is the beginning of understanding gravity, the negative force from the internal heat of the planet. Negative earth attracts positive atoms = gravity.

Something needs to blow electrons away from atoms in order to make them positive. Electrons are negative in force, and therefore gravity blows the outer electrons off of atoms. Is this too easy or what? Gravity thus arranges for all atoms (at the same distance from the gravity source) to first become positively charged, then bites into them, and, moreover, gravity arranges all atoms to be pulled by gravity by the same force level. The force level of gravity defines weight. This is grade-seven science, you can grasp it? If gravity pulls all atoms with the same force, all atoms weigh the same. This birdie will show you how gravity manages to make all atoms weigh the same.

If a tree has leaves attached to the branches with VARIOUS binding forces, and a wind gust comes through the tree with 50 units of force applied to the leaves, then all leaves held on to the branch with a force less than 50 units will be blown off the branches. I told ya, this is grade-seven science. After the gust has passed, the only leaves remaining on the tree are those held on by 50+ units of force. But leaves aren't magnetic, so you need to transfer this tree analogy to atoms surrounded by captured electrons. Can you anticipate yet what's left to say?

If you want to understand how all atoms weigh the same, you need to scrap the orbital electron. You need to come to your senses. You need to be logical, smart, even a little smart. You know that cosmic rocks racing by the earth, if they are captured and pulled down toward the earth's surface, have about a one in zillion chance of orbiting the earth as they come down. Chances are, they are going to crash into the earth. Ditto if you throw a bunch of electrons toward a bare proton. They will land on the proton, and stay put there, captured like dumb crooks in the night, until some force comes against the atom to jiggle the captured electrons. If the force is strong enough, the electrons can do a jail break. Sometimes it's only a temporary jail break, like a jump from a trampoline only to come back down again, but at other times, the electrons break free for good, and, of course, when they find their way to another atom, they do NOT enter orbits as naturally as a stunted evolutionist steals your brains.

Okay, so if you toss a handful of electrons toward a bare-naked proton, how many electrons will the proton capture? That is, at what point will the proton become incapable of capturing more protons? A proton incapable of capturing more electrons is a neutral atom. It has as much positive force radiating outward as it has negative force radiating outward, wherefore this atom can no longer attract anything, either with a negative force or with a positive force. You need to foist more electrons onto it; the proton won't attract them. This atom is a tree fully leaved.

What do you think gives the atom its outward negative force? The captured crooks, of course. They are repulsive. They are punching out their repulsive fists at all in-coming crooks, and when there are enough fists banging away with enough force, no more electrons can be jailed. The positive proton stops loading electrons when its captured electrons send out a negative force in all directions that matches the positive force going out in all directions. This atom is a tree fully leaved.

The lower levels of electrons, those nearest to the protonic surface, are captured with a greater force than the electrons higher up. No need to tell you why, you know why. The lowest level in contact with the proton has zero electrons underneath it to repel it outward. That lowest level is a hopeless case. It will never escape the proton until something comes along to destroy the proton. The lowest level is in maximum confinement, jailed for life, until something can destroy the entire jailhouse.

On the other hand, the outermost layer of electrons has the most electrons underneath it to repel it outward. The electrons on the outer layer are barley hanging onto the proton. There is just a tad more positive force holding it on the atom than negative force trying to repel it away. The outer layers of electrons are bouncy. Any little force coming against the atom causes the outer layers to bounce around, or to jiggle, and this is called "excitation" by the establishment, except that the establishment is plain-knucklehead stupid, thinking that electrons orbit the proton as though there were men down on the proton with satellite technology. There is more hope for an electron in the basement of a protonic jail cell than there is for an evolutionist blasphemer.

Okay, so you've tossed a bunch of electrons at a bare proton, and it has clothed itself with an atmosphere of electrons all around itself, clothed like a tree with its leaves. You cannot see the proton, it is fully clothed. You can only "see" electrons...if your eyes were good enough, but, alas, all we can see is the light coming from excited electrons. God made so many colors of light with so many atoms and combinations of atoms, give credit to Where credit is due.

And now to the point. Enter gravity force to your atom that was gifted with those electrons from your hand. The outer electron layers are barely hanging on, and gravity the boss is huffing and puffing and blowing them away...but only until the proton is stripped of electrons to the point that one atom-saving layer is held on more strongly than the huffing-puffing power of gravity. All electrons lower than the atom-saver layer are held on with even more force, and so gravity power cannot blow those electrons off.

THE MEAT FOR GALILEO IS RIGHT HERE. Gravity will not allow the proton to load electrons unless the proton is able to pull them stronger than the power of gravity to repel them away. How much positive force is available at the outer layer of all atoms in this scenario? It's equal to the force of gravity. The positive force at the atom-saver layer is equal to the force of gravity upon that same layer. What does that mean, Galileo? It means that the positive force going out from all atoms, after gravity has blown all of its leaves off, is G force.

But wait a minute. If all atoms have the same level of positive force radiating toward gravity, and if gravity attracts that positive force, doesn't it mean that all atoms weigh the same? Beauty. Now you know why a water molecule is an HO8 molecule.

Just like that, I took you out of a stinking evolutionist dungeon, and dropped you into the fresh zone. Breathe it up, fill your lungs, inhale deeply. Do it again, get healthy. If every atom at the same distance from gravity has the same net-positive force radiating toward gravity, then, because gravity attracts positive force, all of those atoms, be they H atoms or O atoms or iron atoms, WEIGH THE SAME. Hallelujah.

Gravity arranges for all atoms to weigh the same at any given height. If you transport the atom in you toe into the space station, the atom will be able to capture more electrons because gravity is weaker up there. This increases the atom's negative charges so that the net-positive charge toward gravity is weaker, and therefore you toe's atoms weigh less way up in orbit because they are pulled with less force. In reverse, the rock atoms deep in the earth are stripped of their electron clothing more deeply toward their protonic surfaces, and thus those atoms are weightier.

So, as I've just offered a means by which to show that all atoms weigh the same, and in conjunction with Galileo's experiments where he found that all objects drop to gravity at the same speed, I declare: a water molecule is not an H2O, but an HO8. And one can discover what other molecules look like by this same method simply by knowing how many volumes of gas unite to form the molecules. For example, from where they wrongly named CO (carbon monoxide), we glean that one volume of C gas unites with one equal volume of O gas to produce a volume of CO. The latter weighs 14 times as much as one hydrogen volume. They claim that C gas weighs 12 times that of H gas, and so while O gas weighs 16 times more than H gas, it explains why one volume of C mixed with one volume of O gets a weight of 14, exactly in the middle of 12 and 16. Dandy, but a CO molecule isn't a "CO" molecule.

In my view of a carbon monoxide gas, there are 12 times as many atoms as there are H atoms in an H gas, and then there are 16 times as many atoms in an O gas as there are H atoms in an H gas. To simplify this, we just view 12 C atoms in the C gas versus 16 atoms in the O gas so that, when they are combined in merger, the CO molecule works out to be either a C12O16, a C6O8, or a C3O4 molecule, take your pick for starters. I can't fathom how three carbon atoms merged together can have four O atoms sunk into them, but I think I can fathom how six carbons atoms merged together can have eight O atoms sunk into them. On top of this, the carbon-monoxide molecule, whichever it might be, must accommodate twice as many O atoms to become carbon dioxide.

Remember, they have no proof that gravity force exists in atoms. If they say they have the evidence, treat them as you would the misinformationists amongst the political liberals, for they and evolutionist anti-Christs are one and the same cloth. Evolution has been one fat disinformation campaign with innumerable false-flag evidence and contrived experiments to deceive. Objects fall to gravity according to the inverse-square rule, and the attraction force between magnetic negative and positive is likewise by the inverse-square rule. I don't know of any argument / experiment to disqualify electromagnetic gravity.

I'm on much better ground than they are when I claim a negative gravity force, for we have ample evidence that negative and positive forces exist. They have zero evidence that atoms attract one another, for atoms clearly do not attract until merged. If kineticism is invalid, fallacious, then there is only one other alternative to explain the existence of a gas: atoms must repel one another. And if atoms inter-repel, then any experiment claiming that atoms attract is fallacious, a fake dog bone tossed to the loyal team to keep it loyal.

True Nature of the Atmosphere

Okay, back now to grade-seven level science. We bolt a long pole to a weight scale. The pole is less than 100 inches long, and points up. We drop the first magnet, shaped as a ring, over the pole until it drops onto the weight scale. Crash-bang, it's down with its north pole facing up. We drop a second magnetic ring down the pole, and we've got its north pole facing down so that the two magnets repel one another. The second magnet hovers over the first by an inch. We continue to drop magnetic rings down this pole so that they all repel one another. Can you describe what 100 magnetic rings will look like all on that one pole? If each magnet weighs one pound, how much weight will register on the scale for all 100 magnets?

We've first got to consider that even if some magnets are not contacting one another physically, they will transfer their weights through their repulsion forces all the way to the weight scale. The weight scale will register 100 pounds. If you agree with that, we can go to the second consideration.

Repulsion force between magnets is increased by eight times (not four), in my opinion, when the magnets are forced to half their distance. My understanding is that a steel nail in a magnetic field, when it is moved to half its distance from the magnet, is attracted by four times the force. But if the nail were itself a magnet, then I think the force would double to eight. Therefore, when the weight of 98 magnets is pressing down on the second magnet (the first one to hover), which hovers an inch over the first magnet, will be forced considerably closer than one inch to the bottom magnet.

I don't think the 98 magnets weigh enough to make the first two magnets touch because, if the 98 could force the two magnets a quart-inch apart, their mutual repulsion forces then increase by 8 x 8 = 64 times. There would be an eight-fold increase when the one inch is cut to a half-inch, and another eight-fold increase (not 8 + 8, but 8 x 8) when the half-inch is cut to a quarter-inch. If the 98 could force the bottom two an eighth-inch apart, their repulsion force would increase to 8 x 8 x 8 = 512 times.

For the purposes here, it doesn't matter how close the 98 will push the second magnet toward the first. The only thing we're wanting to understand is that the lowest hovering magnet will be closer to the magnet beneath it than the third magnet is from the second magnet because there are only 97 magnets weighing down upon the third one. Therefore, with each magnet up the chain to the top, the gap between magnets increases, the top magnet being the furthest away from the one beneath it. The top magnet will be one inch from the magnet beneath it. Okay, we can bank on this being the fact of the matter even without doing the experiment.

What force causes the magnets to draw closer to one another? It's gravity. The WEIGHT of, or gravitational attraction upon, the magnets is forcing the 100 to come closer than they otherwise would without the force of gravity in the picture. You can now understand two realities that the willfully blind refuse to teach you.

ONE: the air is thickest at the ground, and thinnest at the atmospheric ceiling, because air atoms repel one another just as do the magnets, and gravity pulls air atoms down, just as it does the magnets. The very same picture applies with air atoms: they are closer to one another at the ground because the mass of air-atom weight above them is pressing them closer together at the ground. There is progressively more space between atoms as one rises from the ground.

TWO: if air atoms don't inter-repel, neither can they transfer their weights to the ground, because air atoms are not in physical contact. It is known as an experimental fact that a column of air from the ground up to atmospheric ceiling, if it's one-inch square in size, weighs 14.2 pounds. How do inter-attracting atoms transfer that weight to the ground???

If air atoms are all racing about and bouncing off of one another, then they cannot transfer their weight to the ground. Do two cannon balls colliding transfer their weight to the ground? Uh, duh. Do a million cannon balls colliding transfer weight to the ground. Duh.

If air atoms were all bouncing about in the sky, then the only force they can apply to the ground is from the air-atom collisions with the ground, but that would not be the force of weight. If a 10-pound cannon ball is fired from a hill to a weight scale on the ground, will it register 10 pounds on the scale, or more than ten pounds? Duh, no, for things that collide with the ground are not registering their weights, but are registering weight x velocity (x angle of striking, if they bounce).

Air atoms striking the ground is the buffoon's erroneous view of air pressure. His problem is, air pressure is not weight. If he's such a physics expert, why doesn't he make this distinction? He's got to be more clown than a scientist, dazzling you with trickery. One needs to be science-wacky to think and teach that air pressure from kinetic energy of atoms just happens to equal about 14 psi, the same as the weight of the air. You need to be deliberately blind to deny that there is only one thing taking place: all air atoms are transferring their weight to the ground because they repel one another. Set yourself free from the moron who takes the football from a moron and passes it off to another moron. They not only wear masks, they don't put holes in it for the eyes to see.

If all air atoms are striking each other at 100s of miles per hour, then they are striking with much more force than their force of weight, and consequently, the atoms striking the ground should be striking with far more than the force of their weight. If expert physicists don't know this, they need to retire, get into some other game. We can't tolerate irresponsible dingbats teaching us fantasies, and God will not stand for this. Their time is coming to an end.

The air exerts about 14 pounds psi on the wall of your house even though the air is not weighing down on your walls. That's because weight transfers through repulsing atoms in all directions equally. The atoms are all in contact through repulsion forces. The full weight of the air goes sideways too.

Back to the 100-magnet experiment we did in our heads. The very same picture applies to the electrons captured by the proton. View the proton as the earth. View the proton's attraction as the earth's gravity. View the captured electrons as the 100 magnets hovering over one another, with a layer of basement electrons in physical contact with the protonic surface. There is your true atom. It has a literal, electron atmosphere. It is not a quasi-atmosphere. It is not "like" an atmosphere. It is a real atmosphere.

Two atoms can bond because the electrons of one atom can fit between the electrons of another atom...because the electrons are separated by some space. The electrons of one atom finger into the electrons of another. Go ahead, spread the fingers of both your hands, and insert the fingers of one hand into the fingers of your other hand. You just did the atomic-merger. One proton attracts the electrons of the other atom, and now something needs to force the atoms apart, once they merge together.

Why does the earth's atmosphere grow bigger, taller, when it's hot outside versus cold? Hint: it has nothing to do with kinetic atoms that do not exist. All there is in the air are atoms repelling one another. Are they repelling each other with more force when it gets hot? Yes, because, when we introduce heat into a sealed jar of gas, the gas pressure increases. If we don't confine the gas in the jar, the gas would grow bigger with added heat, then grow smaller as heat escapes out of the sealed jar. Say what? Heat escapes a sealed jar? Is heat like Houdini? Can nothing contain it?

Alas, the jar is not sealed at all, even if you glue the lid on. The jar is filled with atomic spaces, atomic tunnels leading from the interior of the jar to the outside. The heat moves through those tunnels. That's right, heat is a material. There is no other choice if heat is not the kinetic motion of atoms.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Fact: we add heat to a gas, and it grows. The conclusion is: heat material added around gas atoms causes the atoms to repel with more force. That's what makes the gas grow bigger. The gas is not making babies in order to grow bigger. Atoms are not begetting atoms to grow into a larger mass, but they are repelling with more force with added heat. What in tarnation is going on, do you think? Fact: remove sufficient heat from a gas, and the atoms come so close to one another that they merge into one another, forming a liquid. Well I'll be. You don't say.

Heat causes atoms to repel with greater force, and therefore further apart if not confined, the more that heat is added to the gas. But why? We've just got to figure out what heat material is. There must be a way to figure this out. It's already been figured out, but those who know the truth won't tell it to you. Instead, they want you ignorant of the truth because it doesn't help their evolution theory, and they want you to spurn God, to never allow Him to come to mind, and most of all they don't want you talking to Him through Jesus. Evolutionist scientists are dirty rats, and they play dirty just like political anti-Christs.

The rats know this: wherever there is a loss of electrons from atoms, there is extra heat. You don't say. One could get the impression that electrons freed from atoms are heat particles. You don't say. I do, I do say. It's magical, God has this all figured out. Energy is packed, stored, on the atom. God has a million ways to release those electrons in your body to form energy in the body. Electrons released from atoms perform work because it took work to capture them. The proton compresses them upon itself, and once released, the electrons spread out into space and do two things: 1) they push whatever gets in their way; 2) they infiltrate whatever gets in their way. When they infiltrate the spaces between atoms, that's the true definition of heat. That's why heated materials expand in size, both gases and liquids / solids.

You have constant heat streaming away from your body because electrons are being released in your body by chemical reactions. "God is a genius" is an understatement. The rats who despise God know that heat is always formed when atoms merge. That's right, when a quart of H gas is merged with a quart of O gas, heat is a result. When gas atoms merge to form a liquid, heat is formed. That's because gas atoms are filled to capacity before merger with one another takes place. Atoms always tend to become fully loaded, though "fully-loaded" means the maximum load of electrons that a particular situation allows. If you fire 10 electrons into a fully-loaded atom, 10 electrons will be released from the surface because the proton cannot capture any more.

The electrons tend to take equa-distant positions in their atmosphere, just as air atoms do around the earth. If you force 100 electrons into an electron atmosphere, it will force electrons closer in the region where they enter, and consequently they repel each other with more force in the entry region so that the electron atmosphere as a whole expands in size. This in turn causes 100 electrons to bleed-off to freedom at outer edge of the electron atmosphere. The bleeding away of electrons from the atom is the true definition of heat particles. It is heat already, as soon as they leave the atom. It is not heat while captured by the atom; it is heat only when free from the atom. It cannot be heat until it is free between atoms, not until it is causing atoms to move further apart. Heat is defined as the expansion of materials due to the invasion of free electrons into them. But the rats won't tell you this. Why not?

The rats do not want you to know that gas atoms repel, and moreso the hotter the gases, for that would obliterate the evolution of the cosmos from the HOT big bang. If gas atoms repel, stars cannot form, it's that simple, folks: the rats teach you atomic trash along with evolutionary trash in order that they might kill God in your life. Once they begin with inter-attracting atoms, it throws off all of their atomic model such that it ALL becomes trash, like when error is piled on error, with falsifications correcting falsifications. TRASH.

What happens when the electron atmosphere invades another electron atmosphere? The density of electrons in both atmospheres is increased, but as neither atmosphere can contain the higher density, electrons bleed off = heat formation. It's that simple, child's play. And when atoms unmerge, they collect the electrons they bled off again. This is why the very same amount of heat that was formed in merger is taken back at unmerger. This is why evaporation produced cold, because the atoms are taking back their lost electrons (i.e. they are taking back whatever number they lost, not the very same electrons they lost, of course). When atoms unmerge, they pull electrons toward themselves, going back to the fully-loaded condition.

Why am I telling you this? What's the big deal if electrons do represent the basis of heat? What charge do electrons hold? Negative. Doesn't gravity have a negative charge? Yes. Do you mean to tell me, Martha, that gravity repels heat? You can't be serious, Martha, all of the scientists will laugh at you. They all know that gravity attracts everything. Gravity doesn't repel anything, Martha, get your head on straight.

But wait. If gravity did not repel heat, then the heat incoming from the sun could never escape into outer space, and the earth would fry. Heat needs to escape the earth, Martha, get you head on straight. And the only way a heat substance can escape the earth is if gravity repels it away...on the night side of the planet. The solar electrons stream in on the sunside of the earth, and then earth gravity sends them away by night. Martha, can you grasp this beautiful machinery?

Yes, gravity is a negative force that repels negative electrons. It does not repel electrons (= heat particles) streaming in from the sun stronger than solar gravity repels them toward the earth. The sun is boss; earth gravity repels electrons upward only when they are close to the ground, and off to the sides (= morning and afternoon) of high noon.

As earth gravity forces free electrons upward, they push everything in their path. They give lift to all air atoms even while gravity pulls air atoms down. Therefore, the atmosphere expands for two reasons: 1) the added heat particles in the air causes air atoms to repel one another more forcefully; 2) upward expansion of the air is caused when streams of rising electrons (not very fast) gently strike the underside of atoms. Hot air does not rise for any other reason than the rising electrons.

There may be no such thing as hot air rising due to hot air being lighter than cold air. Cold air does come into my door in the bottom half when I open it in winter, forcing the hot air out the top half of the door, but this may have nothing to do with cold air weighing more per cubic foot than hot air. It may have to do with air atoms being attracted harder by gravity when there are fewer heat particles surrounding them. Heat grants air atoms some lift against the bite of gravity. Over a fire, the rising heat particles easily defeat gravity power on atoms. Both smoke and air atoms rise as the heat particles stream upward with force. The combustion of wood creates heat because electrons are going free from C and O atoms as the two merge.

Heat applied by a match to wood causes the C and O atoms to attract and unite, and the heat of that union causes a chain reaction because it causes more C and O atoms to unite. Heat is a negative charge that alters the charges of atoms. When sufficient heat is added to atoms, they can be made to attract or repel other atoms. Oxygen is considered a catalyst to combustion of several gases. Heat added to O atoms must cause them to unite with "combustible" materials. In reality, oxygen is combusting too. Combustion is nothing more than the merger of atoms due to the addition of the negative charge of heat. Heat repels electrons from atoms because heat and gravity are one and the same.

Say what? You heard right. Gravity is as negative as free electrons are, because gravity can be nothing other then the earth's interior heat. Nothing else makes sense. Where gravity isn't powerful enough to cause combustion due to the gravity source being so far away from the combustible materials, a piece of paper on fire can create a greater gravity force because it's right next to the combustible materials. It's not the paper on fire that creates the gravity force, but the electrons freed from the combusting paper.

It seems that oxygen atoms lose their electrons more easily than other atoms when a negative field is brought near to it. I seems that O atoms become more-highly positive in charge when a heat source is applied to them, as compared to a heat source applied to other atoms. If the O atoms are made highly positive in the presence of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, wood, or gasoline, the O atoms draw the atoms of those materials forcefully to themselves, suggesting that combustible materials are negative in charge, suggesting in turn that all gas atoms are negatively charged, though there is more to these things than I've been able to realize or grasp. It gets complicated when one factors in the various electrical charges of atoms and molecules and materials in different conditions and situations, too much for me to delve into alone to get a handle on what's going on.

If some atoms were positively charged while others are negatively charged, when they are unaffected by anything, then they would attract one another into mergers by simply filling the same space. But I can't think of any two gases that unite chemically just by being in the presence of one another without added heat. There is more going on than I can identify on this topic. If all gas atom repel one another, then they must be either all positive or all negative. That makes the most sense to me. I explained above that gravity repels captured electrons from all atoms, thus making them all net-positive so that they are attracted by gravity. But that picture drawn for you did not consider the addition of heat particles surrounding atoms, and they happen to be electrons that foist themselves against the perimeters of all electron atmospheres. Thus, heat adds negative charge to atoms, it seems, and so heat at average earthly temperature may have made all atoms net-negative in charge. That's what I've thought is the reality, though at times I teeter for lack of clear understanding on what exactly happens to the atom's charge when free electrons invade, and press-in all around, electron atmospheres.

If heat surrounding any atoms causes them to become net-negative, then wouldn't that obliterate the attraction between gravity and the atoms? Maybe not. Do atoms become larger, or smaller, as heat particles press in on them? Do some of the invading electrons become a part of the atom? That is, do protons attract and therefore temporarily capture some of the invading free electrons as they reduce the size of electron atmospheres? Do heat particles reduce the size of electron atmospheres at all? How dense are free electrons at typical earthly temperatures in comparison to the density of the outer perimeters of electron atmospheres. Do I have the time to delve into these things? Do I want to delve into them? If God doesn't give the impetus and the tips to tip me off, I had best not bother.

I was able to find an amazingly-simple way of figuring this out: a gas needs to be compressed in half three times, to 1/8 it's initial volume, to force atoms to half their distances. This is no small thing, for it proves that gas atoms repel...because it's known that compressing a gas to 1/8th its volume increases its pressure by eight times.

A nail that's two inches from a magnet is attracted with 4 times the force as compared to the same nail four inches from the magnet. As a nail is not itself a magnet, I reason that cutting the distance of two magnets from four inches to two inches will cause them to attract by twice as much. That is, by 4 x 2 = 8 times as much. Conversely, if two magnets repelling one another are brought to half their distance, they will repel with 8 times more force. Ditto when bringing atoms to half their distance. So, when we compress a gas by eight times its volume, there is 8 times the pressure from the atoms because the atoms are twice as close in that smaller situation.

Here's how I discovered that cutting a gas in half three times gets the atoms twice as close: three dimensions. We need to cut the size of a gas in half in all three dimensions in order to get the atoms twice as close in all three directions. If we reduce the volume of a gas in half in the up-down direction, we have moved all atoms twice as close in the up-down direction. We then need to reduce the gas volume in half in the east-west direction to get the atoms twice as close in that direction, and finally we need to reduce the gas in half in the north-south direction to get the atoms twice as close in that direction. There are no other dimensions. The atoms are twice as close when the gas is compressed in half three times, and it doesn't matter which way the gas is compressed. One can compress in the up-down direction only, to 1/8th the volume, and all atoms will be twice as close, exerting 8 times the repulsive force against the jar walls.

Let's now look at the kinetic theory of gas pressure. The deceivers would confess to us that when a gas is compressed to half its size, the reason for the doubling of gas pressure is that there are now twice as many atoms in a space as there was before compression, and so, he admits, there are twice as many atomic collisions with the container walls. Twice the collisions, he says, equals twice the pressure. This is an admission of error, for it can't be true that there will be twice as many collisions, per square inch of container walls, just because there is a doubling of the density of gas atoms. But as we saw above, cutting the space in half only gets atoms 1/3 closer to one another, not twice as close. As the bouncing-about atoms have the same velocity before and after compression, they will not arrive to the container walls twice as fast if they are made only 1/3 closer together. It takes an honest person to admit this, which is why the evolutionist masters of science departments won't confess it to the students they deceive. They are very at-ease lying to you on many fronts because they are happier to keep their jobs than to risk telling the truth that's been long avoided.

Avid evolutionists are very aware of the evolutionary need of self-attracting atoms, which is the ONLY reason -- one and one alone -- that they chose bouncing-about atoms. There was only one reason to chose bouncing-about atoms: to explain gas pressure. This is their crime against humanity. The scums of humanity lied for over a century of time in order to prop up cosmic evolution. Why shouldn't this be a part of the Christian exposure of God's enemies? They know they lied because they know that colliding objects slow down due to collisions. They have no excuse. They can't say they didn't know better. Frontal collisions, no matter the angle, always slow the total velocity of two objects colliding. Collisions from the rear can only maintain total velocities, but not increase it so that there is no way to make up, from rear collisions, for frontal-collision losses in motion. I did not say losses in energy, but losses in motion. There's a difference. Energy can be used to cease / slow motion.

If an object at 100 mph hour strikes a second, identical object in the rear that is itself moving at 50 mph, then the struck object picks up some speed at least roughly equivalent to the speed reduction of the first object. If the struck object ends up moving at 70 mph, the first object ends up moving at 80 mph. The total velocity is still 150 mph. No change. In rear collisions, energy is not used up to slow both objects, but only the one doing the colliding. Therefore, it is a fact: all objects doing the colliding lose velocity. In frontal collisions, both objects lose speed. This is a no-brainer, you don't need to do an experiment to prove it. Just use logic known to a five-year old. If he sticks his hand in front of a moving ping-pong ball, voila, the ball slows down. Hello?

A ping-pong ball to the hand is ping-pong atoms versus hand atoms. The atoms of the hand don't send the ball bouncing out at the speed by which it arrived to the hand. Therefore, why are we taught that atoms colliding with the atoms in a container wall bounce back out, on average, at EXACTLY the speed by which they arrived? This is a fantasy.

Let's imagine two magnets in nothingness-space. You've got one in your left hand, and another in your right hand. You release them simultaneously in nothingness-space (there's no frictional force involved here). They attract one another, and move toward one another at the same speed of acceleration until they make contact. The law dictates that each will transfer their kinetic energy into the other so that one causes the other to cease motion. Where did the energy go? The attraction put them both in motion, but when they collided, the two magnets ceased motion, even if we imagine them bouncing off of one another to begin with. Attraction brings them to rest. Did the energy get destroyed? No. The energy was used up to cease motion.

You might say, well of course there was a ceasing of motion since the magnetic attraction accomplished it; it doesn't prove that frontal collisions cause a ceasing of motion. I claim that there would be ceasing of motion even if the two objects were not magnetic, but by using magnets here, we can start to ask: what happens to atoms that are all attractive magnets toward one another, as the modern physicists imagine them to be? What happens when we roll two attracting magnets past one another? Do they tend to slow one another down? It's obviously an important question for the kinetic-minded physicist to answer correctly.

He thinks that liquids and solids consist of inter-attracting atoms that jiggle (bounce off of one another) forever. Imagine two attracting magnets bouncing off of one another forever. Are we nuts? They can't do that. Doesn't child-size logic dictate that inter-attracting atoms in close proximity, as liquid atoms are, are going to bring each other to rest fast? If we speed two metal-ball magnets to a crash into one another, they bounce away, then attract each other again, then bounce less distance away, then attract each other again, and finally they come to rest kissing. Why should atoms not behave in that way? Every bounce under attraction force gets smaller and smaller, even the kid with his tennis ball knows that.

Every atomic collision of gas atoms will slow the atoms if there's mutual attraction involved at the collision points. Every near-miss of gas atoms under mutual attraction is expected to slow both atoms. It doesn't matter how little the slow-down is because, if it's taking place, the pressure of a gas in a sealed container is expected to constantly decrease. It's not taking place because gas atoms are not under mutual attraction, and neither are they racing about forever.

There's elastic bands tied to the bottoms of all atoms, all connected to the earth. What do you think these bands will do to flying-about atoms? The bands are CONSTANTLY pulling the atom down. Why shouldn't flying-about atoms in a sealed container sink constantly to the floor of the container?

The average direction of the bouncing-about atom is static. It's flying up as much as it's going down. It's going east as much as it's going west. It's going north as much as it's going south. The average direction is therefore motionless. Why doesn't gravity pull the atoms down to the floor of the container? Because, they are not flying around, but are repelling one another with forces greater than the pull of gravity upon them.

Bouncing Ball: Weeee, I'm flying high.

Boss Gravity: Oh no you're not, come back down here.

Bouncing Ball: I'm still bouncing, wee some more.

Boss Gravity: Oh no you're not, come back down here.

Evolutionist Stupid: With every bounce, the energy of the ball goes into the earth and sets earth atoms in greater motion than would otherwise be the case; no energy is lost, no motion is lost.

Me: But, Mr. Stupid, gravity pulls vibrating atoms and brings them to rest. Ask any bouncing ball about that.

Mr. Stupid says that because the ground has vibrating atoms, they keep the air atoms bouncing forever. But he doesn't explain how ground atoms can be bouncing forever in a gravitational field. He doesn't want to give the student any idea that his atom-jiggle theory is improbable. Yet he himself teaches that all atoms have their own gravity particle by which all atoms attract, and this alone is expected to constantly slow, and finally cease, atomic jiggles. He then says that incoming solar energy keeps the atomic jiggles alive in spite of gravity force in all atoms. But, Mr. Stupid, you yourself teach that solar light is a photon particle that strikes electrons, and so now we're back to collisions, half of which are frontal collisions that cancel motion. What sort of magic are you selling?

I'm ignoring bounce-effect, when speaking on atoms, such as possessed by an Indian rubber ball. Bounce effect prolongs total velocity, but no ball continues to bounce forever because all objects lose some velocity upon collisions. That's the bottom line. Atoms cannot bounce forever off of each other, meaning that they don't bounce about at all to create gas pressure, because gas pressure (at the same temperature) never changes in a container if it's not losing atoms. Gas pressure must be produced in some other way.

Someone might say, wait a minute. A baseball flying toward a batter at 100 mph can be knocked out of the park at 100 mph by a bat swing at only 75 mph. Here's a case where a bat collides head-on with a ball, but instead of seeing a slowing of the ball, the bat sends it in the opposite direction just as fast as it came in. Why can't atoms do that? Well, atoms can have that effect too, when one larger atom strikes a smaller atom. But in my examples above, the colliding objects are identical in mass/weight. A baseball bat (30-35 ounces) weighs more that a baseball (5 ounces), partially explaining why a 75 mph swing not only stops the ball dead in its tracks, but sends it the other way.

Plus, on top of the weight of the bat, there is the strength of the person holding the bat as it strikes the ball. If the hitter were to let go of the bat when it's an inch from the ball, the bat would still have its 75 mph speed when contact is made, but the ball would not go far because torque has been canceled. Torque is such that, the further from the batter's hands a particular ball is struck, the greater the energy transferred to the ball. But if the bat is not held at contact, there is no torque. Besides, it's not altogether true that the swing of a bat is everywhere 75 mph. Where it's held by the hand, the bat swing is much slower than at the tip of the bat. The tip is moving the fastest because the swing is circular.

Torque always requires a circular path and an axis. The place where the bat is held is the axis. The more solid the axis (i.e. the stronger the bat is held), the greater the energy transfer to the ball. You can't get a home run but hitting the ball two inches from the hands. You probably can't get it past the base line.

In a container of gas that has only one type of atom, all atoms are identical. There is no baseball-bat-versus-baseball in there. Sorry, there is no baseball player with big arms and shoulders in there. Sorry, rats, try again. Explain to the world how atoms never cease motion in a sealed jar? You farces, you wicked pigs for the slaughter of God. Your reward day is coming. You know better, but are willing fools for the cause of anti-Christs. You know that anti-Christs rule science departments everywhere.

The rat doesn't view the container wall as a solid wall because he knows that atoms striking a solid wall will lose velocity. Therefore, he maintains that liquids and solids comprise jiggling atoms that jiggle at hundreds of miles per hour in random directions. He tries to make the atom of a solid material look as much like a gas atom as possible. Everything is in constant motion so that when a gas atom strikes the container wall, it can be imagined going back out into the container's space with no loss of net-velocity, no loss of energy. But he's a deceiver, because the gas atom would strike a jiggling solid atom in a frontal collision in half of all collisions. Frontal collisions always reduce total velocity. If a jiggling solid atom is moving toward the space of the container (rather than toward the outside of the container) then it's going to create a frontal collision for itself if a gas atom strikes it at that time. No matter how you cut it, gas atoms striking a container wall will lose energy. The only hope the evolutionist has had on this matter is where people are too dull, too timid, too busy, or too unconcerned to contest his falsehood in a public / political forum. So long as he rules science departments, the human race is unknowingly loathsome and happily ignorant. Modern scientists send their clowns out to make science look like delightful magic tricks. The people drink it up whether truth of lie is being swallowed.

The electron atmosphere of an atom that I've described can be gleaned in the videos below showing magnetic objects trapped between equal positive and negative charges. Aside from the basement layer at the proton's surface, all captured electrons are trapped between an equal positive and negative force. Most captured electrons (on atoms) hover in free space trapped under a positive-negative balance, as you see here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU
https://youtu.be/X5EoUD-BIss

Making Light of Electrons

Captured electrons do not make a solid wall to an incoming atom. Recall the 100 magnets floating in space above the weight scale. They are not immovable, especially at the top. They can be sent lower if a baseball were to be dropped upon the 100th magnet at the top. There would be a spring action through the magnets. The falling ball would press all magnets a little downward, and then, once that energy has accomplished it, the magnets will spring back up to their original positions. Will the upward spring-back give the baseball all of its energy back that was expended in lowering the magnets? Very good and tricky question. On the one hand, the ball's energy goes into the weight scale, and also into the ground upon which the scale sits, but does this mean that the upward spring-back from repulsing magnets is less than the energy that the ball depressed them with? Hmm.

If we now used a million magnets instead of 100, would the energy of the dropping ball make it to the weight scale? Or would the magnets absorb at least almost all of the energy before it arrived to the scale? I say no, for if the ball simply sits on the top magnet, even if there are a million of them, its weight MUST transfer to the weight scale...regardless of how far down the stack some of the magnets are quashed due to the ball's weight. If the ball weighs a half pound, it's not going to quash many magnets. If the magnets weigh one pound each, then the second magnet from the top is already repelling the top magnet with one pound of force. If we've applied an extra half-pound of force to the entire stack of magnets, shouldn't the magnets spring-back with a half-pound of energy when the ball is removed from the top? I say yes.

If we threw the ball straight down to the top magnet so that it lands with 100 pounds of force, shouldn't the magnets spring-back up with 100 pounds of force whether the ball sticks to the top magnet or bounces off? I think so, though I can only guess. I assume that it will take place even if the full in-coming 100 pounds gets transferred to the weight scale. This picture is helpful to understand how a single light ray can get bounced out of the atom at ALMOST the same speed by which it strikes the atom, but the same picture cannot apply to an atom striking an atom because it's far-more powerful and destructive than a light ray. When an atom strikes an atom at 100s of mph, we don't imagine magnets getting depressed like springs, but we imagine an explosion with magnets strewn everywhere.

My point is this: if a half-pound (so to speak) atomic particle were to come flying, straight down into an atom, with 100 pounds (so to speak) of motion force, and if the captured electrons got quashed with 100 pounds of force so that they spring back with 100 pounds of force, even if the full force reaches the solid wall of the protonic surface, then the bounce-back force will be 100 pounds minus a half-pound, matching almost all, but not NOT ALL, of the incoming force. Gravity would rob the situation of a perfect 100-pound bounce back...unless the incoming particle is not attracted by gravity. And so this is what happens when a light particle (as in light of the sun or a light bulb) enters an atom, I now propose. It's full energy can be bounced back out so that it bounces out at the speed by which it came in.

To a light ray, a leaf is a solid wall. Einstein claimed that when a light particle strikes an atom with the force of ultra-violet light, the atom would emit an electron as well as a ray of ultra-violet light (he didn't realize, or at least pretended not to realize, that the emitting electron and the light ray were one and the same system). Forgive me, I'm not completely up-to-speed on his experiments, but if I recall correctly, he discovered, or claimed to discover, that whatever light energy was sent into an atom, it all came back out in identical energy level.

Captured/atomic electrons are trapped between positive and negative forces, and are therefore static, motionless, unless something comes in to move them. We just imagine an atom with 100 layers of electrons in formation like the 100 magnets. A light particle comes in and strikes it with the force of a ping-pong ball, so to speak, a very weak force. The weak energy doesn't disburse far and wide into neighboring atoms, but, regardless of how far the force transfers, my quash-effect above is in progress. I guarantee you, a light particle is exactly the size of one electron, because a light particle is an electron. Guaranteed. An in-coming light particle will therefore depress/quash an identical electron, but also a row of electrons beneath the first one contacted. There's going to be push-back. Get out of here, you invader.

When light rays strike a surface, the electron atmospheres of atoms get excited. The captured electrons jiggle about in their upper layers, and send out light rays that we call color. That's right, there are no photons because light consists of waves, not quantum-trash waves, but ordinary waves made from electrons in motion. The light wave comes in straight upon a wall at one angle only, from the electrons jigging in the sun, or "boiling" off of a light-bulb filament, but the jiggling electrons that the wave results in, upon a wall, send light waves in ALL directions equally. You can see a sunlit wall from all directions because the light of the wall's atoms is going out in ALL directions.

The light comes into an atom from one way only; the light goes back out the atom in all ways. You can either view this as a stream of photons deflecting off the atom in all directions, or an electron splash into the electron atmosphere that in turn sends light waves in all directions. Which do you prefer? The truth, I hope.

Why do you think that the solar wind consists of free electrons streaming out from the sun? It's what we expect if solar gravity repels electrons. These electrons never drop back down into the sun because they are repelled away. We must not view them as the electrons captured by the proton. Solar-wind electrons are not pulled by the sun at all. They accelerate constantly as they go out because they are powered by gravity. Just as gravity accelerates atoms toward itself, so it accelerates electrons into outer space for the same reason: because the gravity force is CONSTANTLY applied to them so that the speed of rising electrons at 5 pm is greater than an hour earlier. The higher up the electrons are from the ground from which they came out, the faster they are expected (by me) to rise.

Moreover, the repulsion from electrons in the solar wind itself are an additional repulsive force constantly allied to the backside (the sunward side) of any solar-wind electron. It's cold in space because electrons move so far apart. How did the men to the moon keep warm out there in space? Imagine yourself in a thin metal cage at the south pole, for days, with only the sun shining on one side of your metal cage. No firewood allowed in this picture. How would you survive this comfy-comfy, as did the men that supposedly went to the moon?

The Van-Allen radiation belts might just be from the earth's electrons. I predict a point where the thrust of solar electrons toward the earth is matched exactly by the thrust of earth-rising electrons, at which point the two winds constantly collide. At what height might that collision be occurring as we speak? Shouldn't we expect a pack of electrons at that point? Where are the electrons forced to go during the collisions, but to the sides of the collision? Couldn't that form the radiation belts? I suppose it could.

How does the sun send electrons into the ground? With absolute certainty, solar light waves "pump" electrons into the ground on the sunside of our planet. There can be no doubt about it. Sunlight causes objects to heat up; heat is from the invasion of electrons, where solar electrons are pressed into sunlit materials. It's a no-brainer. Light waves need a medium to travel through, and the solar-wind electrons are that wave medium, a no-brainer. But dirty, evolutionist rats want to hide the light-wave medium from us. They never tell you that the solar wind can be the lightwave medium...because they are dirty, filthy, falsifying rats who've long been committed to the impossible photon particle, and the many falsifications they devised based on that fantasy particle.

They didn't want the light-wave medium because, should it be the reality, it has no weight. And if it has no weight, SHUDDER, it must be made of anti-gravity particles. And, SHUDDER, that means that gravity could be a negative or positive force, and, SHUDDER, that would rob evolutionists of the gravity particle that put the cosmos together without a God. The freaks didn't want you to contemplate the light-wave medium. To this day, nobody talks about the possibility of it being the reality. The freaks are afraid of it. They bite their nails on account of it.

If I had a stick long enough to reach the ground on earth from the sun, I could make it stick into the soil faster than the speed of light reaches the soil even though I pushed the stick at one mile per hour. That's right, as soon as I start pushing the stick from the sun, it starts to stick into the soil here on earth, in zero time at all. The stick is acting end-to-end faster then the sped of light. Instant speed, folks, we exercise it in life all over the place. That's how a light wave from the sun can reach the earth in little time, because there are "sticks" in the solar wind. Every straight line of electrons from the sun to the earth is a light-wave carrier, a stick.

An electron shoots out of an atom in the sun, and pushes an adjacent electron forward that had come out a fraction of a second earlier. Every electron shooting out of a solar atom is a solar-wind electron. There are zillions of rows of them between sun and earth, everyone of them poking into the planet shortly after the poking begins at the sun by an ejecting electron.

The force of an electron ejecting from an atom into space cannot be depleted in space. It's energy cannot be reined-in by solar gravity because it sets off a wave from electron to electron to electron, and solar gravity does not pull electrons back. Nothing can stop a light wave traveling through the solar wind except an atom, or planet, that gets in its way. A light wave is a straight-line power-punch that reaches our eyes from a distant star, traveling through, not only its own star's electron medium, but the electron mediums of other stars, and finally through the medium of the sun and earth. The universe is filled with stellar-wind electrons. Why do the rats not identify this picture as the light-wave medium? Because, they are dirty, disgusting rats bent on murdering the Creator.

There is something that keeps the light wave in a straight line, and God knows it's necessary, or our eyes would see nothing but multi-colored blur / mud. My hunch is that sound waves do not go in straight lines only, and can turn corners to a great degree, because they use atoms as their medium, which are pressed downward by earth gravity. The atoms are rigidly packed downward against their own repulsion forces, and so they have some stiffness, like a chain-link fence or a grid. If a sound wave bangs an atom from any direction, the energy goes off to adjacent atoms in ALL directions because they are stiffly connected to one another by the downward pull of gravity. The atoms are connected by the "rods" of their mutual repulsion.

To the contrary, the light-wave medium is not compacted by gravity. Instead, the electrons are repelled outward into space, and consequently the light-wave medium is like fluff instead of a metal cage. A bird cannot flap wings and fly in the electron ether alone (i.e. in a vacuum) because gravity doesn't hold it down. A bird can fly in air because gravity packs it down, making it have some stiffness. You can't feel the electron fluff when you run through it. Your body moves electrons aside with far less force needed, than to move air atoms aside, because electrons are not packed down. They get packed upwards instead, but only inasmuch as the air atoms get into their way (not much).

Electrons are not light particles as in not-heavy. It is wrong to say that electrons are light, because they have no weight at all. Weight is defined as gravity attraction, and electrons have zero of that. This is my discovery, and boy-oh-boy do the caloricists of the 19th century wish from their graves that they could have had it as their own discovery. Boy-oh-boy, if Einstein was truly a genius, he would have figured this out, not because it takes a genius, but if I can do it in my spare time, so can a paid, professional genius. I said to self, heat goes up. I said to self, heat is a material. I said to self, heat must be repelled by gravity. I said to self, heat must be an electron, and gravity must be from electrons. As you can see, it doesn't take a genius to walk up those stairs. You just put one foot in front of the other, and go on up one step at a time.

I said to self, because nobody else would listen, the solar electrons must be the light-wave medium that Einstein murdered. He murdered it because he thought it had to have weight, but could find no proof of its weight. But a genius would have said to self: can't gravity be an electromagnetic charge? Can't gravity repel either the proton or the electron? If Einstein didn't ask self those questions, he's a fraud, no genius at all. The lone hound dog with a nose for truth found the buried bone in the 1990s because nobody in Rat Establishment had been looking for it since Electric Einstein was made the pin-up boy of atomic physics.

The Einstonians had to assign the photon zero mass just because they assigned it such phenomenal speed. If it had any mass at all at such speeds, zillions of them would go clear through your heart on a beach, and you would be dead in the sand. And so these dopes had two reasons for objecting to the photon, and they themselves created those two reasons so that they have no excuse in saying "we didn't know about them." They did know that it's ridiculous to have a zero-mass particle, and they did know that it's ridiculous to have a particle so small that goes round the earth seven times in one second. They really are stupids, and they really are dirty, disgusting rats. Even after their photon crashes into zillions of atoms, it never slows down. IDIOTS who break the laws of physics were pinned up as the heroes of physics. They have led the world to the end-times.

Assuming that they are correct in pegging the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second, then a light wave is a stick-like wave that travels at those speeds even though the solar wind doesn't achieve anything like that speed. A light wave would move through a sea of electrons even if the sea were not in motion. The light wave is not a particle, but acts like a particle when the last electron in the "stick" jolts an atomic surface. A light wave is a succession of pings, as one electron pings the one in front of it, and so on, until a final ping sticks it to an atom. An electron immediately beside the atom is the tip of the stick, or spear. I call it a stick because it acts so fast from start to finish, much faster than a lightning bolt. Almost as soon as a wave begins, it has stuck it to an atom.

There is not one light wave. Every wave is surrounded by other waves. It's possible that waves move like parallel trains, each keeping the other in a straight line, or correcting any deviation from a straight line. However it works, God made them go in straight lines sufficient that the sun looks perfectly circular even after a great distance of wave travel. Good one. Aren't we glad that God was up to the needed task? Do we take Him for granted? Woe to those who do worse than take Him for granted. Woe to those who think they possess God as one is possesses in chains in a jail cell. Woe to those who think they are on the verge of conquering God.

A light wave is not a wave-particle duality as the rats define that phrase. What they do is tell your kids that the photon is also a wave. Like, a bullet is also a wave. That's the idea of a wacko, and so why did such an idea stick? Why don't scientists rebel against this insanity?

Why don't the rats just say that light is a straight-shooting wave, no bullet needed? BECAUSE, they are in love with the speedy photon. They would need to confess grave errors if they reverted to a light-wave medium now, and then people would start picking them apart for other claims they make. When was the last time the establishment admitted to grave error? It tells you all you need to know about the character of those who rule it.

Every light-wave stick is a quanta of light. One longitudinal wave = one quanta of light. One electron emitting from an atom in the sun maketh one quanta of light. A good theory is: if it's a red-light wave, it's a weaker wave from a slower electron ejection; if it's a violet wave, it's a stronger wave from an electron ejecting with more force, more speed. However, the wave speed of both the red and violet wave is probably the same, but the violet wave carries more punch. It makes a bigger splash when finally the last electron in the stick sticks it to the atom. The electrons in the atom jiggle and splash around more, and reflect out stronger light.

When the light wave is on the strong side, some captured electrons can be freed from atoms temporarily, and this creates the opportunity for solar power from solar panels. For when atoms are depleted of some of their electrons, as they jump / eject away from atoms, the atoms become positively charged, capable of making electricity run toward them in a wire. Every electron ejecting from an atom forms a light wave. Every electron merely jiggling in an atom forms a weaker light wave. Specific color is determined by the level of jigging, and colors can change depending on the extent of jiggling and ejections or combinations thereof. With God, there's going to be more involved than we can imagine, but we can find the basics.

The eyes pick up the punch / poke levels of incoming light waves, and the "circuitry" between the eyes and brain turns the punches and pokes into various colors. The evolutionist pigs haven't the character enough to confess that God did this. It's one way to know that God is good. If He were not good, He would not have made the array of color. Everything could have been in one tone, if he were mean and ugly by nature. He does get mean and ugly, as even the thunderstorm warns us, when He's out to punish mean and ugly people, but what He wants with us is love and good-natured living. The light shower and rainbow versus the dreadful, sky-cracking storm, which side of God would you prefer?

Heat Yanks Atoms Apart

If God had not found a way to keep atoms apart, there would be no air for our lungs. If He did not find a way to make atoms bond in spite of their inter-repelling, there would be no drink of water, no wood to build the house. And so he made positive and negative, such a simple start, but He then made complicated systems with just those two basic ingredients. He arranged heat to pull atoms apart, and arranged heat to force atoms together.

Heat is as simple as electrons, so simple, so ingenious. They were made to get as far apart from one another as possible so as to form energy. They can push atoms together, or get between them and split them apart. HEAT MOVES, an understatement.

Electrons give lift to water molecules and small droplets, and He made these particles to have weights and sizes such that the they can be lifted only so high in the sky on any given day, and so one batch of upward-streaming electrons forces one water molecule into contact with another that has itself reached its maximum height for that day, and once in contact, the two atoms merge and bond in spite of their having inter-repulsion. A cloud is born. Multitudes of rising water molecules are forced together at roughly the same elevation in the sky, and there they bond even more prolifically with a little help from air currents. Once bonded, their mutual attraction forces, from one system, is stronger than the system that keeps them apart as gas atoms. But only if heat keeps its manners. If it starts to intrude too much, the merged atoms split apart again in spite of their mutual attraction.

And guess what? Free electrons in the air form air currents. That's right, nothing else but electrons moving about, on the prowl for a lower electron-density system. It's just a no-brainer that high-density electrons move into lower-density electrons. Motion. Energy. Wherever electrons are most dense, the air is most expanded. Meteorologists call it a high-pressure system. They are referring to high air pressure, but it could just as well be a called a high-density area if only they would acknowledge that electrons fill the air. They impoverish you because none of them has the guts to speak out on behalf of the lonely, shunned electron. Weather bosses are not going to tolerate any weathermen saying, "gravity repels electrons and gives lift to air atoms." So, expect the electron to be canceled and shadow banned until the New World.

I would guess that rising electrons are able to give lift to water droplets of some small size, and it's predictable that these won't go as high in the sky as do lone molecules. The heaviest droplets lifted must constitute the formation of the low storm clouds.

After a cold night, the day becomes much warmer, and electrons flow into cold objects, thus forcing all particles in their path onto the surfaces of those cold objects. This is condensation formation because water molecules are some of the particles in their path. This form of condensation is differently made than dew formation on the top of a leaf or blade of grass, made when the water molecules / droplets sink from the sky back to the ground in the cool of night. It's gravity now forcing the water molecules / droplets to bond on the tops of surfaces because, as the air cools, it's defined as the thinning out of rising streams of electrons, now no longer able to give water droplets lift that were lifted earlier in the day. The battle is: gravity power on the water droplets versus rising electrons under water droplets. Gravity gets the upper hand on cool nights.

Electrons can get under liquid atoms, at the top of a liquid, to lift them free (evaporation) into the air as lone/gas atoms. So, when sunlight comes out in the morning and falls on a leaf or blade of grass, it pumps heat into them, which then rises into the dew, and at the very top layer of the dew, the uppermost molecules are pushed up, separating them from the body of dew. Into the air the molecules go to form clouds, should conditions allow. Evaporation of water starts well below the boiling point of water.

You might be asking: if electrons push water molecules against a cold surface, as electrons rush into the atomic spaces of the cold objects, why is no liquid oxygen, or liquid nitrogen, formed on those cold surfaces along with liquid water? The technical answer is: oxygen and nitrogen are above their so-called "critical temperatures" at normal atmospheric temperatures, but water is not above its critical temperature. The latter is the point at which liquid formation is impossible even if you force the atoms together into a liquid. For example, if one compresses oxygen in a container until it forms a liquid, the liquid will not remain if the compression piston is lifted. The liquid oxygen will instantly disintegrate rather than slowly evaporate away.

It's another war. The electron heat that surrounds gaseous molecules (or liquid atoms) tends to force individual atoms further apart with increasing temperature. An easy example of this is where a molecule is made of two atoms only, forming roughly a figure-8 design. You can see that, as escalating electron heat invades between the upper and lower halves of the 8, the halves will be forced apart eventually until the molecule is no more. Where three atoms are merged to form a molecule, it's going to look roughly like a trefoil, and the same applies: escalating heat will get between the atoms and push them apart until fully separated into individual atoms. Sufficient high heat alone is needed to separate many molecules, including water. It's called disassociation, but do not fall for their details when they explain such things, for their entire atomic model is a fantasy. All of it. They do not acknowledge what a true atom looks like. Disassociation by heat should be called, The Squeeze, for at least you get an idea of how it works.

The squeeze is all or part of the explanation for solid objects expanding to larger sizes when heated. It's sheer simplicity. Electrons give the squeeze to the atoms of the solid, force the atoms further apart, and, voila, the solid grows in size until, after a sufficient temperature is attained, the atoms are so weakly bonded that the solid turns to a liquid. I define a liquid as: a body of atoms weakly bonded and therefore rolling upon one another when the liquid is stirred or disturbed. You can't get evaporation from a solid as easily as from a liquid because the atoms are merged more deeply in the solid. Heat invades, and unmerges atoms. Watch out for the squeezer.

The sun has lots of unmerged atoms, but I think there are "liquid" atoms deep in the sun where solar gravity pulls gas atoms together in spite of surrounding heat seeking to separate them.

At critical temperatures (i.e. high enough), the attraction forces set up by mergers will not hold the mergers against the squeeze. Critical temperature is when the squeeze overcomes the bond strength of mergers. The squeeze grows in force due to more-dense electrons. The more dense, the closer they are, and the more forceful their repulsive locomotion for invading vulnerable molecules.

I'm telling you these things to show that the heat-material view of heat works to explain things we see in the lab, and in everyday life. I'm not just trying to murder the kinetic theory of heat, I'm also trying to show that there is an alternative that works because it's the truth. As kineticism is impossible, there must be a heat material. There's no other choice. Be smart, promote heat substance today. Be amongst the first in to get on the right side.

When hydrogen merges with oxygen, it gives off more heat than any other chemical reaction because the H atom is the largest of all. Besides, the O atom is no small-fry. The bigger the atom, the more numerous their captured electrons, and the latter constitute the heat energy once released from the atom. Can this get any simpler?

There are 8 O atoms sunk into one H atom to form the water molecule that results from the combustion of H and O gases. There is no figure-8 here, not even an push-over trefoil. It's far worse than a quatrefoil. It's an octofoil with a big-daddy H atom at the center. It's an eight-petal doozy. There are eight top-notch guards standing around the H atom as if it were the king. You've got to give it a lot of heat to get the squeeze to squeeze out the eight guards so that you can get the king by himself. Once you have the king by himself, he's dangerous. He's prone to exploding. Wearing rubber gloves isn't going to help you when he erupts. Wearing a helmet will only keep you looking good as your head flies by itself over to the neighbors yard. Maybe that's why God have the H atom the eight guards, so that grown men won't blow up the entire village when playing with matches.

I've always wondered how deeply the O atoms are sunk into the H atom. I've always wondered what it is that permits the merger to go only so deep but no further. I've always wondered whether merger goes until the proton of the O atom reaches the periphery of the H atom's electron atmosphere. These things got so complicated, with so few keys to go by, and so little technical data at my disposal, that I gave up trying to figure things out. I assume that God doesn't want me to start a nuclear power plant in my backyard; it's good enough if I call out the rats for trying to steal His glory, and to announce why they are rats in multiple science fields.

Clearly, for this history, God designed the human race to get it's heat from good ole-fashioned wood and sweat, not from hydrogen. Burning hydrogen is such a clean fuel, and so why didn't God give this to mankind yet? Whose going to figure out how to make H gas from water in a way that makes it affordable? How can we use the electron squeeze to get the water to cough up its H atoms at a low temperature? Why did God make the squeeze work at such high temperatures? "At the very high temperature of 3000 °C more than half of the water molecules are decomposed..." into H and O gas. Hmm, and only half. Such a high temperature suggests that eight O atoms are deeply imbedded into one H atom, which also explains why such enormous heat is given off in forming the water molecule.

Perhaps there is hope in time for the tribulation, for we are told that, in any given water sample, there are a few water molecules that have had their hydrogen detached. The stupids, because they find that this hydrogen material is positively charged (at first anyway), think that there are lone hydrogen atoms in the water having no electrons at all. That's how stupid they have become from following erroneous theories. You see, they were so utterly devoid of intelligence that they assigned an H atom with only one electron. Here. see for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRx5lJww-Bg

So, because they make the first mistake of viewing a hydrogen atom as a proton having only one electron, they are forced to make the second mistake of viewing positively-charged H gas as a bare-naked hydrogen atom having zero electrons. HAHAHA, shake my head, you can't get any energy from an H atom having only one electron, HAHAHA. It look burning a jar of toothpicks in your wood stove for the whole day's heat. In reality, a positive H atom is partially depleted of its normal compliment of MANY electrons.

Imagine, a home-based way to get hydrogen fuel from mere rain water. God may have an easy way reserved for the Millennium. Split the water molecule, get refrigeration and hydrogen to boot. Burn the hydrogen product, get heat. Beauty.

A mystery concerning water is that it does the normal thing when cooled from boiling temperature to about 35F degrees (about 2 C): the body of water gets smaller in size with cooling. But at 35 degrees, with additional cooling down to 32 degrees, the water body grows larger, a head scratcher. Then, to boot, the ice grows larger with additional cooling. The colder the ice, the larger it grows, which is backward from other substances. What is going on at the molecular level?

Someone pointed out that God designed water in this way so that lakes and oceans freeze from the top, instead of from the bottom, making sense because the latter would kill a lot of life on lake / sea floors. When water grows with added heat starting at 35 degrees, it's becoming lighter per cubic-inch of volume, for which reason it rises to the top of a water body, and that's why ice forms from the top down. If instead the coldest water sinks, ice starts from the bottom up. Therefore, it seems that God did something with oxygen to make it unique in this way, on top of it's being the most-important chemical on earth for sustaining life.

I've applied my self to the HO8 molecule to see whether I can crack the water mystery above. With added heat, there should be a squeeze on this molecule, causing the eight O atoms to come out of the H atom to some degree. In reverse, with a loss of heat to water, the O atoms sink deeper into the H atom. I can't see any reason as to why the O atoms should start to come out of the H atom when cooling further starting from 35 degrees F. I might have the solution as follows, but I see no way to use it to exploit energy from the water molecule.

In my atomic model, increasing heat around a single atom squeezes it from all sides into a small size. In reverse, the atom grows back larger again when the heat is removed. So, especially if some of the surface of the H atom is accessible to invading heat even after 8 O atoms are sunk half way into it, the water molecule gets larger when removing heat. Two things could be going on simultaneously with heat reduction: 1) the H atom gets larger, having the effect of growing the molecule larger too; 2) the O atoms sink into the H atom, making the molecule smaller. This works in theory because there is both enlargement and reduction in size taking place, wherefore one could say that, starting at 35 degrees and lower, the O atoms can't sink much deeper to make the molecule smaller, but the H atom continues to grow at those temperatures so that there is a net increase in molecular size...resulting in fewer water molecules per cubic inch = lighter water. It seems that this is made possible because the H atom is so huge, and thus its growth factor is more conducive (than a smaller atom) to overall molecular growth.

News

At the start of this Polly video, you will see that James LeDuc was in contact with the Wuhan lab since August of 2014. You will see that Judicial Watch snagged an exchange between Leduc and his buddies wherein he celebrates a long-term relationship with the Wuhan lab. I haven't known about this until late this week. Thus, Leduc becomes suspect in paving the way to exploit Wuhan for to create a U.S.-led global, viral threat while blaming it on China in the vicinity of Wuhan:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/V0FhXlUNtmKB/

Not only did a supreme court in India decide that forced vaccinations are unlawful, but in Italy too:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C1eTnopZ5Hw4/

The leaders of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario deserve the electric chair to the point of wanting to die, then 10 shots of remdesivir until they need the ICU, and finally the firing squad in a public square to finish them off. But that still won't be punishment enough for what they have done to the people they were elected to support:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/73KZ5WpoYsgq/