Whatever the weight of air is above you, that's going to contribute to the air pressure all around you, but the weight of air may not be the only contributor to air pressure. Heat in the air can contribute to air pressure. It's a known fact that heat makes atoms spread out i.e. create more distance from each other, but we've got to be careful not to argue wrongly on this one. We can't argue like a trickster, saying that, since air atoms are more spread out, they should repel each other with less force, and yet gas atoms at higher temperatures create higher air pressure...therefore atoms don't repel one another.
The correct way to think about this is that atoms are further apart precisely due to repelling each other. The further apart they are due to higher temperatures, the higher the temperature is. But this spreading out applies only in the free space of the atmosphere. The whole atmosphere expands higher from the ground, but this situation doesn't change air pressure much. The vast bulk of air pressure is due to the air weight, which doesn't change no matter what the temperature.
Take a look at this video again. Everytime a new magnet is dropped on the first-hovering magnet, the latter moves closer to the table. When all four magnets are hovering, the higher ones have more space/distance between them. Now you partly know why higher air is less dense i.e. higher air atoms have more space between themselves. The lower you are in the atmosphere, the greater the total weight of air squeezing air atoms toward the ground, the closer the atoms are going to become. Yet this cannot be the reality if atoms inter-attract...meaning that the evolutionist clown-act is a falsification, an attack on your mind with a lie, desirous of having the brutal effect of robbing you of eternal life. The evolutionist acts as a demon in a human body.
Air density is due only partly to the power of gravity, wherefore air pressure and air density are related in that way, but the two are not proportional because air pressure is not much affected by air temperature, while changing air density is direct outworking of temperature in the midst of an unchanging gravity force. I can agree with the concept that faster-colliding air atoms will expand the atmosphere upward, but a score here doesn't prove that atoms are ever-colliding.
At the chart in the page below, note how little the gravity force changes from sea level, at 32.174, to 32.1 four miles up (about 21,000 feet). That bitty change in gravity force cannot create much difference in the density of atoms, wherefore the bulk of air-density changes are a direct outworking of temperature (which is not to say that temperature alone is responsible for air density). When air gets cold enough, air atoms will no longer hover in gravity, when gravity forces air atoms into contact as liquid atoms. And so we need to know what exactly heat is for explaining air density.
The same chart has air density at sea level at 23.77 (lbs/ft-cubed), and only about 12.25 four miles high. At just four miles high, the density has been cut in half even though the gravity force is about the same.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
The chart shows that air pressure at 21,000 feet is about 6.5 psi as compared to 14.7 psi at sea level. The math here is 6.5 / 14.7 = 44-percent. It's telling us that about 44-percent of all air is above four miles in height. However, when we do the same math for air density, it decreases to: 12.25 / 23.77 = 52-percent as compared to sea-level density. If air density were a function only of gravity pull, density too should decrease to the 44-percent figure. There is, therefore, something else going on besides the weight in air for creating specific air density at any given height.
Here's the reasoning: air density is, as a fact, proportional to the weight of air. Two times the weight in air is two times the air density...because two times the weight is two times the number of atoms. Easy enough. Therefore, where the weight of air alone produces air pressure, the air density should be proportional to air pressure, if nothing else is at play. Yet we see that the 52-percent air-density percentage is higher than at 44-percent for air pressure. This is explained by temperature changes with height. The temperature given for sea level is 59F, and about -15F at four miles up. Fact: the colder the air, the more dense it becomes, explaining why the air-density comparison with sea level is higher (at 52-percent) than the air-pressure comparison at 44-percent.
Can a change in air temperature alone, from 59F to -15F, make the air half as dense? No, it cannot, and they know it. In fact, lowering the temperature of a gas makes it MORE dense, oye, and they know it. How then does the air get less dense four miles high in the cold? Colder air is defined, by them, as slower air atoms.
The way to explain why air gets less dense with height is simply to ask those four lovely hovering magnets. They know the secret. They are telling you that air atoms sit upon each others' repulsion forces, and the fewer of them there are up high, the more space they can put between each other.
Someone at National Geographic writes to school kids: "As altitude rises, air pressure drops...This happens for two reasons. The first reason is gravity. Earth's gravity pulls air as close to the surface as possible. The second reason is density. As altitude increases, the amount of gas molecules in the air decreases..." This is horrible, explains nothing. It doesn't tell why gravity lowers air pressure with height, as if he/she doesn't even know, perhaps because he/she has never been taught, because the establishment doesn't want to reveal that its kinetic theory can't explain it.
Nor does it tell us why density decreases with height. The writer may be leading students to think that lower gravity in higher regions causes air atoms to spread out, and he/she probably thinks it's because colliding atoms bump one another upward toward space with more efficiency when atoms are lighter. But this doesn't work. The quote above appeals to gravity to explain changing air density only because physicists have had to admit it for lack of any other viable option, real or feigned. Where they can fool you with a fine-sounding scientific argument, that's what they do best, but in this case of lower density with height, they can't even develop a concoction to salvage their kinetic model. The best one can do is not mention the gaping hole in the backside of his hollow head, hoping you won't see it so long as he keeps a scientific face toward you.
The writer is saying that gravity squeezes air atoms to the ground, but this is impossible with free-flying atoms. Therefore, the educators admit a truth in this regard that is denied by kineticism. When something denies the truth, it time for a toss to the trash can.
Here's what a juggling clown looks like when it can't juggle, from the same article:
High-altitude locations are usually much colder than areas closer to sea level. This is due to the low air pressure [sounds good to a kid, but it's wrong]. Air expands as it rises [bad wording], and the fewer gas molecules — including nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide — have fewer chances to BUMP INTO EACH OTHER [caps mine].https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/altitude/
It's incorrect to say that higher regions are colder due to lower pressure. Air pressure is not a function of temperature. Plus, air does not expand as it rises, but rather air is less dense with height (better wording). Plus, this writer is trying to convince the student that less bump-bump of kinetic atoms creates less air density, or at least contributes to less density. At best, this is an unworthy educator who repeats what is taught without checking things for self's sake.
What this juggler may be trying to say: thanks to less density in upper air, the atoms in motion bump-bump less often, and consequently they spread out less far apart (produces lower density). Sounds excellent, if you're not thinking. But wait. First problem: racing atoms can't bump-bump less often unless the air density is less to begin with, and so we can't argue that air density is caused by less bump-bump. That's circular reasoning, or putting the cart in front of the horse.
Secondly, while it's true that atoms more distant apart will collide less often per unit time, the latter doesn't create less air density, oye, but more density. It's easy to trick the student in this way because the student doesn't understand kinetic atoms. In that theory, it is harder collisions, and more of them per unit time, that cause liquid atoms to become gas atoms. Afterward, the harder the gas atoms collide in combination with colliding more often, the more the gas atoms spread out = lower density. But the bum-educator above is implying that weaker collisions results in lower density.
The writer is inadvertently admitting that atomic collisions alone cannot explain why density decreases with height. He/she has nothing else to appeal to but less atomic weight to explain lower density, but he/she avoided the "weight" word. The student was given no clue as to how gravity causes less air density. And that's how the goons want students, in the dark.
Kineticism is its own fatality. They created their own irony. They provided their own trap. They wrote "FOOL" on their forehead. Warming the air at the summer ocean beach makes it less dense, yet colder air in the heights is less dense than air at the summer beach. See any problem that needs a fix here? There must be two different factors in play. One factor makes air less dense with added heat, and the other makes air less dense, in spite of less heat, for some second factor. What is that factor? Air volume. When air volume decreases to a certain amount, its reduced weight allows air atoms to spread out beyond their spread at the hot ocean beach.
As the kinetic view of atoms cannot express air weight, air density should be the same from sea level to atmospheric ceiling at any given time, changing only with changing temperatures, from time to time. Physicists cannot appeal to changing gravity force to explain the lower densities with height, because the force remains basically the same throughout the atmosphere. As atoms are viewed colliding equally upward as downward, there's no reason that a slightly-weakened gravity, a few miles up, should cause atoms to migrate upward more than downward.
Air weight kills cosmic evolution, don't be afraid to teach it. You can't lose the argument because you have those lovely, hovering magnets on your side. On top of that, the goofs (= people who goof) admit that gravity pulls atoms down.
Take a Bow, Electron
Increased air temperature causes air to become less dense because heated atoms repel one another with greater force, and this raises the atmospheric ceiling. The atmosphere simply expands a little, and they know it, admit it. In a sealed container, adding heat to a gas within does increase its pressure. But what mechanism is at work to do so? Not colliding atoms, because they don't exist.
It is no small thing to wipe the theory of kineticism down the toilet. With this theory debunked, one needs a new theory on the nature of heat, especially as they confusedly and illogically define heat and pressure both as the collision of atoms. They are so reprobate to play this trick. They can plainly see that cutting the pressure in half of a sealed gas does not nearly cut its temperature in half, meaning that pressure and temperature cannot be from the same bang-bang process.
As they argue that half the atomic collisions with the container walls creates half the gas pressure, are they not compelled to admit that temperature cannot be defined as the collision-force against container walls? As they define temperature SOLELY as the collision force, we expect that half the atomic collisions amounts to half the heat. But this is not what experiments show.
They say that doubling the temperature (K scale) of a gas doubles its pressure, and I assume this to be correct. The first blue chart on this page shows that when the temperature of a sealed gas is about doubled from 223K to 423K, the pressure about doubles from 46.4 to 88. This is good for the kinetic theory.
The second blue chart shows that a doubling of temperature, from 111K to 220K, doubles the gas volume from 9 to 18 liters, if the gas is allowed to expand (yet maintained at the same pressure from start to finish of the expansion). This chart, too, is good for kineticism. But try to find a chart showing it in reverse, where, for example, 18 liters of gas is reduced to 9 liters, and thereby doubling the gas temperature, but you won't find one.
In fact, you may not find such a chart at all because it exposes the error of kineticism. The page above has the changing gas pressure or volume by first changing the temperature, but does not have the changing temperature by first changing the pressure or volume. Why do you think that is? There's no shortage of articles telling that a compressed gas rises in temperature, but nobody gives the rates, so far as I can find, and I've never read anyone telling that a doubling of gas pressure doubles the temperature.
With the knowledge of the impossibility of atomic kineticism, the first order is to redefine heat. As it's not the collision of atoms, it must be a substance all to its own. Yes, and I've discovered what it is: free electrons. You have no idea how big that is, unless you've read it from me before. Nobody else talks this way. I'm alone in this. The whole world has been indoctrinated, and I don't have the clout to save it.
Contrary to their claims, solar-wind electrons are not redirected around the Earth, but come streaming into the atmosphere. The bumblers don't want you to know this because they don't want anyone to get the idea that heat is a substance all its own, for this is death to the big bang.
Why is it death to cosmic evolution? Because, where heat is free electrons, it predicts that atoms increase in their out-spreading force with a greater number of free electrons (higher temperatures) surrounding them. It makes it appear that electrons squeeze in upon atoms all around them, lending their negative forces to atoms so that atoms repel one another (expand) with greater force with added heat. It makes it appear that all gas atoms become negative in charge thanks to free electrons, for negative repels negative, we all know this.
Heat can be defined as the expansion of materials, for this is an end result of heat. Yet as the electrons are the cause of the expansion, one can also define heat as the repulsion force of free electrons. Or, as electrons invade atoms so that atoms repel more strongly, one can define heat as atomic repulsion. Heat is the expansion of materials, thanks to atoms in repulsion, thanks to free electrons in repulsion. EVERYWHERE REPULSION, the ENERGY TRUTH. Have you ever heard of anything more logical and viable? So why are you looking at me as if I'm nuts? Because, you've been brainwashed. You need help. Allow me to save you from the monsters.
Electricity is formed cheaply (not meaning they sell it cheap) by causing a magnet to repel CAPTURED electrons atom-to-atom across a wire. Captured electrons are trapped to protonic cores of atoms. The magnet pushes them atom-to-atom, meaning that they are pushed off of one trap, onto another. But if the push is too strong for the wire to handle, some captured electrons fall off of atoms as heat. Free electrons. It's so logical. Electrons falling out of atoms are always heat. It is a known fact, yet evolutionist pigs do not wish to give you the impression that free electrons are the heat material itself, for fear of dethronement of their precious kineticism, a fantasy. Instead, they teach that the SPEED of free electrons is the definition of heat from free electrons.
Free electrons are free to enter any material to surround its atoms. These atoms cannot attract them into a capture if the atoms are fully loaded with captured electrons already. If the free electrons enter atomic pores without being captured, they remain there as heat. They push-push from within solids and liquids, expanding them. Energy is not bang-bang, but push-push, what can't you understand about this? Captured electrons cannot act as heat because they cannot enter substances. In the head of a pin, there are enough electrons to incinerate you, but so long as they remain captured, you're safe.
Modern thermometers have no physical contact with whatever they are measuring the temperature of. Instead, these thermometers capture the "infrared radiation" coming from a material, and convert it to heat that's then converted to electricity. How can all that happen unless all of those three things involve the same electron? Electrons cause heat, light and electricity, isn't it obvious yet?
How can heat be converted to a flow of electrons in a wire unless heat itself is magnetic? You can swat a metal wire with a fly swatter all you want, no electricity will flow. Why should it flow if swatted by atoms in kinetic motion? Are physicists this stupidified that they can't see the true nature of heat, even when they convert heat to electron flow? Rulers of the physics establishment are making it clear that they fear defining heat as electron material, for this viable idea is not even open to open debate. I'm ashamed at lower-level physicists for not bringing this out into the open. Where are the Christian physicists? Cowering, afraid of battle, and so going with the established flow?
I imagine that a compliment of captured electrons can be made to spin around the proton, because hovering electrons are inhibited by little friction when they are not pulled-in tight to the proton. The outer electrons have all the positive charge of the proton acting upon them, but are alleviated from it to a degree by the repulsion of inner electrons so that the outer ones are hovering more free to move about, with less energy needed to set them in motion.
Sunlight sets them in motion, and I imagine that electrical flow, much stronger than sunlight, causes them to spin (not orbit) around the proton. This spin, in being roughly a circular path, is a good candidate for partially explaining the electric spark, for spin allows electrons to jump free of the proton more easily. It occurs to me that, by coiling the electric wire as is done to increase voltage, it causes faster spinning around protons, for it's known that higher voltage gets bigger / longer sparks.
In other words, voltage might even be defined as electrons spinning around protons, possibly in combination with electrons spinning around their own axes. Low voltage electricity has not enough power to jump through the human skin to the water content of the body. You can touch a 24-volt battery terminal / wire without getting a shock. You will get a nasty shock when touching a 120-volt wire. Captured electrons jump from the atom when in fast motion.
Infrared light is a akin to a flow of electrons through the air, but is not in fact a flow i.e. like a river. Rather, it's a push-push-push-push-push wave. One electron pushes the other until, at the end of a row, a light wave pushes a final electron into an atomic substance, explaining why things get hotter when light shines on them. Solar heat is not only from the entry of electrons into the atmosphere, but of electrons being pushed into materials by light. You understand the difference when you get in under a tree o a blistering-hot day. Ignoring the heat rising from the ground, the air in the sun is just as cool as it is under a tree, but the sunlight pumping electrons into your skin, and into the ground, is what makes it hotter in the sun.
Heat cannot push electrons down a wire unless heat is defined as a body or pool of electrons. You cannot pepper a copper wire with moving atoms of any sort to get the electrons to flow. Yet this is exactly what the stupids teach. The fast atoms in a flame, they say, causes electricity to flow. As physicists cannot get electricity to flow by bombarding a wire with super-fast air, water or begging, maybe it's time for them to wake up, smell the electrons.
They loosely define infrared as heat, but the implication here is incorrect because heat causes the infrared light, not the other way around. All light partners with heat, both at the start of the wave and at the end. All light is caused by a stream of free electrons exiting a material, which defines heat. The emitted electron is the heat, and the push-push of that same electron is the light wave.
If free electrons are not exiting a material, there can be no infrared radiation. An infrared camera cannot detect hot things if its hotter outside of those things. In that case, electrons are streaming into the hot thing.
Did you catch it? I've just proven that light is from a stream of free electrons, because if a human body at night can be seen as a red glow by the infrared camera, the camera should be able to detect boiling water more brightly. Yet if the boiling water is in an air space at a temperature higher than the boiling water, the camera cannot pick up the glow from the water because there's no longer a glow from the water. Instead of electrons flowing out of the water, electrons are streaming into it from the hotter environment.
How can the kineticist explain that infrared cameras show only darkness where no heat is streaming from objects (some infrared pictures are fixed to show cold things as a blue color)? How can it be possible that photons fire out from warm objects only when the objects are hotter than the air? There's no relationship between the photons in an object and the photons in the air. They neither attract nor repel each other. As photons can be shown firing out of an object when its at 60F degrees, why do no photons get to the camera when the object is 60 degrees in 70-degree air???
But with the electron theory of heat, heat either enters the tree from the air, or exits the tree into the air, a clear relationship. Both cannot be happening at once, or there would not be that relationship. Electrons in the act of entering the tree forbid electrons to exit the tree simultaneously, and vice-versa. The infrared camera proves that heat consists of electrons. This camera proves that heat is a substance. This camera makes fools of evolution-catering atomic physics.
William Herschel, discoverer of infrared heat, may have been fooled by two things, one: the idea that a glass prism breaks sunlight into its basement colors. The truth could be that those colors don't exist in sunlight, but rather they are an effect purely of the glass prism's shape, because the shape forces some of the light to travel through more glass than the other colors, and so a theory becomes: the glass creates the colors to begin with.
The second thing that Herschel may have been a victim of: he was wrong in deciding that violet light, out of the prism, is the coolest light while red is the hottest. He made these claims by measuring each color with a thermometer. How could he go wrong; thermometers don't lie, but they can fool you. Let me tell you how he could have been fooled for the stronger light, especially the ultra-violet, will lose captured electrons (into the air) from the tip of the thermometer, whereas the weaker red light will not. If electrons are lost at the thermometer, it predicts a cooler temperature there, because heat is defined as freed electrons.
When captured electrons are lost, free electrons in the atomic pores automatically seek to replace them, meaning that, when the maximum number of captured electrons are lost, in a very short time during the shining of light, the latter will begin to set free the new, captured (or quasi-captured) electrons that were the free ones in the pores before the light started to fall. But with weak, red light, and especially infra-red, the light pumps aether electrons into the thermometer without releasing captured electrons, thus raising the temperature of the thermometer.
Herschel found that the little, invisible space beside the red light was hotter than the red, and thus he discovered infrared light. It can sometimes pay big just to set up a simple experiment. It may have cost a whole two dollars for all he needed on this one. What Herschel's experiment really reveals is that modern physicists are wrong.
An electrical wire heated from the passage of a heavy current doesn't get photons pumped into it, yet it can glow with white light, for example a light bulb's filament. You can cover the filament so that it receives no outside light, or just put it into a dark room; are we to think that this wire starts to emit photons as soon as an electrical flow goes through it??? NO, of course not. There were no photons pumped into the filament. What are we going to do, invent the idea that photons are sitting on, or orbiting around, the electrons just waiting to shoot out of a filament as photonic light? Let's not go crazy. Light is not the impossible photon, abandon that madness.
There is no need for the silly photon, breaker of the laws of physics, for lack of another means to produce light. The emission of an electron from a substance starts a light wave through the free electrons in the air, the latter being the light-wave medium. How can it get any simpler?
When the light wave strikes a thermopile in a thermometer, the wave is converted to electricity i.e. it pushes captured electrons atom-to-atom down a conductor. It's nothing mysterious, just motion, and it's always due to the inter-repulsion forces from electrons. They are the basement of all energy.
More-dense electrons means electrons closer to one another, and as such they repel each other more strongly than less-dense electrons that define a colder environment. The higher-density region therefore flows to the lower. Cold and hot are defined by low and high free-electron density, how simple can this get? Heat is electron pressure. Those electrons want to travel under pressure. A kid can grasp this.
Heat is a bona fide gas that cannot be detected physically because it's weightless. I told you this was big. The electron is the biggest thing in creation. By far. The smallest shall become the greatest. Power to the punks.
Einstein was a Mickey Mouse when he decided that the photon had no mass. That breaks the laws of physics. The universe became his personal cartoon, an animation. Instead of a massless particle, he ought to have realized that gravity repels electrons, making them weightless...because gravity is free electrons (heat) in the Earth. Electrons repel electrons, gravity so lacks astonishment. Yet gravity is glorious in its simplicity, because so-simple accomplishes so much. Gravity repels electrons, too simple, so logical, so liberating from the kinetic phantoms.
I won't defile or debase myself by giving them respect. Until they repent, dangerous, pig-headed folly they are. Hate speech is warranted, and valuable, when humans are worthy of hate. When they hate our God so much, and even we who hold to Him, dare we respect them? The Message has never changed from the beginning: turn from wicked ways. If that's hate speech, it's precious.
A vacuum is filled with electrons. A hot vacuum in a container will radiate invisible light, though it's not the vacuum itself doing the radiating, but rather it's the electrons streaming through the container walls, so long as the air outside the container is colder than the vacuum. As they exit the container walls into the air, they emit light waves. A vacuum in the dark will emit light, how can that be with the photon model of light? Where are the photons in a vacuum? They're not there, are they?
It's not "dark matter" in the vacuum, its just weightless electrons. They have mass, but as that mass is not attracted by gravity, they are not squeezed down to the Earth. Birds can fly in air because it's squeezed down to the ground. Birds cannot fly in electrons alone because they move easily out of the way of flapping wings.
If you want to know why gravity attracts all atoms but repels none, see two updates ago (4th update of August) by clicking the "Updates Index" link at the top-corner of this page.
What does an atom look like? I don't know what shapes they take, but if it's got a round proton, it looks just like the Earth surrounded by an atmosphere...but with an atmosphere of captured electrons. The Earth's gravity captures air atoms, and the atom's "gravity" captures electrons. If there are microscopic birds in the electron atmosphere, they can fly. The electrons are squeezed downward toward the protonic surface. Electrons have "weight" so long as they are captured. They weigh down on the proton. Electrons can have protonic weight, but free electrons do not, for so long as they are free from protons.
Recall those four magnets. Each one, with increasing height above the main magnet, hover further apart from the one below it. That's what happens on the atom too. The electrons hovering nearest the protonic surface have the least space between each other, and electrons hovering furthest from the protonic surface have the greatest space between them.
When atoms make contact, they are little burrs. As the outer electrons of one atom fit into the spaces between outer electrons of another atom, the atomic bond is made. Gas atoms thus turn into liquid atoms. The atoms embrace each other until sufficient heat squeezes them apart.
When a sufficient number of free electrons invade all around the bonded atoms, they squeeze in between them and push-push. Did I tell you, electrons do nothing but push-push. The more strongly atoms are bonded, and the more complicated it is to separate them, the more heat is needed to get them separated. That's why all atom / molecule species have different evaporation points.
I can tell you exactly when the atomic-bond level in a solid equals the gravity force on its atoms: the melting point in a vacuum.
Heat enters a solid. It invades bonded atoms. It seeks to get between them in every case. The greater the heat invasion, the more the atoms are separated. As the solid suffers continuously-increasing electron density, the point arrives when gravity is boss, when it and air pressure combine to dislodge atoms from atoms. At melting point, gravity begins to pull solid atoms to itself, and air pressure, a direct function of gravity, pushes the solid atoms downward too, until the solid becomes a puddle at the lowest level. This can be called the Pull-and-Push. Sorry, no collisions allowed. It's not by happen-chance that solid atoms are forced down at melting point, but rather gravity and air pressure cause the downward flow.
Aside from the odd jelly, no liquid keeps the shape of the solid beyond the melting point. If there was no gravity, and if the solid were permitted to melt in a vacuum, I suppose that every solid would hold its shape as a poke-able, jelly-like liquid. I suggest that the melting point in a vacuum is when the atomic bond only begins to become inferior to the pull of gravity, after having been superior (to gravity) at lower temperature. Without simpleton gravity, we might not have anything to swim in. We might need to have jelly in our veins.
Gravity is responsible for evaporation. Give credit to the outstanding electron again. The surface of a liquid is compressed downward by a combination of air atoms weighing upon it, and gravity pull on the liquid atoms. It's Pull-and-Push again. Evaporation is the point when some force sets the atoms at the liquid surface free into the air. What do you suppose that force is? It's gravity in the basement. It repels free electrons through the liquid, and they are always repelled up, because gravity is hiding in the basement. As the electrons reach the liquid surface, they fly off into the air and literally erode the liquid atoms off the surface, bumping them free into the air. We have found some kinetic bumping after all. We can now say that there are some collisions after all, thanks to gravity.
So there you have an alternative explanation for evaporation. The kineticists argue that, as the liquid is heated, the liquid atoms vibrate more speedily, causing some to fly off at the liquid surface. However, as there can be no kinetic action of atoms as they see it, no vibrating liquid atoms seeking to fly away, my view stands. There is nothing outlandish about electrons rising through a liquid and jettisoning away into the air.
As the heat source is kept to the liquid, electrons rise through the liquid in increasing density until boiling point. The heat source is free electrons, whether freed from a flame or and over-loaded stove element. They go through the walls of the pot, then into the liquid.
The boiling point is to be defined, not as the initial evaporation point, but as the point when the electron stream through the liquid achieves zero restriction. To put it another way, the boiling point is to be defined as heat leaving at the surface equal to heat entering at the pot. When those two are equal, the liquid temperature cannot be increased further. That's what defines boiling point. It can be described with MAXIMUM, bubble-size formation per any given elevation. The larger the bubbles, the faster the heat goes through the liquid, until heat leaving = heat entering. The heat particles (electrons) are inside the bubbles, of course, but they are also in the atomic pores of the water.
For as long as there is restriction to the passage of electrons through the liquid, there will be a build-up in the numbers of electrons in the liquid, defined as increasing temperature. The only way to achieve a situation in which the number of electrons leaving the liquid equals the number entering: there needs to be ZERO restriction to bubble flow. I think this happens due to a stream of bubbles, where each bubble plows an open path for the one behind it.
It may be difficult for you to believe that electrons flow through water as heat. You may have the sense that electrons are dangerous, like when you get a powerful shock from electrons in a wire. You may tend to think that electrons are sparky and flashy things of power. But there is a difference. The electric shock comes from a fast flow able to move electrons atom-to-atom in your body. But heat rising through a warm liquid is a passive flow, with little speed. Free electrons are dangerous when highly concentrated, especially in a bomb.
To re-cap, the ever-colliding theory of atoms cannot explain the origin of the weight of air, nor can it show why air pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch. Inter-repelling atoms can not only explain how air weighs down to a surface, but absolutely explains why air is 14.7 psi, in all directions, in that this is the weight of air too. The downward force of air spreads out in all directions due to the innate, inter-repulsion of the atoms.
Once that correct view is in the bag, we need a new theory on the definition of heat, because their kinetic theory of heat goes into the trash bin along with their kinetic theory of atoms. Heat now becomes a substance that rises against gravity, provable by the fact that heat rises even in solid objects protected from air.
A rod heated with a torch at its bottom end will see heat rise more than spreading in other directions, even when the upper part of the rod is protected from air heated by the flames, for example by encasing the rod in concrete. If heat is therefore a rising substance, it follows that it's repelled by gravity, because there's no other explanation for a rising substance, and moreover there's nothing hard to believe about it.
Once heat is recognized as free electrons, it compels us to define gravity as the heat source in the planet, which has a negative charge. Free electrons in the planet repel free electrons in the air, neat and tidy, and correct.
The negative charge of gravity blows off some outer electrons from ALL atoms, and thus makes the positive charge of the atom's proton superior to its total negative charge from all captured electrons combined. As positive attracts negative, it explains why gravity attracts ALL atoms. Neat and tidy, and provable by Galileo's Pisa experiments (see 4th update of last month).
Failure of the Graviton
I showed earlier that, at four miles above sea level, there is half the air density as compared to air at sea level. This is a situation identical to one in which we take a gallon of sealed gas, and expand it to a two-gallon volume: the atoms will then be at half the original density. By expanding the gas into twice the volume, the distance between atoms will become 133-percent of the 100-percent they started with.
Here's how to arrive to the 133-percent figure. I showed that compressing a gas in half, three times, gets the atoms twice as close. It's the same in the other direction: expanding a gas to twice as large, three times, gets the atoms twice as far apart. Therefore expanding the gas to twice the volume on the first occasion gets the atoms 1.33 times further apart (or 133 percent), because expanding the gas to twice the volume on the second occasion gets the atoms 1.67 times further apart, because expanding it on the third occasion gets the atoms 2 times, or 200-percent, apart. Agreed?
When air is expanded three times, twice as large each time, it's made eight times lass dense, and the chart above has air at about 55,000 feet about eight times less dense as at sea level. That's where atoms are about twice as far apart. They get four times further apart if we once again reduce the density by eight times, meaning that we are looking for a height that is 8 x 8 = 64 times less dense than at sea level. The chart has that at about 98,000 feet, or 18.5 miles. There is so little air at that height that very little air-atom squeezing is taking place due to air-atom weight above that height. I would suggest that, if there was no compaction of air atoms by air-atom weight, and if all there was is the pull of gravity to compact air atoms, they would be four times further apart at about 30 miles maximum, and two times further apart at a height far lower than 30 miles. But even if we say that atoms are twice as far apart 100 miles high, we yet have the graviton view of gravity pinned to the floor as a laughing stock.
The problem is, without the weight of air in effect, as is the case for kineticism, atoms two times further apart than at sea level shouldn't be a situation until we are thousands of miles into the sky, if the kineticists are correct in their view of gravity. They view it as having a source at the center of the planet, because they define gravity as a graviton particle(s) in every atom. They see gravity as attractive force coming out of every Earthly atom, and as such they figure that the center of gravity force, from all planetary atoms combined, is at the planetary core.
On the other hand, my heat-mass view of gravity would put the center of gravity less deep into the planet, at the center of the heat source.
As gravity is so huge a "magnet" as compared to one atom, we don't view their mutual attraction as magnet attracting magnet. Therefore, instead of using the cubed-root law, we use the square-root: gravity attracts an air atom with four times less force when its twice as far from the gravity source. As it's about 4,000 miles from the Earth's core to sea level, an air atom needs to be 4,000 miles into the sky to receive four times less attraction force, according to the whacko graviton view. The problem is: when gravity force attracts atoms with four times less force, they are twice as far apart.
We saw from the chart above that atoms would be twice as far apart at about 30 miles up, if air-atom weight were not a factor to bring them closer together. This exercise is changing my view on the depth of gravity source. I once assumed that it was at the center of the molten core of the planet, but now, I need to entertain the main gravity source acting as though it were more like 30 miles deep. I would now claim that the molten core is a gravity source, but that it's distance from the atmosphere is so great that its force level upon air atoms is very minute.
Consider this: if there is no heat at or near the core, then the rocks weigh nothing directly above the core. Rocks can weigh only above a heat source sufficient in heat to act as a gravity source. We simply don't know where in the Earth God placed the heat source. However, as heat spreads in all directions, there must be a build-up of heat at the core. If for example God placed the heat source 500 miles deep, heat would spread continuously toward the core, and thus it would create a gravity source from the core up.
As gravity repels heat upward, and as the heat content streaming out the Earth's surface is very low as compared to heat from sunlight, the heat streaming toward the core will be far-less concentrated than the heat streaming upward toward the air. However, heat build-up above the gravity source gets relief from heat escape at the surface, whereas heat cannot get released once trapped below the gravity source toward the core.
God may have created a situation in which the core will eventually suffer a massive criticality, from ever-increasing heat, so that there will be a great shaking of the planet at Armageddon. That is, God may have created, by-design, an internal situation in which the core causes the great shaking at Armageddon.
Safe to say, science is correct in claiming molten magma at depths of 30 miles because they can reach fairly deep into the crust to measure temperature changes per mile, then extrapolate to guess-timate temperatures at depths they haven't yet reached.
I'm thinking that there is molten heat from the core up to the near-surface, but that the whole acts as a gravity source as if it were centered about 30 miles deep. Can this be a viable theory? The idea here is that deep heat simply doesn't contribute much magnetic force at the ground due to the great distance.
An idea coming to mind is that God may have permitted an escape route for core heat, like a cold "tunnel" through the rocks for heat escape out toward the south pole. In other words, by not having an internal heat source at some point between the core and the south pole, heat that would otherwise be trapped in the core can rise through the rocks to the surface. It makes sense to place this tunnel pointed toward the coldest spot on the planet. I'm pegging the south pole for this idea, rather than the north pole, because a google offering claims that the average temperature at the north pole, in summer and winter, is 32F and -40F, whereas the two figures for the south pole are much colder at -18 and -76.
Why is the north pole so-much warmer than the south pole even though they get the same amount of sunlight? If there's less internal heat near the south pole, the numbers above can be explained, and moreover it predicts a positively-charged region near the south pole for which there is evidence in the southern "Anomaly."
Wikipedia: "South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is an area where Earth's inner Van Allen radiation belt comes closest to Earth's surface, dipping down to an altitude of 200 kilometres (120 mi)." These "belts" are made of solar electrons. As the Earth spins on an axis while solar electrons bombard it, they can never bombard it at the south-Atlantic ocean alone. It's impossible for the belts to repeatedly approach closest to any one spot on the planet due to some force within the belts or outside the planet. This Anomaly must therefore be due to something within the planet; something is pulling the belts toward the Earth from within it. As the belts are negatively-charged electrons, it seems that there is a positive field under South America and the southern Atlantic ocean.
This Anomaly region is on the same half of the Earthly sphere as the magnetic north pole, not on the opposite half. This is important because it denies that the Earth is a magnet with negative and positive poles at opposite ends of the planet. The magnetic north pole is in eastern Canada off the Atlantic, and is therefore in a straight / longitudinal line with the southern Anomaly. And the north magnetic pole has a positive charge, same as the Anomaly. Two positive fields on the same half of the planetary sphere does not describe a magnet. Why isn't what I'm saying here a common part of the discussion when writers claim romantically that Earth is a bona fide magnet?
It's self-serving when evolutionists claim that solar electrons are redirected or trapped away from Earth by the magnetic field of the planet. The magnetic region is only "near" (not at all near) the north pole, anyway, and if there is a magnetic region at the south pole, they would simply state that a known positive side of a compass needle points to the south pole from the east, west, north and south shores of Antarctica.
When they tell you that the opposite end of a compass needle points to the south pole, they want to give you the impression that the south pole has a negative charge. This is important to them so that they can claim a planetary magnetic field operating from both poles to hijack solar electrons so that they don't enter the atmosphere. However, when the needle points north, the opposite side of the needle will point roughly toward the south pole whether or not the south has magnetism.
You may have heard that the air gets colder with height until it starts to get warmer again. How possibly can this be if not from solar electrons? At the chart above, the claim is that temperatures begin to climb at 60,000 feet until they reach almost 20F degrees above zero at 150,000 feet (about 28 miles up). The chart doesn't tell where atmospheric temperatures occur, whether on the daytime or nighttime side of the planet, or somewhere in-between.
To me, this unexpected hot air can be explained due to the clash of in-coming solar electrons with out-going Earthly electrons. As Earth gravity repels electrons up, they collide with in-coming solar electrons, predicting a pool of concentrated electrons at and near the collision point(s). The air rotates with the Earth, and so these electrons enter the night side of the planet, though by then they should be scattered in low density (because electrons repel each other).
The evolutionist goof really has a hard time explaining air at 20F at almost 30 miles up, where there is virtually no air at all. In his teachings, heat can only be from crashing particles. Oops. Why won't he admit that heat up there is defined as free electrons? If he tries to explain this heat from the few air atoms he claims to exist up there, he has the problem of GRADUALLY RISING temperatures from 60,000 feet to 150,000, while atoms become less dense with every foot. That doesn't work.
He can't say that this heat is from more-energetic atoms with increasing height, because that's circular reasoning. One needs to first prove that atoms can be more energetic before claiming that they are such simply because temperatures are higher. Higher temperatures can be caused by something other than more-energetic atoms so that it's not scientific to claim that atoms are more energetic just because it's hotter at 150,000 feet.
It's not scientific because atoms get more energetic with height after getting less energetic with height until 60,000 feet? This is death to kineticism. The science is calling them the blockheads of the world.
Then, after 200,000 feet, temperatures nose dive to almost -90F at 250,000 feet. Clearly, if the chart's numbers are correct, there is a pool of heat with the hot-spot at about 150,000 feet. If they claim that in-coming solar electrons collide with the few atoms up there, making the atoms more energetic, they've got to prove that the heat is from the more-energetic atoms rather than from the electrons. If they appeal to in-coming solar electrons reaching to within 60,000 feet, they spoil their claim that solar electrons cannot enter the atmosphere. For if they are at 60,000 feet, why couldn't they spread all the way to the ground once they reach the wind currents?
"Narrow bands of exceedingly high speed winds are known to exist in the higher levels of the atmosphere at altitudes ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 feet or more. They are known as jet streams." What causes these wind streams? Winds can be caused only by variations in air temperatures, because heat flows from warm to cool regions. Therefore, the heat pool between 60,000 and 200,000 feet is expected to flow down into the cooler areas beneath 60,000 feet. The chart shows a temperature of almost -70F maintained from 35,000 to 70,000 feet. That's the coldest temperature from the ground up to that point. It would be colder between 35,000 and 70,000 feet if not for electrons flowing downward into the region.
Just use common reasoning. The temperatures from the ground up decreases at a good clip until 35,000 feet, where it's 66F. Then, suddenly, the good clip vanishes, and it's only 70F at 40,000 feet, where one expects it to be more like -80, because it's -48 at 30,000. Then, at 45,000, the temperature remains at 70 instead of climbing higher to an expected -100. At 50,000, it's still at -70. At 60,000, it's still at -70. At 70,000, it goes up to -67. What could be maintaining this higher-than-expected temperature over such a large swath of thin air? It's clear as day: the hot pool above 70,000 is feeding electrons into the swath between 35,000 and 70,000 feet.
Therefore, these solar electrons, once they get down to some bona fide air, cause jet-stream winds. Hence, the atmosphere gets filled with an electron aether than serves as the light-wave medium. The light waves are caused by the in-coming solar electrons striking the pool of electrons. The reason the in-coming electrons strike this pool is that electrons repelled by Earth gravity slow the solar electrons, thus forming the pool. Whenever electrons collide with electrons, a light wave is formed.
The pool is predicted to consist generally of "stationary" electrons i.e. neither moving toward the Earth or away from it. They are not stationary, of course, for they spread out to the sides from the collision points. Many pool electrons move out into space, and this should explain the so-called Van-Allen "radiation belts." How are they radiation belts? What causes light waves to emanate from them?
Clearly, if electrons from the pool are deflected toward outer space, in-coming solar electrons that collide with them will create light waves. The more electrons there are in any pool of electrons, the more numerous the light waves. The Van-Allen belts are pools of electrons, not the mysterious / entertaining magnetic fields as artists draw them.
"A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet's magnetosphere." I'll bet that this idea, that solar-wind electrons are "captured" by Earth, is a trick that God is playing on the anti-Christs. They say that outer belts are as far as tens of thousands of miles from Earth, but that seems to me to be way too far for merely planetary magnetism to reach for keeping electrons in capture at the orbital speed of Earth around the sun. They don't use heavy magnetic needles for compasses because they won't spin due to the weakness of the magnetic pole.
Quote: "Our S8 sphere magnet has a field strength of over 8,000 gauss near the poles of the magnet. Stuck to a steel surface, the pull force is about 6.5 lb. What would the Earth’s specs be? The strength of the Earth's magnetic field at the poles is around 0.6 gauss – much weaker than a neodymium magnet!" The exclamation mark is there for it's utter weakness.
The article doesn't tell us the Earth's magnetic strength near the pole versus at the equator, and this would be a good thing to have in deciding whether the radiation belts are captured magnetically, or orbiting freely around the sun with the Earth. I can show that the second possibility is possible indeed.
Polar magnetism is a minor player. Rather, the boss, Earth gravitational magnetism, sends the solar electrons out into space. It doesn't capture solar electrons, it sends them into space. The conflict between in-coming and out-going electrons forms the pooling of electrons, which I define simply as high concentrations of electrons.
The Van-Allen belts ought not to form above the perfect-noon spot, where the sun is closest to the Earth. The noon-spot is where the Earth and solar electron flows meet head on. That's where the "hot" pool is predicted to form at its thickest. That's where the solar wind is going to reach closest to the Earth's surface. But this area is huge, an arched pool taking the shape of the Earth for thousands of miles on all sides of the noon-spot.
Just think of how close to the ground the pooling would be, to scale, at roughly 30 miles in height with the Earth almost 8,000 miles wide. Most of the sunside of the planet is being constantly pooled with electrons. It doesn't stop, day or night to you. This pool could be as much as 20,000 miles long, 10 miles away in all directions from the central noon-spot. Why does science never talk about it? Why is science hiding this from you? Now you know why they are very happy to have the radiation belts to conveniently use to make you think electrons don't arrive close to the ground. They want you to think that solar electrons are either captured far out in space, or re-directed away from Earth, by the magnetic field.
To the sides of the perfect-noon spot, still on the daytime side of the planet, Earth's upward electrons can more-easily knock in-coming solar electrons into space, where the clash between the two flows is not nearly head-on. Where the solar electrons strike nearly head-on, they plow as deep as they can get toward the ground, but are ultimately forced to the sides (of the central spot) to build up there. Where else? There's a constant flow from the sun, and so the electrons are forced in a constant flow around the circle of the Earth when they strike half way between the noon-spot and where the sunside meets the nightside. The electrons will gain height as they flow toward the day-night border thanks to the repulsion of gravity upon them.
A possible prediction is that the north magnetic pole will attract electron pools spreading toward Arctic circle. This can explain why the north pole is warmer than the south pole. The Arctic circle apparently has a greenhouse effect in high electrons.
Wikipedia: "The belts trap energetic electrons and PROTONs. Other nuclei, such as alpha particles, are less prevalent." The belts probably don't trap electrons, but rather the deflected electrons create the belts. The belts spread out, how can this not be so? How can the Earth keep the electrons from spreading out as electrons naturally do? That's not a trap, but a free-flow of electrons into space.
If true that the Earth traps electrons, they should all be nearest to the north magnetic pole, and all those protons in the belts should all be near the south magnetic pole, if bare protons exist in the solar wind, and if the south pole has a negative charge as claimed. But this is not how the belts are described in shape and particular location. NOT AT ALL. They are fooling us into thinking that the belts are part of a magnetic field similar to one reflected by iron filings around a magnet.
There are no healthy protons in the solar wind, the goons are lying to you. There cannot be bare protons in the midst of electrons, STUPIDS, for protons attract electrons and get dressed. This claim of naked protons in the solar wind is a red flag alerting to some problem that the goons have, with their science, for which they need to invent the solar-wind protons. They like to claim that protons cannot be destroyed, and so as they have discovered electrons in the solar wind, they are forced to wrongly claim that there is one proton per one electron in the solar wind, for they imagine (wrongly) that a hydrogen atom consists of one proton having only one orbiting electron. The sun is made of hydrogen, and hence the fantastical bare-proton theory for the solar wind is born.
Only a very stupid man sees an atom like the hydrogen atom as they see it. The whole world of physics and its buffs are nutjobs. Just trust your intuition when I say: electrons cannot orbit protons, and protons attract much more than one measly electron. Flush their atomic model down the toilet, and feel wonderful relief today.
Big-bangers needed the hydrogen atom as they see it because it's the building block to all other atoms as they see them. They knew it was better for making suckers of the world to invent atoms in the way they did than to claim that the big bang explosion spit out zillions upon zillions of 100 kinds of atoms, all 100 kinds exactly the same. Instead, they claimed that the big bang spit out zillions upon zillions of electrons and protons out of which all the 100 atoms were eventually made. But even that should sound fantastical to you.
Why don't any of the science buffs making physics videos ever buck against any of the established teachings? Why do they all simply repeat the established science? Because, they are smart only for learning what they are taught, but not smart enough to think for themselves, and certainly not noble enough to think critically on your behalf. They are like zombies who do as they are required, and for all we know, globalists pay some of them to advance the ideas needed by evolutionism.
There may be some destroyed protons flying from the sun, swept away by the out-going electrons, if the source of solar heat is from destroyed protons that release their electrons thereby. By "destroyed," I mean that their positive charge (some or all) is canceled. As electrons are streaming from the sun, I predict that protons are constantly being crippled / destroyed. If the stupids somehow find solar particles that are smaller than protons, they invent new particles, with names, that are likely just bits and distorted pieces of dead or nearly-dead protons. They laugh at the evolutionists for wasting their money and time building gigantic particle accelerators.
The Earth is constantly letting out an "exhaust" of electrons from its atmosphere. The logic is that the SAME NUMBER of solar electrons entering the sunside of the planetary atmosphere must be leaving, for the Earth maintains an average temperature. In other words, as there cannot be a constant build-up of solar electrons, they must be leaving as numerously as are entering.
But of course, for God knew He had to design gravity partly for accomplishing this important purpose. If gravity were too weak, the Earth would fry. If gravity were too strong, the Earth would freeze. God arranged gravity force just right to balance the electron-density (temperature) to accommodate life. Gravity is the planet's heat regulator, did you know?
Electron exhaust starts on the sunside but toward the night side, and really cranks up at the night side. On the sunside, it contributes to the solar-wind electron pool deflected outward. In fact, the flow of electrons out from the atmosphere is what deflects the electron pools outward; what else could do the deflection if not the atmospheric electrons? Nothing I can see, and nothing else is needed to explain it the formation of radiation belts (badly named). They should have been named, electron pools. Therefore, the radiation belts are formed from a combination of atmospheric electrons and in-coming solar electrons that never made it into the air.
It should be said that solar-wind electrons striking the planet near the day-night border will be deflected outward at an angle while retaining most of their velocity, and these electrons sail past the planet never to return. But the solar wind electrons coming toward the ground nearly dead-on will slow to a crawl as they are forced around the planet, and thus they will begin to orbit the sun with the earth. They are mingled with electrons rising out of the air, and thus they become a single pool with them, orbiting the sun with the planet, VERY IMPORTANT.
Over the course of some years since the formation of the sun, some 6,000 years ago, the electron exhaust formed a wide pool of electrons orbiting the sun with the Earth. How can this be so? How can it not be so? The electrons in this pool orbit the sun because they were orbiting the sun prior to being exhausted into space. Once into space, they continue to orbit the sun, though they also spread out in space under their own inter-repulsive locomotion. Why is this important? Because, it's a way to explain the radiation belts that follow the Earth around the sun. Rather than being captured by the earth's magnetic field, they could just as well be free from any capture, orbiting the sun in spite of flying into the solar wind.
The claim at Wikipedia is that the Van Allen "belts" (are they really belt-shaped?) are as far as 36,000 miles from Earth. I don't think the earth's positive fields can reach 36,000 miles sufficient in power to stop solar wind electrons for capture. Them bitties are moving very fast from the sun, and something better than the weak positive fields of earth needs to slow them down, such as their crashing into the electrons rising from the air. That works much better.
I know what the physicist is going to say when reading this: it's impossible for electrons to orbit the sun in the free, uncaptured state, because the solar wind will deflect them away. But wait. It's the deflection from solar winds that can get the electron pools as far off as 36,000 miles. We can then argue that, out past 36,000 miles, the pools have thinned so much as to not be detectable, and to not be pools any longer.
It's not as though pool formation was a one-time creation and then left to the solar wind's outward hijacking that makes the pools disappear forever into deep space. The pools are being replenished constantly with new electrons. It's not necessary to say that the electrons are magnetically captured just because they always exist in orbit around the sun. The ones lost into deep space are being replenished for a short time only, not forever, and so they can orbit the sun with the earth for a short time...until the solar wind carries them away so as to make the pools reach a maximum size only.
Another reason for the idea of magnetic-field capture of solar-wind electrons is due to their erroneous belief that electrons are attracted by gravity. STUPIDS, solar electrons flow from the sun because they are repelled by solar gravity. They pick up speed as they flow because they are under gravitational acceleration. They are "falling" upward and thus accelerating upward.
Where solar wind electrons crash directly into the upper atmosphere, this is death of the graviton particle. Evolutionists do not want you to think that solar electrons get that close to the earth while loosing all their speed in doing so. Yes, as they crash into the upper atmosphere, solar electrons slow to a crawl, in which case the goons would be compelled to teach that these electrons fall to earth's gravity. To avoid this terrible fate of having to admit that gravity does not attract electrons, they say that the magnetic field holds electrons in place above the planet. Now you know their deviant science more than you knew it before.
They invent all their needs by wrongly interpreting / explaining the realities. They wrongly interpret the realities to best suit their big-bang monster. This is what they do on the main. It's not a minor pursuit, it's the main hunt, to find evidence for the big bang, and inventing it is how they find it. Loathsome creatures, to be ridiculed as fools in due time.
Solar-wind electrons constitute the aether that Einstein claimed could not exist. Not once have you ever heard from the establishment, the one which praises him, say to you, "you know, maybe the solar wind is the aether." After all, it is a bona fide medium, and, after all, light can be the ejection of particles transferring through this medium. It's such a no-brainer, we can be confident that the establishment has been in a conspiracy to hide this from the world.
The establishment is now demoting or cancelling scientists who don't go along with climate change. Why wouldn't it have been cancelling scientists, for the past century, who bucked against the chief big-bang requirements whether they were Christians or not?
Debunking the Speed of Light
Here's how self-deceived they are due to their rejection of the cosmic aether: they think a light particle travels through space at at 186,000 mps. But that's not all. Here's how stupid they are: they think a photon shoots from the sun and reaches the earth in a straight line even though there are zillions of solar-wind electrons in it s way to deflect it, even to slow it down.
How can a particle traveling so fast, and being so utterly small, as they claim, not get destroyed upon collision with a single electron, or much-larger atoms? Only an absolute fool would advance a theory like this wherein the photon bullets survive forever in endless collisions, never suffering even a scrape.
All you science buffs, you are lunatics as you profess to be wise. You can't even manage to see the problems with orbiting electrons and speedy photons. They say that electrons orbit the atom at fantastic speeds impossible to form orbits in the first place, and then they view the photon as some form of ghost that, instead of knocking the electron out of orbit, sends the electron into a higher orbit regardless of whether it strikes the electron on its front or back or side. They claim countless photons striking each orbiting electron per every second of every millennium, and both yet the photons and electrons survive unscathed.
Either a jackass takes such a view, or someone like Einstein who lived before the discovery of the solar wind. He thought space was empty, no problem for photon bullets to shoot from sun to earth, he reckoned. Yet he was a jackass too, because he knew the air is filled with zillions of air atoms that get in the way of the photons. These people were not brilliant, but more like brain-doped, willing to violate sheer realities for the sheer delights in reinventing realities. And I think they were inventing things needed for big-bang viability. I think the big-bang idea had been floating around in science circles, amongst early evolutionary crackpots, many decades before the big-bang entered a published book.
Let me give you some sanity. Imagine pushing an electron toward another electron where there is no time delay between the motion of the first and the motion of the second. What we are imagining here is that the repulsion force between the two electrons is like a steel pin welded between them. As soon as the first electron is moved, the pin causes the second electron to move too. How fast is that speed do you think? It's instant speed, can you grasp it?
Now do the same as in the paragraph above, with a long row of electrons, all tied together with steel pins, from the sun to the earth. As soon as you move one electron at the sun, at one mile per hour or 100 miles per hour, toward the earth, how fast does the electron at the earth move? INSTANTLY, faster than light. It doesn't matter how fast the first electron is moving, the last electron in the row moved instantly. You poked an electron at the sun, and you poked the earth instantly too.
Now you now how light "speed" works. As light is slower than instant, it means only that there is some tiny time delay between moving one electron when the one behind it starts to move.
This is not conventional speed. The latter can be defined by having one man racing around the track from start to finish line. But with light, it's like having one man every three feet from start to finish line, and each man touches the one in front of him as soon as the man behind him touches him, and so when the man three feet from the finish line gets touched, he gets to run to the finish line. This is much faster than conventional speed of one man.
I can move a stick far faster than the speed of light. As soon as I push the part of the stick in my hand, the opposite end of the stick moves instantly, faster than light. A light wave is a stick, be enlightened. A stick does act like a particle, yes, but this is not quantum mechanics. This is normal. The light wave is a poking stick that ends as a particle knocked into an atom at the end of a domino effect. But it's not a photon. The electron that ends the light wave at the earth has not flown from sun to earth.
You need an electron to push a light-wave stick. You need an atom to push a sound-wave stick. An atom can't push a light-wave stick, and an electron can't push a sound-wave stick. I don't know why that is. You can't hit a bare copper wire with a fly swatter to get those electron to move down the wire. You need magnetic force.
You need magnetic force to get a sound wave moving too. When at atom vibrates toward another atom, there is a "large" time delay before the second atom starts to move, and consequently sound reaches your ear very "slow" (as compared to light). Sound cannot propagate if air atoms attract. They must repel in order for motion to traverse them. Sound shoots out, from a vibrating atom, in a straight line initially and predominantly, but gets curved in all directions as it goes because the sound wave is "slow." The slower the forward nudging through wave-medium particles, the more time there is to affect the particles sideways, off of the forward direction. If you shoot a ball bearing past a magnet very fast, even if it comes within a tenth of a millimeter from it, the forward path will not be curved, but if you roll it slowly past the magnet, the path will curve.
A wave medium requires its parts to be in CONSTANT contact, or the wave cannot propagate. The scientists who teach the kinetic theory of gases are NUTS to claim that air waves can move through atoms that make contact only once in a while, even while making contact with each other in scatterbrain directions, in any and every direction in total chaos. BIG NUTBARS. The vibration of a guitar string will be ruined if waves go through colliding atoms, for the first collision will start to change the vibration into something that it was not. The vibration needs to be carried atom-to-atom, to the ear, without being altered. Each vibration is a peculiar set of atomic jolts into the air "aether." If the shape of that set is changed by the air atoms, the original sound changes into what it was not.
When the light-wave aether is made of electrons, you need an emitted electron to get a wave moving through it. The aether must be made of electrons if electrons are emitting from the sun, if you want light from the sun. If there's nothing else emitting from the sun but electrons, that's one way to know that light is from emitted electrons. You cannot have bare protons emitting from the sun that don't re-dress with electrons to become atoms, and so if no atoms have been found in the solar wind, then neither are there protons in it. We don't have much choice but to realize that solar-wind electrons are the light-wave medium. And why not? Why hasn't that idea even been discussed? Because, the evolutionists are terrified of its broad acceptance.
Electrons in a steel wire are moving at nearly the speed of light? No, man, get a grip. When one electron at the light switch starts to move toward the light bulb, the electrons next to the filament starts to move almost instantly, because all electrons from switch to filament push one another ahead as soon as they get the signal from the electron behind them. This is like playing with a train set. The electrons in a wire, or in a light wave, are a train of inter-connected cars. Push the back end of the train, and the front end starts to move instantly. Push the front end, and the back end starts to move immediately...faster than light because the back end of the light train does not push the front of the train instantly. The light-wave cars are not connected with solid steel, but with compressible repulsion force.
A flame can produce electric flow, did you know? How? Not by gas atoms crashing into the metal wire. But instead of giving credit to the electrons in the flame, because evolutionists want to make them unimportant in your mind, or totally unknown to you, they say that "ions" in the flame cause the electrical flow. Why would they be so evil as to credit the ions (magnetically-charged atoms), which they know have lost captured electrons in the combustion process, rather than just crediting the freed electrons in the first place? What are they trying to hide as they profess to be teachers? Electrons repel electrons, so, duh, the flame's electrons create an electric flow. DUH.
In every combustion process, electrons are freed from atoms, yet they don't want you to focus on this, so they say that a flame is made of gases. They don't want you to know that, wherever there is heat, there are electrons. When was the last time you heard that the products of combustion include electrons? You can't see the gases; all you see is the flame, and yet an article on a flame ignores the very electrons that cause the flame itself. The flame is the light, not the gases. The flame is from the freedom of moving electrons that cause waves in the aether.
Don't underestimate me when I call them, stupids; it's absolutely fitting whenever I use that word. The stupids, actual grown men, envision captured electrons in true orbits around atoms, and they, the stupids, harp with praise about electrons changing orbital levels when they let out or receive photons, you just can't get more sickening than this when hiding realities. This is all puke. The electrons are not throwing out photons, STUPIDS.
As a material burns, atoms merge. Common combustion always involves atoms that merge (and sometimes atoms that unmerge too), and when they do, they always lose captured electrons for a logical reason that does not defy sane comprehension. Those lost electrons are the heat of combustion, hello? They have the power to crack open a sealed crock pot explosively, but are powerless to knock some sense into evolutionist crack-pots.
If one can comprehend an orbiting electron with a straight face, there is the idiot who knows not how to think for himself. Does anyone ask: how easy or hard is it to put an electron into orbit? What are the chances that all of the zillions and zillions of atoms in the universe all have orbiting electrons? How can atoms merge if all their electrons are orbiting with the likelihood of smashing into each other? Does anyone think about these things, or are physicists all a bunch of useless, pull-cord dolls that speak only what they've been programmed to speak?
If an expert physicist thinks a photon can crash into an orbiting electron and knock it into a perfect, higher orbit, that is one raving lunatic. He/she has no skill in physics, but is like an entertainer, a clown show. They are only repeating what they heard from others, and are afraid to teach anything differently for fear of looking stupid. And so they become stupid for fear of looking stupid. They are too stupid to accept that those they follow are stupid quacks. It's pitiful. Quack has trained quack until the whole field of science has become a madhouse of delusionary entertainment.
Can one not think of a better way for electrons to be captured by protons aside from being in impossible orbits? Are air atoms in orbit around the earth? Why can't electrons be captured in the simple way that air atoms are captured?
When two atoms merge, part of one electron atmosphere enters part of the other atom's electron atmosphere. The atoms were fully loaded with electrons prior to merger, meaning that the atoms cannot receive a higher density of electrons within their field of capture. Merger doubles the density of electrons in the merged areas, as compared to before the merger. With electrons suddenly more dense, they inter-repel with more force than they do on unmerged atoms. As neither atom can contain the double density, the electrons in the double-density regions repel each other fully outside of the atom's capture zone. As they move out to be come free, they bump aether electrons so as to emit the light that our eyes see as flames.
The fantastic speed of a light wave is probably due to the light-wave medium not being held down by gravity. Its electrons are extremely easy to move when bumped because they weigh zero. In fact, one can make the case that sunlight is of instant speed, or at least far greater than the accepted speed of light, in reaching the earth's atmosphere, for there is no restriction to moving a free electron in air-less space. Measuring the speed of light in a laboratory vacuum, using mirrors, isn't the same as light traversing the airless cosmos.
What the goons never admit to us, as though they have a secret agenda with their established speed of light, is that their speed-of-light experiments always involve a mirror that likely slows light down when the wave enters the atoms of the mirror for the bounce-out. That microscopic bounce can be very big for explaining why an instant light wave calculates to a slower-than-instant 186,000 mps.
When light strikes an atom, it penetrates into a cushion, the electron atmosphere. This can explain why the goons do not want to so much as give you the impression that protons capture electrons in the ordinary way...so as to form an atmosphere. If an atom is a compressible cushion to a light wave, oops, their cherished speed-of-light figure becomes erroneous.
Normal capture of atomic particles by a protonic force will arrange them locked-in-place, stationary, above the proton, until something causes them to move. Do iron filings captured by a magnet orbit the magnet? How slim are the chances that asteroids captured by the moon end up in orbit around the moon? Then why would anyone be so daft as to think that electrons automatically enter orbits around protons as though it were the most-natural thing to do?
When an aether electron is pushed into the atoms of a mirror, it compresses the electrons hovering over the proton. It takes time to compress them until they come to a full stop, and then takes more time for the captured electrons to bounce back and strike the aether. This ruins the experiment. The bounce-back is the reflected light used to time the speed of light, but the light dropped into a corner store to get a drink in the middle of the timing. It's no good, the timing has been ruined.
The speed of light is used by evolutionary science to determine the age of stars. They want stars to be very far and old because they think this works to their benefit in disproving Creation by God by making the big-bang theory of creation viable. But if light is, for example, instant, then there is no longer such a thing as a light-year. If light is instant, the star that they say is a million light years away, and therefore at least a million years old, is no longer at least a million years old. If light is instant, no age can be assigned to a star. Stars fill the universe with electrons.
In fact, stars shoot electrons at one another, predicting that they will sail away from each other on that account. Therefore, stars can be "expanding" the universe without need of the big-bang to explain it.
Whenever I hear that NASA beams light waves off of Mars or the moon and back to earth, I distrust them. Assuming that they actually can bounce waves back from the moon sufficient to register them in an instrument (I have grave doubts), the key word here is "bounce." Instead of landing in the cushion that is the mirror atoms, the light wave now lands in the cushion that is the moon-rock atoms. While the mirror is able to bounce light out almost as well as it comes in, moon rock reflects only color, which is a weakened form of light waves as compared to the punch of the waves which had entered the rock atoms. Even the brilliance of sunlight landing on the moon comes out as a weak glow by comparison; imagine how much weaker is the beam of light sent by astronomy.
What happens to a light wave when it lands into an atom? It spreads out as it compresses the captured-electron cushioning. Just as a sound wave spreads out in all directions because it's moving through particles held down by gravity, so the light wave entering an atom will spread in all directions because captured electrons are held by protonic gravity. The motion-energy is first absorbed during landing, then bounces back out as many waves from the jiggling of many captured electrons. This jiggling causes what our eyes sees as color, which is weak light per wave. It should be added that straight-line bounce-back, such as light hitting a silver mirror, is likely the wave energy bouncing off the silver proton like a ball bouncing off a concrete wall. There isn't much energy absorption / cushioning by silver atoms, but there's some.
I'm not yet decided on whether weak light should predict slower light waves, or whether light of all kinds go out at the same speed. But I can tell you this: when light moves through air or glass atoms, it's going to slow down because it needs to move around the electron atmospheres of atoms. While free electrons are not tied down to gravity, captured electrons in the atom are tied down to protonic gravity, predicting some resistance to motion as light waves ride the perimeters of the electron atmospheres.
That's right. I have absolute proof that electrons are the light-wave medium because light can go "through" many kinds of atoms. But, of course, light cannot go through the center of the atom, which is what destroys the photon theory of light. If light were the photon, it would crash into protons and not get through anything.
Light moves along the outskirts of the atom, in all directions around it, and finally the wave exits the atom on the opposite side from which it entered. It exits the atom because there is an electron atmosphere waiting, at the opposite side, to receive and continue the wave. The prediction is that the wave will move faster through the aether than when it cuts across an atomic material. When the wave cuts atom-to-atom across the full pane of glass, the aether is waiting on the other side to receive the wave and go on its merry way.
I think I can explain a foggy glass as one where the atoms are not perfectly round. If the atom is a perfect sphere, then the light wave entering it will come out the perfect-opposite end of the atom. But if the atom's periphery has a non-spherical shape of any kind, the prediction is that the light will not come out at the perfect-opposite side, and thus the light waves will not come out the glass in a straight line.
For example. A straight-line transfer of light through glass is when the light enters the atoms at their 12 o'clock positions and exits at their 6 o'clock positions. But if it enters at 12 o'clock and exits at 5 o'clock and/or 7 o'clock, you will not be able to see the things that are on the other side of the glass because the light is not straight to your eyes. Some light may get through the glass to your eyes, but it could be fogged.
It's impossible for a photon bullet to pass unscathed past the many atoms in a thin sheet of glass. Even if photons bounce off of protons until it finding passage out of the glass, the straight-line view to your eyes will be ruined. There's no way that a zillion photons from a leaf on one side of the glass will enter your eye in the configuration that they were in at the leaf, if all the photon from the leaf need to bounce in chaos when getting through the glass. The photon that was at tip of the leaf will no longer be at the tip when it enters your eye, IF in enters your eye at all. The whole leaf needs to go through the glass, as a unit, in a straight line.
If astronomy claims that light bounced off of the moon travels at the same speed as light in an experiment in a room, I suggest that the astronomy establishment is deceiving us. I will go so far as to say that an elaborate scheme has been in the works to claim repeatedly that experiments were conducted that were never conducted, in bouncing light waves off of the moon. Not just anyone can attempt such a thing, and so, as it requires a lot of money and instrumentality just to make the initial attempts that will surely need fine-tuning, it would be easy to feign the results of such an experiment.
Here's from a 2015 article:
...The researchers compared the speeds of two photons, which were identical [laughable] except for an altered structure. One photon was sent through a fibre toward their detector, while the other was shot through, what the researchers call a "mask". This mask altered the structure of the photon, before redirecting it back to the detector.
"...Measurements revealed that the structured light consistently arrived several micrometers late per meter of distance travelled."
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum-may-not-be-constant
It's perfectly warranted to laugh at the fools conducting this experiment. One of the fools even says, "Previously people had recognised that the speed of light was complicated, but our experiment, which measures single photons, is perhaps the cleanest demonstration." It is impossible to know that you are working with a single light quantity (a photon in their minds) versus many light waves. Quantum physicists are all the stoners of the scientific establishments.
All the whack-jobs gravitate to that field. The article adds: "Theoretical papers have previously discussed the potential invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum, suggesting that the vacuum of space isn't exactly empty, but full of 'virtual particles' like quarks, that capture and re-emit photons, altering their speed." Wait. Are they so whacked out as to think that particles in vacuums catch-and-release photons at impossible-to-imagine speeds without suffering a smoking hole through their hearts? LAUGHABLE.
Here's the truth. They were not shooting photon bullets, but were emitting electrons into the aether of the vacuum. When they passed the light wave through their "mask," the light wave slowed down. DUH, where's the mystery? Now imagine zillions of such mask penetrations when light goes through the Earth's atmosphere twice.
If they send a laser-beam to conduct speed-of-light experiments, they need to bounce light off of a mirror many times so that the light is already slower, when it comes out the gun, as compared to bouncing light off of one mirror alone to conduct a speed-of-light experiment. The more mirrors per the experiment, the slower the light is predicted to be. If they send perfect light from a filament through blue glass to check the speed of blue light, the light is slowed by passage through a blue glass on top of being slowed by the cushioning in the mirror atoms. They can never know for sure how fast light acts from a filament (not passing through glass) to the eye.
Just as google controls the speed-of-light articles in cahoots with controls from the science establishments, so the establishment controlled who's speed-of-light experiments were released to the public prior to the Internet. In everything they do, they inject lies of one sort or the other, as needed, and on top of that, they err without realizing it more than they lie. It's gang-up follies.
I can serve evidence that light is a wave from emitted electrons. The sunspot. It's jet black in the midst of enormous light. The stupids tell us that sunspots are "cold," or relatively so, but it's completely stupid to suggest that cooler regions on the sun look black to the eye. These are not scientists, but inventors of lies. If they were true scientists, they would seek the reason for the blackness of sunspots.
Clue: sunspots occur at regions of solar flaring. Clue, solar flares occur when solar material explodes upward. Clue: what goes up must come down. If the stupids had resisted the photon, they could have viewed light instead as a wave from an emitting electron. There would have been calm and sanity in science departments instead of delusional hoopla. The emission speed doesn't need to be fast; even a slow electron can form visible light.
Sunspots must be the exploded material that achieve the greatest heights because things that go highest can gain the fastest velocity on the way down. When the downward speed of solar material is faster than its upward-emitted electrons, it is impossible for those electrons to emit light waves into the aether in the direction of Earth, for the Earth is generally upward from sunspot when they're seen from Earth.
If you missed the point, let me clarify. If you're in a convertible car moving 60 mph, and if you throw a ball backward at 55 mph, the ball does not punch the air in the backward direction because the ball is traveling forward at 5 mph. Electrons emitted toward Earth by sunspot material do not move toward Earth if the material is moving toward the sun faster than the electrons are emitted toward Earth. In that case, electrons are moving toward the sun after they're emitted toward Earth. They cannot therefore bump the aether to start light waves toward earth, and consequently they look black to the eye.
Someone writes: "Solar flares typically erupt from sunspots,..." That's got to be backward, and it sure doesn't sound very cold no matter which way one puts it. The reality should be that sunspots are the end-results of flares, not vice-versa. Not all flares cause sunspots because not all flare material falls away from the eye. The flare material (radiates light in all directions) needs to be generally moving away from the eye, or it won't look black.
Solar-Wind Kickback And Other Tricks
If a star is moving away from earth faster than the star's electrons are emitting toward earth, that star will be invisible. It's not a black hole. It is the result of photon lunacy that some people think a star attracts light to form a black hole. They think a star can be so powerful in gravity as to attract the photon so that it cannot go outward. But where light is a true wave, then of course there can be no black hole. The errors that facilitate the invention of a black hole, including: 1) gravity attracts all things, including the photon; 2) the light wave is somehow a photon particle. When the black hole becomes established "fact," it'll lead to more errors.
The speed of the solar wind at the earth is not the speed of electrons ejecting from the sun. It has got to be true that the solar wind accelerates (constantly gains speed) with distance from solar gravity. Solar-electron emission is therefore slower than the solar wind as it passes by the Earth. However, it's probably true that the solar wind is slower where it strikes the earth versus its flow when passing by the earth, for as the wind collides with the earth's atmosphere, there is repulsion kickback, slowing the wind down. All solar-wind electrons repel backward too, right?
If an electron emission at the sun nudges aether electrons toward the earth, then a slowdown of an electron at the earth, due to congested traffic with the Earth's electrons, will nudge electrons backward toward the sun until, I think, all electrons between the two bodies are equa-distant.
It occurs to me that, if the solar wind is moving outward faster than the emission of electrons back at the sun, there can be no outgoing light. What an interesting concept. I rather like it because it's logical.
Yes, as solar gravity repels solar-wind electrons, and as the electrons themselves repel each other, they have locomotion on two counts to accelerate. Therefore, the sunspot teaches me that there is no light in space except where the solar wind strikes an object to slow the solar wind sufficient for allowing the electrons at the sun to emit waves.
One can argue here that the sun may be striking objects further out than Pluto where the slowdown of the solar wind is insufficient to form solar light toward the objects. Interesting.
I don't see how one can disprove that there is no light in outer space where the solar/stellar winds strike no object. You can't stick a man-made object in space to check this theory, to disprove it, because it slows the solar wind so that light waves then appear toward it that may not have come out that way prior to the object being planted there. It's reception of sunlight cannot speak to whether or not there are light waves passing by the object.
If the sun were created on a certain day, there would be no sunlight hitting the earth until the solar wind first arrived to it. They say that the part of the wind leaving the sun takes three or four days to arrive to earth, and then Genesis says that God created the sun on the 4th day. Hmmm. Maybe it means that He created sunlight on the 4th day. However, it also says He created stars on the 4th day, though it doesn't say whether their light had reached Earth on that day.
There is a claim you can find online where light slows to a crawl at the brink of absolute-zero temperature. At those temperatures, the aether is almost non-existent, which can explain the slowness and dullness of light. If aether electrons are distant enough from each other, one can assume that the time delay between electron bumps (in a light wave) can be long enough to slow light to a crawl.
Evolutionists need to consider the possibility that they are wrong about the whole gamut of their theories. They had best repent for their own sakes, because God has promised that he will unleash His anger on those who go to their graves in rebellion against Him. This is plastered in the Bible everywhere for anyone to read and see. Let the Light shine in your brains, evolutionists. Make the change today, cease being fools.
Millions of us, including me, ceased to be such fools. We became Christians not only in spite of evolutionism taught everywhere, but we became stronger Christians because of evolutionist rebellion. It acted as proof of authenticity of God's Word. The more they persecute and do other evils, the more we see it as fulfilled prophecy. They will not defeat us, we will win when they bring this planet to a hopeless ruin, and by that time, we will not feel sorry for the horrible Punishments they will receive. We will witness their utter evil, as God allows demons to do their thinking for them, to fulfill wicked to the rim of God's cup of wrath.
In Hosea, for example, the prophet tells Israel that when they abandoned God for idols, they also corrupted themselves by doing so. Israeli society became evil as a direct result of abandoning God for fantasies. It's the re-occurring theme throughout the Old Testament. He warns them in Hosea about the consequences of God turning His face from the nation, for rot will then spring up, part of which is from His own hand in punishments. This is the fruit of evolutionists.
If you're near my age, you witnessed ever-growing rot in society over the past generation, even though evolutionism doesn't worship calf idols. It's going to be the same in this day as was in Hosea's, where he says that the people of God, the prophets, are considered lunatics and persecuted for that reason. So, evolutionism will cause the people to blame Christians for the societal rot because the people have become blind to the realities.
Christians will suffer when God's wreckage comes to this world. Try to forecast the wreckage by knowing the signs that Jesus and prophecy spoke of, and take care accordingly. Never think that God is boring. Pity the evolutionists and other scientists who glory in what they find in nature, yet do not give thanks to God for the grandeur, so much variety. God is very smart; respect (worship) Him in that way.
He takes a little electron that needs to be nothing but a bit of matter in order that we may see everything in the Creation. He makes that electron form a variety of colors which we might take for granted. And He doesn't even need a medium to transfer light waves other than the electron itself. Such a simply system yet performing so greatly. The electron goes out of the atom at a certain speed and frequency, and the combination thereof produces color, many colors depending merely on the specific speeds and frequencies. Can you not work up a little thank you toward God for this, you stone-hearted evolutionist pigs?
What if light took three seconds to get to our eyes. Imagine cooking like that. You wait for the green beans to show on the cutting board, then as you put the knife to the beans, it takes three seconds to see it, only to find you missed putting the knife on the beans. You adjust the knife, and wait three seconds more to see whether you have it right this time. And so God invented a way for light to arrive instantly, a wonder that fat-chance evolutionary "progress" could never perform. He made the light particle repelled by gravity so that light could travel through it fairly instantly at close range.
If the photon always has the same mass, and always the same speed, how can it create color when it hits the eye's color-making sensors? Don't worry, the fatheads will think of something that you cannot disprove. They call color "frequency," but, for them, that term has nothing to do with the number of photons per unit time because they shape a light wave with a snake-like path that defies logic, which you cannot disprove or prove. Why do they make a light wave look like a snake, do you think, after beginning with a straight-shooting photon? Because, somebody provided the double-slit experiment to prove that light is a wave after all, but instead of abandoning the photon, they made it take a snaky path to give appearances of a wave. What utter, laughable clowns.
As they were restricted to keeping the photon at the same speed, which doesn't allow for different frequencies, they had to invent a mode of frequency in which the number snake-like waves is different for every color of light. For the higher-frequency light, they give it more curves passing a point per unit time, but nobody in their right mind should believe that a photon at unimaginable speed takes such curved paths. Therefore, in reality, their photon fails also because it has no frequency.
In the electron-wave model, it doesn't matter how frequent a wave is started at the source, the wave can move at the same speed if the aether it's passing through is the same. That is, the density of the wave medium should determine light speed, and the number of electron emissions into the aether defines wave frequency. The more-frequent the emissions from the same atom, the faster the emissions, but, in some cases, a large atom emitting slow captured electrons can emit a high frequency due to the high number of captured electrons that a large atom is able to shed. In other words, high frequency doesn't necessarily always come with faster/harder wave jolts.
On this page, I've explained how a particle can also be a wave, and yet the particle is not the wave. Only a stupid makes a particle behave like a wave. Every one of these stupids who marvel in the so-called wave-particle duality has thrown a rock into water, but, duh, it doesn't occur to them that light needs to be an electron rock tossed into the solar-wind water??? DUH, of course it occurred to them, yet they swept it under the rug.
Part of the reasons for ignoring it was probably to avoid admitting grand errors into the 1950's and 60s, when the discovery was being made that the sun emitted electrons all the way to Earth. The establishment needed respect most of all while it was in the throes of killing God; it couldn't afford to look like it was prone to blunders on key physics. It would have been a huge set-back to admit that the photon was wrong, that they were wrong in eradicating the aether, and that captured electrons do not catch-and-release photons. And much more would have needed re-vamping, including the explanation for the formation of colors. The great news is, they extended the time period in which they behaved like fools so that God can glory in, and enjoy, their demise all-the-more.
We cannot even explain what repulsion is, yet the electron is endowed with it, causing motion Without which life would be impossible. The body is full of cells without brains or knowledge, but with programmed and built-in triggers to perform motion in many ways, and it's the release of electrons in the atoms of cells which cause that motion. No motion, no working cells. The electron is the thing getting the credit for an enormous number of Creation's abilities. A Christian is one who has pondered the greatness of God, who is glad for His power, and His existence, for by Him we have our lives, and the Offer of a greater life for eternity. Is that not something we should be thankful for?
But evolutionists are worse than cold-hearted ingrates, for they act gladly as the doors through which people step into the torments of Hell. We don't need to be prophets to understand that will be held responsible for this generation's rebellion and demise. We need only a little reading of the Bible to see how God reacts to a nation's leaders promoting rebellion against God. Hosea portrays God as a Father who loved his child only to see his child betray Him. The wretched sting, it hurts. All that God is asking is that he can enjoy His children who enjoy Him?
All that God begs for is friends who respect Him so that He can happily show them the workings of the glorious mysteries. But evolutionists will not see the true workings, don't want to see them, and it's very evident, to me anyway, that they have maligned the entire set of microscopic workings. It's lamentable that Christians have not yet seen how much a monster is the modern "knowledge" of the physics establishment. Those who accuse God of being a fantasy have come to believe in many, self-grown fantasies, their just reward. All their efforts will be for less than nothing, for more than nothing, punishments on top of their vain efforts.
The full magnitude of God's abilities to create wonders has not yet been exposed. We can glean that this Creation is but a small taste of all that He can do, because He knew that this Creation was given to rebels undeserving of seeing His full glory. Or, why should he have wasted all his work in making this Creation more glorious when the rulers will, by and large, desire to act as God over it? Globalists are not a new thing with this generation. Modern globalists wish to punish us for not obeying them; they want to be God.
It is the rebels who are responsible for the continuous lament of God in the Old Testament. This set of books is the testimony of God, His accusations, against those who hated Him and defiled the planet with blood. If the Old Testament is not a happy book, and if it's filled with blood from both God's hand and his enemies, it's the fault of His enemies.
The Magnetic Oxygen Atom
Why is it that all combustible materials need oxygen to produce flames? Doesn't that give a clue as to the uniqueness of oxygen? What does it have that other gas atoms don't? The short video below gives a clue:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I4lksXaU1qk
Prior to seeing this video a couple of weeks ago, I had pondered the possibility that oxygen atoms are to the positive side in charge, but when that idea seemed unlikely due to how I see gas atoms, all having a net-negative charge, I pondered whether oxygen atoms are prone to developing a net-positive charge when a spark or thermal heat source is in their midst. For, it is a spark that makes hydrogen gas suddenly combust and unite with oxygen atoms, and it is high heat that suddenly caused other things to combust and merge with oxygen atoms. The "exhaust" of burning wood is a carbon-oxygen merger.
The video above has oxygen atoms attracted to both the positive and negative side of the magnet, which is very revealing. It tells us that oxygen atoms are little magnets that develop a positive charge at one side, and an negative charge at the opposite side. This is excellent because it can explain why hydrogen atoms suddenly fuse with oxygen atoms when a spark causes that magnetic-oxygen state. I assume that oxygen atoms normally are not magnetic bitties, but that they develop their magnetic quality in the presence of dense electrons, either from a spark or high thermal heat.
There are so many mysteries of nature yet to be understood, but we can claim as a fact that oxygen is not the facilitator of combustion by chance. God made it that way, in spite of the dangers, because combustion is needed, useful. God gives combustion to the good and the evil alike. The good cook with it, and make metal objects too, the wicked devise as many weapons as they can with it. War is the preoccupation of the most-horrible thieves.
One can say that oxygen burns if oxygen is a part of combustion. The heat of exhaust is due to the merger of atoms in what's called a "chemical reaction." When titanium steel burns to produce titanium-oxide, most of the heat is from oxygen, because oxygen atoms are far larger than steel atoms. The larger the atom, the more electrons it can give away as heat when merged with another atom. The evolutionists have it backward, claiming hydrogen and oxygen atoms to be amongst the smallest of atoms, and metal atoms amongst the largest. I explained why I'm correct, two updates ago, if you're interested. There can be no doubt that I'm correct, I'm not just theorizing unsure on this one.
Burning hydrogen produces more heat than any other chemical reaction because hydrogen atoms are the largest, which can easily explain why God uses it to make solar heat. It's doubtful that oxygen is in the sun to produce solar heat, and so we don't officially call the burning sun a "combustion" process. The logical explanation for solar heat is the crippling or destruction of hydrogen atoms so that their electrons fall off and go free into space.
There is no such thing as "fusion" of atoms as evolutionists define it. They have got their atomic model all wrong, and as such they think fusion is possible. They claim that fusion is making heat on the sun, and are wasting plenty of money trying to copy what they think is going on. One of these days they could start a chain reaction of what "fusion" really is" the wreckage of hydrogen atoms.
It is possible to cripple / destroy the weakest of protons, in uranium. Ask the nuclear bomb about that. Destroy uranium protons, and out come their captured electrons with sufficient power, in air, to cause a chain-reaction of uranium-atom destruction. To get the uranium electrons to come out without the chain-reaction explosion, they surround the uranium with water. But it won't work with other atoms because the protons are harder to cripple, by shooting fast particles at them, when they are dressed with more electrons.
Uranium can be gleaned as having the weakest of protons because it is the atom that science assigns the most orbiting electrons (232 of them!). What whack-jobs. The more orbiting electrons assigned to an atom, the smaller that atoms really is, though they claim it to be the largest. The weaker the proton's positive charge, the fewer captured electrons that surround it. Duh. The reason that uranium metal is the heaviest of all atomic materials is because all atoms, of any kind, weigh the same while there's more uranium atoms, per volume, than in any other material. See two updates ago for the reason that all atoms weigh the same.
The metals generally have the highest boiling points because they have the smallest atoms, making their liquids amongst the heaviest. Boiling point is defined as when free electrons, as heat, rise through a liquid sufficiently fast to exit the liquid surface in numbers equal to the numbers of new electrons entering the liquid at the heat source. As metal liquids are heavier, it takes higher liquid temperatures (higher electron concentration) for rising electrons to counteract that weight.
The escape of electrons at the liquid surface facilitate evaporation, defined as the knocking out of atoms from the liquid. The smaller the atom, the greater the density of electrons needed to lift and eject surface atoms.
Put it this way, that at any given temperature in a liquid or gas, the largest atoms get more lift because all atoms weigh the same. If an elephant weighed the same as a ping-pong ball, rising electrons at the same density (= same temperature) would give the elephant more power of lift because there are more electrons under the elephant than under the ping-pong ball, in spite of both situations having electrons at the same density. In other words, the greater the bottom area of an atom, the more power of lift it gets at the same temperature.
Therefore, the smallest atoms such as uranium need a high temperature to cause evaporation. This explains why oxygen has an extremely low temperature when it suffers evaporation erosion, because it's amongst the largest of atoms. Hydrogen is much larger than an oxygen atom, explaining why it has an even lower boiling and evaporation point. I'm trying to show you the logic of my claims, how my view of atoms explains what we see in the real world.
If one puts a flame to a metal magnet, one can rob it of it's magnetism. We can glean here that by pumping electrons into the magnet, the electron arrangement on the metal atoms is made normal, whereas the arrangement in a magnet is unique. It's likely that a magnet has more electrons on one side of its atoms than on the other, making each atom act as a magnet with a negative and positive pole. The atoms hold their unique positioning wherein the positive side of one atom holds (or is merged with) the negative side of an adjacent atom. But if electrons are pumped into the magnet as heat, they will eventually (with rising heat) cause an equalization of captured electrons on both sides of atoms, thus ruining the magnetic effect.
I'm telling you this because it seems that free electrons from a spark or flame act upon oxygen atoms in the reverse direction, causing the atoms to become "strong" magnets where previously the atoms were normal. This is a new thing for me this week. We saw that the magnet caused the oxygen atoms to stick to it, and so we can glean that even a magnet is sufficient to create magnetism in oxygen atoms, but not in hydrogen atoms. If there was another gas that a magnet could turn to magnetism, the video would probably have shown that too.
And so it seems that oxygen is rather unique in this regard, though I've just read that titanium steel can burn in pure nitrogen (at a high temperature), suggesting that at a certain temperature, either nitrogen or titanium atoms take on a magnetic quality.
I can now venture to tell what combustion is: when oxygen atoms develop a positive side, it attracts a nearby atom into a merger with itself because all atoms are negative in charge while gases, and can be predicted to be negative in charge, in large part, when in the liquid, solid or molecular state.
As oxygen atoms merge with iron atoms at normal temperatures to form iron-oxide as the "exhaust," either the oxygen atom already has a small amount of magnetism at normal temperatures, or the iron and/or the humidity causes oxygen to get a magnetic quality. As iron won't bond with oxygen without water present, it stands reasonable to assume that water is what gives oxygen atoms a positive side. The water covers the iron, and the oxygen beside that water starts to rip iron atoms out to itself, but at an extremely slow rate due to a factor preventing fast combustion. Why did God cause an abundant metal on Earth to go ugly fast? Why are there all sorts of curses intermingled with grandeur in this Creation? Why should God lavish this world with too-much plenty when the wicked kill to own plenty and lavish things?
Two updates from this one, in the 4th of September, and also in the 4th of August, I have more information on my atomic model, if you are interested.
News
This week, I found that youtube is feeding me MANY science videos by Pakistanis or Indians who can't speak English well. It's not by accident because I've never been fed so many of them before in such a short span of mere days. It's part of the algorithm.
I would doubt very much that the United States is doing this deliberately, and suggest that canada's liberals are trying to stuff videos with hard-Indian accents down the throats of canadians because the liberals have the agenda of making these far-off peoples more important than historical canadians, because first-generation immigrants are more apt to be naive enough about canadian politics to vote liberal. I resent this, and hope you do too. It has nothing to do with stereotyping, or discriminating against, foreigners, but has to do with puking at the liberal agenda to force a new, alien culture in canada for the sake of winning federal, globalist, anti-Christ powers.
The thing that needs to be done is to re-condition canadians into thinking Bible-friendly, because the liberals have made them think anti-Christ for decades, and to our chagrin, they have become anti-Christ. Most canadians have become cheap and spiritually trashy, not deserving a capital on "canadian." This has to do with more than spiritual choices; it has to do with earning the wrath of God on the whole nation, good and evil alike. That's what happens when the majority of a nation ignores God for an entire generation, with full-steam ahead even after a generation has passed. They pass the anti-Christ baton to their children even, and demand fuller anti-Bible values. These are the canadians seeking to go from mild sex-education in schools, 40 years ago, to pornography now. For these, calling them trash is a compliment.
The video below, with some good court-related news for Kari Lake in Arizona, tells that Bill Barr is an active part of election-fraud gangsters:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/G05qGXnIfi4e/
Mike Lindell is financially supporting Kari Lake, and has a court date next week concerning the removal of voting machines from Arizona:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dWEcYAoEdBOJ/
Evil everywhere, how do we find joy living in this generation? The courts in election-fraud disputes should have the respectability of expediting the court cases because, if the challengers are the rightful winners of elections, the losers are in-the-meantime in a ruling position they don't deserve, and the winners are, in-the-meantime, robbed of their right to officiate. Kari Lake "lost" almost three years ago, and the courts are slow-walking her concerns.
This Alberta pastor had been abused by the communist pigs during the lockdowns, but has come away perhaps even better than unscathed;
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MGrCC_HfTWQ/
Dr. John Campbell has either started to betray anti-vaxxers, or he's been in a heap of trouble from youtube censors to the point where he was asked to change his tune on deaths caused by vaccines, or else. In this video, he cleverly shows that deaths sky-rocketed in many countries starting about January of 2021, yet he says nothing about it, just letting the viewer see the stats and thus hoping to keep out of trouble. Vaccinations started in about January of 2021. At one point toward the 10-minute mark, however, he says that the excess deaths are from COVID (he doesn't believe that), not vaccine complications, a change of tune since last I heard him not long ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naopp_KF678
In the video above, if the charts are reliable, note that deaths started to go down in all countries many months to a year after vaccinations programs began. This can explain why the goons are seeking to do lockdowns this winter, because they are disheartened by the fewer deaths than were planned for. The good news may be that, if people just stop taking vaccines, their immune systems will recover from damage done by the vaccines. Proof of this view is from the haste and feverish push from the goons to keep everyone boosted in 2022...when people started to forsake vaccinations.
"Booster" means perpetual vaccinations. That's what they wanted in order to keep death rates high and climbing. ABSOLUTELY, it's true, for they have heard of the many horrible complications from the vaccines, yet are still trying to get people to resume reception of them. How can it not be so that they are seeking to kill and maim further?
The following looks like a set of Schwabite programs attacking canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChKwUpWNMSQ