It was nice while it lasted. Hall of Names is no longer showing the descriptions of the Coats of Arms presented at House of Names, but I have many of them recorded in my memory, and in past updates from which to find some.

Here's an important snippet from the last update (to follow better, load Armstrongs now to load and view other surnames on another Internet tab):

The Armstrongs above can be connected to the SPERANza's, suspect in the "sperno" motto term of Somersets, and we just saw Strongs first found in Somerset. The Armstrongs can be connected to the Armys/Ermine's, first found in Lincolnshire with the Bracebridge's, likely a branch of arm-using Brace's. When Ainsley awoke, she popped into my arms, and we rose into the sky that way, such a hard-to-explain scene, on Epstein's island, unless it represents the rapture as soon as the 666 system comes to an abrupt end. In that case, God seems to be fingering the 666 with Israelo-American Intelligence.

I'm going to make the case. Note how the Beas' variation of Bee's, in the "Be as God wills" motto of Bracebridge's, reflects "Beach" while Beach's almost have the Bracebridge Shield. It explains why the rapture took place while we were embraced. It could have happened without the embrace, but God wanted the Bracebridge's in this arm-in-arm scene, who were first found in the same place as Armys sharing the armored arm with Brace's. Arms are needed because they share the ANNAN Chief-saltire combination, I absolutely get it, let me tell you why.

Bee's share the Hanan quadrants while chief-priest Annas was also Annan-like Hanan/Ananus, and Annas' were an AINSley branch. She literally POPPed into my arms the second I brushed her knee, and Poppins/Pophams share the Anne/HANNE stag heads, you see. Therefore, what God seems to be saying is: thank you, Annas, for overseeing the slaughter of the Lamb on Passover, because Ainsley and John get to partake in the Resurrection-Rapture due to it. The Jeans are even showing a J'ANES variation.

If that's the correct interpretation, it not only explains why Ainsley was one of two fulfillments of Sleeping Beauty, but why I was at the door of the car when the embrace started. From English Doors (same place as Brace's), we go to Doria's sharing the eagle of Bessin-like Basings because Poppins/Pophams were at Basingstoke, and Bessins share bees with the Doors.

Then, we go to Scottish Boys because they use bees too, and Italian Boys/Boets, with a Beauty-like Boeddu variation, are the ones sharing the giant bull of German BACKs while Ainsley was hovering LEVEL on her back. Beautys use the bull too, in the colors of the Waleran bull heads, and Walerans are from Waleran de PERCEval of Leavell while Leavells have a Level variation. Thus, the Levite bloodline of Annas of Israel must be related to king Lupus Laevillus of Cilicia.

While Sleeping Beauty had her BATHing suit on, Beautys were first found between Bath and the first-known Buttons/Bidens sharing the fesse of German Butts/BOETs, and the Button/Biden write-up says that the Buttons were in Bath. Buttons/Bidens use "horns" in Crest while Hovers/Hoffers put horns on their leopard face.

Scottish Doors, by the way, share the Hover Crest. I always say that she was HOVERING OVER the car seats because Overs are also Offers while Hovers are also Hoffers. The reason the quote above has been repeated is for its use of "PassOVER," for Pass' are listed with Pascals (Latin name for Passover). Pass'/Pascals even share the Jewish Levi lion, and may even have the Ainsley cross.

It's then pretty amazing that, of all the potential heraldic symbols the Scottish Lambs can use, to go with the lamb in the Pass/Pascal Coat, they share the stars of Annetts/ARNETTs, colors reversed from the star of ARNESS' who in turn list the AINSley-branch Annas'!!! The Levite chief-priest of Israel, at the crucifixion was, Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas! She was hovering over the car seats, and Cars (Lancashire with Seats) happen to share the Annett and Lamb stars too. The Seers/Sears suspect in the car motto have the sane stars again, and they were first found in Essex with Pass'/Pascals.

Therefore, I do declare: God arranged my Sleeping Beauty dream to point to the killers of Jesus, and in the meantime to the island of Jeffrey Epstein. In the dream, He told me to wake Ainsley after she fell asleep while hovering, and perhaps this means that she had best wake up from the spiritual sleep that Fox news is causing her to suffer. Or, it's a general call to wake the Church because the time is here now, in my lifetime, to prepare the storage of our oil to endure the night ahead, otherwise we'll be the foolish virgins. I don't recommend storing foods (no small task) based on merely a dream, but if you feel led, it's your call.

The Car motto took use to Seers/Sears, but see also the Sere's/Serts sharing the Annas and Wiggon star, then note that Hanna's were first found in Wigton. The Seers/Sears share the Chief-Shield color combination of Caiaphas-like Capes', and even the one of Annas-branch Ennis'/Enys'.

The Quints, whom I trace to Quintus Caepio born shortly before Joseph Caiaphas (may have been "Caeaphas" too), share the chief of Palms in the "Palma" motto code of Pass'/Pascals. Palm trees are used by Carts (share Annan saltire) of Cary Castle, home of Levi-connectable Leavells.

I've said many times that, until a year or two ago, Quints were said to be first found in Essex and Dorset, and Seers/Sears with Pass'/Pascals were first found in Essex. It's the location of Colchester, and the Arms of Colchester has three nails in its cross feigning the cross and nails of Jesus. Instead, it's code for the Irish Neils/Nails because they share red estoiles with Colchesters who in turn share the Quint chevron.

As Ainsley's daughter if Hayden Proctor, the fact that Proctors use nails while being first found in Cambridgeshire (near Colchester) with Annas' and Wiggons suggests that God knows of a close marital link between the three surnames. The Wighens/Wickhams, important to Epstein's sandy beach in the last update, are in Annett colors and format. After divorcing Will Proctor, Ainsley dated Annett-like Hannity of Fox news. CHEFFers/Shaeffers use a giant sheep/lamb (I don't know which), and were first found in Hesse with Eppsteins!

Haydens have a dancette in Chief while English Dance's share the triple lion heads of Fermins expected in the Hayden motto. And Dansette's happen to have been first found in Ile-de-France with Levi's and Caiaphas-like Chappes'.

Cheffers/Shaeffers are in the colors and format of the giant ram of French Bauds while Rams (Essex with lamb-using Pass'/Pascals) are in Irish Carr colors and format.

The last update, by the way, found pointers to Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Jewish ADL, via the Honors, Hone's, and Honeys, which took me to Annas elements. That's being said because "Honor" is a Seer/Sear motto term. As Jeans/J'ANES' (share Adell lion) were big in the last update for connecting the ADL to Epstein's sandy beach, it's very notable that Seers/Sears, between their two stars in CHIEF, share the Jean/J'Anes scallop. The heraldic Chief may even be code for a surname from Caiaphas.

A surname variation stemming from Caiaphas may even have developed into Hoffers via, for example, the Caffers/Caffertys, then to Coffers and Coffee's/Coffers, the latter two being in Caffer/Cafferty colors. Chaffs and Chaffins were both first found in DORset with Beautys. The Chaffs, with a Chief-Shield color combination matching that of Capes' and Seers/Sears, and the latter's eagles are in the red black-on-red colors of the Chaffin dog.

Alwings, with nearly the Always Coat, were first found in Devon with the Alwington of the first-known Chaffings/Coffins, and with Kings, then Ainsleys, first found in Nottinghamshire with Elwes'/Elvis', have an "always for my king" motto phrase. I get the impression that the line of Annas and Caiaphas are both in this paragraph.

I've never realized before how important the "Sero sed serio" motto of English cars can be. Seers/Sears have a peacock in Crest while Peacocks, first found in Essex with Seers/Sears (share Car chevron), use a "Be" motto term while Bee's almost have the Hanan Coat.

The Fears in the Peacock motto were a branch of Vere's who historically controlled Oxfordshire, where Bee's were first found. It should explain why "Be" and "fear" are in the Peacock motto. Fears were first found in Middlesex, which is in London and therefore near the first-known Capes'. It's also near EPPing of historical Essex while Apps'/EPPs were, until recently, said to be first found in Middlesex. Apps'/Epps share the Capes scallops.

I first saw Sleeping Beauty walk around the FENDER of a car to the hood, and Fenders were first found in Huntingdonshire with Apps'/Epps.

Why is justin trudeau at Beauty's Hood?

In the last update, there were inklings that justin trudeau had links to Epstein's island, or at least to themes there. I'll repeat from the last update where the FLICK of my miracle-marble shot was pointing to the trucker convoy that trudeau tried to put down...like an imbecile who hates and grossly maligns the people he's supposed to represent. "Palma" is a motto term of Palms, and Car-like Carts, a Cary branch, use palm trees:

"Palma" is a motto term of Fleet-like Felthams who have the double Palmer and Flick fesses in colors reversed, and Fleets almost have the Flick Coat. Hoddys/Huddys [may share Hutton fesse] were first found at Creed [Cornwall] while Creeds share the Feltham leopard faces, and moreover Creeds are in the colors and near-format of Huddy-like Huttons who in turn have stag heads in the colors of the Trudeau stags [starts to make possible trudeau's affiliation with hood of her car].

The Bathursts/Bathersts who are in Feltham colors and format show a "foy" motto term while one French Foys/Foix surname was first found in Ile de France with Trudeau's. Sleeping Beauty, when fulfilled by Ainsley Earhardt, brought Hat-branch Haydens to topic who have a "FERME EN foy" motto term, important because Foys come up as "Foix" while Ainsley Earhardt works for Fox. Fermins and Formans/Fermans (both in Yorkshire with Palms) are partly in Creed colors and format, a new discovery for me right here.

Hutt-like Hats even have wreaths in Hutton colors while Wreath's list Creed-like Creights! Crete's were first found in Burgundy with French Grands who share their Coat, and Scottish Grands were first found in Inverness-shire with Wreath's/Creights. Creightons share the Jean/Jane and Adell lion.

The "Christo" motto term of Fermins is almost in the "bello Christi" phrase of Bouillons, and the latter were first found in Auvergne with the other French Foys/Foix's (share Bailey stars). The Dansette's (Ile-de-France with Trudeau's) share Belly rose and the Bell / Bellamy fesse. English Dance's were first found in Yorkshire with the Jumps sharing the Dansette rose, and even with the Trump stag head in case Trump applies to this discussion.

I can't recall the heraldry causing me to link Bastards to Trudeau's, but Bastards share the Coat of Batherst-like Batters. I wouldn't have been here had Batherts not been in the colors and format of Flick-connectable Felthams. It could be said that the miracle-marble shot took us here. As Sleeping Beauty appeared in her bathing suit at the hood of her car, we can say that she was a Batter-like bather. Yes, for Bathers happen to share an "Ut" motto term with Palms! That's new right here. The Vigils suspect in the Bather motto almost have the Coat of Belgian Flecks while English Flecks are the Flicks.

"Ut" can be for Hutts, listed with Hoods/Hoots having a Chief in the colors and format of the Feltham Chief! The Cornish's in the "Cornish chough" of Hutts/Hoods/Hoots have a reflection of the Trudeau Coat which is itself in the colors and format of Spice's, the latter first found in Devon with Cornish's and Hutts/Hoods/Hoots. Cornish's share the roses of the neighboring Lowers (Cornwall).

There's much to add from things in that quote. The "Bello" of Bouillons is shared by Bastards who add "Pax" while English Packs share the anchor of Pasi-branch Paisleys. It just so happens that Pasi's are also Pascels, like the Pascal variation of Pass'. And Bastards, first found in Devon with fret-using Hutts/Hoods, are in the colors of fret-using Overs PassOVER!

Hutts/Hoods likewise use the anchor, and more frets are with Speck-branch Speccots, first found in Devon too, even with the Spice's who are like the Spike variation of Specks. Spice's are in Trudeau colors and format! It's placing justin trudeau at the hood of Beauty's car.

Felts have the Avril/Averell Coat in colors reversed, and Avril Haines, Biden's Intelligence chief, who replaced John Ratcliffe, was in the last update upon Epstein's beach. Haines' are also AINSley-like Ains'. Plus, the Formans/Fermans (suspect in Hayden motto) even share the double-wavy fesses of Hone's who had pointed to Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Adell-like ADL. These fesses are in the colors of the fessewise Hayden fesses. Adells share the Jean/J'ANES Coat, and the double Hone fesses are in the colors of the double fesses of Honeys (same place as Jeans/J'ANES") who brought "honey pot" to mind, slang for using female spies to net information from male victims through sexual encounters.

Especially as Hone's were first found in Hampshire with English Pots, Sleeping Beauty now looks like a representation of honey-pot spies on Epstein's island, making total sense, for Epstein was in the spy business of blackmailing important / powerful people. As was said in the last update, the flick of my marble was in the game of potsie, now suggesting that trudeau is an Intelligence asset involved with honey-pot schemes. I brushed Beauty's knee with my PALM, and "ne" is a Honey motto term while Knee's are also Nee's.

The Bather-like Batters almost have the Coat of French Pots. Sleeping Beauty is a bather on Epstein's beach, how perfect. And while Batters do share the Bastard Coat, the latter happen to have a "POTior" motto term! I'm now convinced that Sleeping Beauty depicts a honey-pot spy. English Pots have a "ForTIS" motto term while Tiss'/Teese's, first found in Hampshire with English Pots, have a different-colors version of the Bather / Bastard Coat.

Bathers were first found in Denbighshire with Bachs/Baghs, and Beauty was hovering on her back. Beautys are suspect as a branch of BOYs/Boets/Boeddu's who share the German Bach/Back bull. German Butts/Boets share the fesse of Buttons/Bidens/Budins, first found in Hampshire with Pots and Botters/Bodins. It's telling us a story. The "virTUS" motto term of English Pots can go to the Tous' because they were first found in Florence with Italian Botters/Bottini's, and with the Bruno's who share the bend of English Pots (BROWN Crest). I have it recorded that Tous' have a "man" with "shirt" and "silver BUTTONs." Buttons/Bidens even tell of their branch in Bather-like Bath.

Honeys share bees and hives with Kerrys, and John Kerry's family was/is involved with typical, conflict-of-interest Biden corruption. Beauty comes with a car, and English Cars are also Kerry-like Kerrs. The Cars/Kerrs almost have the Tiss/Teese Coat, and we can say that honey=pot spies will tease.

The sharing of Coats between Bastards and Batters is important because French Bastons/Batons were first found in POITou! The Coughs/Cuffs, suspect in the "Cornish chough" of Hutts/Hoods, use a "baton". When coming to Comps/Camps (from Annett motto) in the last update, in a stunning heraldic set pointing to trudeau, I was able to say that Comps/Camps, in Trudeau colors and format, have griffin heads in the colors of the Marble Griffin. That discussion was on my miracle-marble shot in the game of potsie. It's repeated here because BeauCHAMPs were first found in Poitou too.

Moreover, another Coat showing only a chevron, as do Bastards, Batters and Tiss'/Teese's, are the Tudys (Hampshire with Tiss'/Tease's, Pots and Hone's) who can be part of the "virTUTus" motto term of Pots. The Tudy chevron is blue, as is the Bastard / Batter chevron. German Hennings have the Tudy Coat aside from adding roses (same ones as Bastons/Batons) while English Hennings share the double-wavy fesses of Hone's. Unwavy, they are the double Honey fesses. English Hennings have a seahorse while Sea's (see also seahorse-using Seamans) have the same wavy fesses in colors reversed.

English Hennings are also Hemingtons, and Hemmings not only share the Tudy fesse, but add the three lion heads of Fermins while Formans/Fermens share the double-wavy Hone fesses. "Ferme en foy" is the motto of Haydens sharing the bull of Beautys (Dorset with Hayden-branch Hats). Hemmings were even first found in Orkney with the Flick- and Fleet-connectable Flatts/Fletts.

Oh wow, the Hemms/Hammers/Hemmers have an "HONORes" motto term while Honors are listed with Honans! They almost have the GREEN Coat while Fleetwoods, per chance, were related to Henning-beloved Plate's/BLATTs, for the latter were first found in Lancashire with Fleetwoods. Jonathan GREENBLATT of the ADL.

The Hemming pheon is shared with Thistle's/THISSells who in turn have a Coat looking connectable to Overs/Offers. The latter were first found in Cheshire with Shirts/Shards with a "HosTIS" motto term and sharing the Tiss/Teese chevron. I was walking toward Beauty, without my shirt on, after seeing her at the hood. I had only my Jeans on, and Jeans/J'Anes' share a blue lion in Crest with Thistle's/Thissells.

Fauch's, showing only thistles, were first found in Forez, and BalFOURs, with a "FORward" motto, might be related to Fore's/Forez's. "For" happens to be in the Ainsley motto twice. Balfours share the "baton" in Crest with Coughs/Cuffs suspect in the Cornish chough of Hutts/Hoods, and Cornish's happen to share the roses of Car-like Carys. Ainsley Earhardt came walking to the hood from around the Fender, and Fenders, sharing the otter head (different colors) with Balfours, share the erect and up-pointed sword of Justins. justin trudeau is sold-out to no-choice vaccinations, the entire preoccupation of dirty Tony Fauci for years and counting.

Did we just spot trudeau at the fender of the car?

Balfours/BELfours can be of the Bells and Bellamys because the latter share the crescents of Seatons in turn sharing "forward" with Balfours/Belfours. Seatons named Seaton in Devon, where Hutts/Hoods were first found. Hutts/Hoods are said to have been at Rattery of Devon, yet Ratterys (love Supers of Devon) were first found in Perthshire with Justins! I think we definitely saw trudeau at the fender of the car. And when I arrived to the car, Beauty was hovering over the Seaton-like seats. The Rats/Raids were first found nearby Nairnshire with Cornish- and Cary-beloved Rose's.

The Seatons share "hazard" in their motto with their Suty branch, first found in Perthshire with Justins. Their Side/Suddy branch were first found in Fife with Balfours/Belfours. It's interesting that while the Side/Suddy Chief is in the colors and format of both the Tipps and BATHERst Chiefs, Tipps' were first found in Lancashire with RATcliffs whose bull head they share. Lancashire is also where Seats and Cars were first found.

The Batherst-like Bathers share the white wolf head with the Crest of Zeals/Seals (Devon) while Hutts/Hoods (Devon) have a motto, "ZEALous." Zeals/Seals (Devon with Trebys and Treble's) share triple-black wolf heads with Ratcliff- and Treby-connectable Cliffs. Trabys/Sadowski's use a "scarf" while Scarfs share the Bather Coat. The Treby Chief is in the colors and format of the Bathurst Chief. The Zeal/Seal fesse is in the colors of Batter-branch Bastards (Devon). Hutts/Hoods are the ones with the Cornish chough while Balfours share the baton with Coughs. Bastons/Batons can be gleaned with Bastards and Batters, and while the latter are also Betters/Beeters, Beetons have another otter head.

Baits/Beeths (Fife with otter-using Balfours) even share the erect-white sword, with item at the tip, with otter-using Fenders. The latter were a branch of Windsors, first found in Berkshire with Batters/Betters/Beeters. The "Fortuna" motto term of black-boar Baits/Beeths connects with black-boar Rollo's (Perthshire with Fender-connectable Justins and Lothians) using "fortune" and "passe," and while Fortune's were first found in East Lothian with Seatons, Passe's bring us back to Pascals who in turn happen to share the eagle of Hotts while Hutts/Hoods are also Hoots.

Task Force

I was checking the Task and Force surnames to see if God possibly used those terms to point to poison vaccine's, for Trump chose a "task force," with Mike Pence and Tony Fauci in charge of it, along with the military's Deborah Birx. The tasks and Force's both use triple lions in pale, though in different colors, and neither Shield shows anything more.

The Force's use leopards or cats in the colors of the Sforza lion, and the latter's is in the gold color of the lion in the Dougan Crest. The latter's is the demi-lion in the Gates and Graff/Graffin Crest while Graffins point to graphene-oxide in vaccines, a poison, and so we seem to have Bill gates up-front in this investigation already. I got to the DOUGANs from the DorDOGNE location of the first-known Force's. Let me expound.

First, English Doors have a version of the Gates Coat. DORdogne. It's a location very near the first-known Fauchys, and then Fauci's (not "Fauchy") were first found in Genova with DORia's in turn sharing the Tromp eagle. DORdogne thus appears named by the Doria / Door bloodline, leaving to us figure where "dogne" came from.

Dougans happen to share the eight-pointed star of German Teegers while Irish Teague's/Teegers were first found in Galway, a location related to Galloway, where Force-like FERGus', Scottish Fergusons, and Dougan-like Dougals were first found. Plus, Irish Fergusons not only have the eight-pointed Dougan star too, but the lion of Fergus-like Sforza's (in Italian, that name means "force"). The Fergus lion is even in the colors of the Task lion.

The Sforza lion holds a "quince" while Saer de Quincy is in the wrote-up of Fauci-connectable Faucets as the builder of the faucet castle near to where Keiths were first found, said to be from a Catti tribe. Quince's/Quincys were first found in Northamptonshire with Face's. The Keith motto is shared by cat-using Galways. Galloway is where Hanna's were first found with the Trump stag head in colors reversed. Galloways share the Dougal lion but in colors reversed, wherefore Dougals have the lion of Roet-branch Rita's, the latter first found in Rome with Sforza's. Roets share the Ferguson boar heads.

The eight-pointed star under discussion is also the one of shirt-and-button Tous' while French and Spanish Jeans share the Sforza / Ferguson lion. "Tous" is a motto term of Bleds while a Bled location is beside Lesce (Sava river) while Lesks have a boar head in the colors of the Malley boar, and Irish Fergusons (share Leslie lion, assumed) tell that they had been in medical cahoots with their kin, the O'Malleys. In colors reversed, Bleds have the Coat of English Clare's, first found in Suffolk with Mallets, with Leslie-beloved Buckle's, and with Task-like Tass'/Tasche's in the PEERless/Napier motto. Meanwhile, Pierro's/Pero's were first found on the Ticino river of Tess'/Tecks (Peerless saltire in colors reversed), the latter first found in Switzerland with Graffs/Graffins and the Ticino canton. Does that spell Task Force?

The Tasks share the Coat of Irish Maghans/Manns while Scottish Mathie's/Maghans/Manns/ have what looks like a motto code for Faucets, and then English Mathie's/Mathews have the Bled Coat.

Solar Stuff

The following video is like my dream come true, a means already in existence to split the water molecule into pure O and pure H BY USE OF THE SUN. How can that be? Why have we not heard of this before?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqosnd_Ho-U

The video has a mistake where it says it produced 4-8 kWh. It meant to say 4000-8000 per winter. Near the end of the video, we find that this new technology could be available to the private people in 2026. The cost, it says, is about the same as conventional solar panels, but it doesn't say whether the price is the same per pound of power, or whether the panels of both systems are going to be roughly identical. By the sounds of it, a panel from this new invention will get far more power than a solar panel. At the start of the video, it says that 20 panels only can heat a house in winter. With conventional solar panels, 20 panels can only supply electric needs for a house, but not including home heat.

I wonder whether climate-change gangsters will torpedo these new ideas since what they want for us is, not success with green energy, but our slavery that we might buy only what they want us to buy, that from which they profit big. If they have been buying up stock in conventional solar panels, uh-oh, these other means of producing power look like they will put them out of business.

The problem with this new idea is that the hydrogen needs to be stored in tanks ($$$) that each produce only 1500 kWh, only a tenth or less of the heating requirements for a house in middle latitudes. Purchasing ten tanks looks very expensive. However, one tank can run non-heating electric needs so that this system looks far better than conventional solar panels. Something to look into. One could arrange to burn the hydrogen is a stove for cooking.

The video claims that the panel needs no electricity input to produce hydrogen, just sun and air and a so-called "photo-catalytic splitting process." That is, it splits water into H and O by sun alone by some inventive process. It sounds like magic. How can sunlight be manipulated to unmerge the H and O atoms that form the water molecule? Do they make the sunlight more powerful? How else, if only the sun is needed? I would like to know. Maybe we can make our own splitters once we learn how this is done.

People in the video's comments are wrongly worried that these systems will rob the air of too much water if used massively. The reality is, once the hydrogen is converted into electricity (not by burning it), it gives out water "exhaust" and so puts as much water back into the air as it initially took from it. It's a super way to "burn" clean gas.

Here's new, absolute proof (about 4th minute and beyond), likely, that canada did not test COVID vaccines...to this day. The biggest story here, again and again, is the criminality of the canadian government and the state media that protects it. This is an excellent video to have on hand for future laws suits, or court appeals to refuse, should you be force-vaccinated, or even if you receive the vaccine voluntarily but get physically damaged by it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9CbEfZi3iw

Trudeau and the health regulators could be jailed by the next administration if there were a will to do so.

Here's evidence that the sun is a liquid at the surface, and also we see that the evolutionary establishment -- wolves -- is closed-minded toward this claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2NJrFMGHQw

The out-standing problem with a liquid sun is that the establishment's claim that sun to be mainly hydrogen and helium, gases, in such high heat that they call it a plasma. However, the sun has a gigantic gravity force that can get H atoms close to one another in spite of the great heat, and this is what must explain the liquid-like look of solar explosions. As the solar surface is churning, the atoms can sometimes merge with each other, and at other times they get separated. Heat causes atoms to spread out, but gravity has the opposite effect with it's downward pull, pulling atoms closer to one another. You shouldn't try to view the situation with earth-gravity force.

As anyone knows without need of conducting an experiment, the moon would go out of orbit on the first bounce, if the earth were a beach ball bouncing off of another beach ball. If you have permitted yourself to believe that a hydrogen atom is one proton having one electron in orbit, slap yourself right now. An orbit is a delicate thing, yet the evolutionists, whom you might respect (slap yourself again), teach that a hydrogen atom races at hundreds of miles per hour, constantly, and somehow retains that one electron in orbit even while the atom is undergoing millions of collisions per second with whatever atomic material is in its vicinity.

Now that was the speed of a gas atom on earth. As the evolutionists incorrectly define heat as the speed of atoms, the H atom at the sun, in their view, but be screeching far faster than the ones on earth, yet they retain their electrons in orbit even there? Give the evolutionists a slap on the face and be done with him. He's a quack. His beliefs first-and-foremost were invented to satisfy his needs for making cosmic evolution viable.

He tries to convince you that, after the big bang sent protons and electrons screeching out into space, they came together as hydrogen atoms in spite of their incredibly fast speed. Then, magically and without proper explanation, a gravity source appeared that pulled the H atoms into globs, the proto-stars. In order to make that case, he had no choice by to invent gas atoms that attracted one another when the fact is, all gas atoms inter-repel.

He inventively assigned each atom with it's own gravity force in order to make viable the formation of a proto-star. All he needs to do is convince you that atoms came together at a certain place sufficient to form some gravity that then pulled in more atoms. Of of course anything can be made to happen in a cartoon. And that's what he does, draws cartoon pictures of cosmic evolution in progress.

His problem is, the hotter his H atoms, the stronger the gravity force needs to be to pull the H atoms into contact. So, when he tries to convince you that some itty-bitty special gravity source (not yet a blob) appeared that started to pull atoms together within itself, it's no good because that gravity source originates in an accumulation of gaseous H atoms in space, attached to nothing, not even to themselves. How could an accumulation of H atoms pull other H atoms into CONTACT AND MERGER, to form a blob, if the accumulation itself consists of gaseous H atoms i.e. not in merger? Duh. The way he went about being convincing was to draw pictures in combination with the hope of making fools of people.

Again, in his mind, the hotter the H atoms, the faster they race about and bounce off of each other when they collide. Billions of years ago, when the stars began to form, he concedes that cosmic temperatures were much hotter than at present. How then could a gravity source form strong enough to get the H atoms to come permanently near enough to each other to form a star? There's only one way: Somebody had to build it. The big bang could not alone form stars.

My bet is, the astronomer will concede that, if solar gravity were 25-percent weaker than it is now, H atoms would fly off far from the solar surface so that the star looks like a spiral galaxy. In that case, imagine how concentrated big-bang atoms needed to be, in the first place, to form a gravity force sufficiently strong to bring other H atoms together, and retain them, in a sphere shape.

They can't have the gravity without the atoms, but in reality gravity force is not from atoms. They invented that idea because, for a fool fool-enough, it serves the concept of star formation without a God. Gravity is an electromagnet force from the electrons which define heat. Heat is not kinetic atoms. The sun has great heat and therefore great negative force that pulls all atoms. The stronger the gravity force, the more captured electrons it will blow away from upon the H atom. The more electrons blown away, the more net-positive the H atom becomes. The more net-positive it becomes, the stronger the force between it and gravity, which defines weight. On the sun, H atoms weigh a lot more than they do here.

The H atom has more electrons than any other atom, explaining why the combustion of hydrogen produces more heat than any other combustible material. If hydrogen is the smallest, how possibly can it produce so much heat when merging with oxygen atoms? It's especially problematic where they view oxygen atoms as relatively small. I don't know, nor can I see, how they can explain the mechanics of heat production from the combustion process.

The stupids decided to believe that every type of gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure) has the same number of atoms. It's unprovable, yet they don't accept it as a theory, but as fact. It's how they decided that the H atom is the lightest of all atoms, and in their view, the lightest is also the smallest atom. One cannot claim that all gases have the same number of atoms without also explaining how it's not coincidental. Nobody will believe it's coincidental that all 100-plus types of atoms, in their gaseous forms, will have the same number of atoms at STP, and yet nobody questions these buffoons when they make such a claim without explanation as to how it could be.

In their view, every type of atom has a different weight, and they all race around at different speeds. The stupids believe that the weights and speeds of atoms combine to produce gas pressure, and so by what factor can it be possible that an atom A weighing twice as much as atom B should race at half the speed of atom B when both produce the same gas pressure? How can all the atoms of different weights and speeds produce the same gas pressure only when there are the same number of atoms in a sealed container? There's just no explanation, and so you need to realize that they took this position probably due to its facilitating cosmic evolution better than the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is obvious: gas atoms inter-repel. They produce gas pressure by inter-repelling, no racing around needed. This is the only alternative to their view, and it kills cosmic evolution because inter-repelling atoms don't come together to form cosmic blobs of plasma.

The thing they got right is the relative weights of gases at STP. They couldn't falsify that because anyone can weigh a gas. And so here is what they did: finding that H gas weighs 16 times less than O gas, and believing like stupids that both gases have the same number of atoms, they decided like stupids that H atoms weigh 16 times less than O atoms. And so, originally, before the invention of the neutron, they may invented the O atom with 16 protons at the core, and 16 orbiting electrons circling these 16 glued protons, to make the O atom weigh 16 times more than the one proton and one electron that they stupidly claim is an H atom.

Later, when their system didn't work with what reality expressed, they invented the neutron only for its extra weight. Instead of having 16 protons at the core of the O atom, they gave it eight O atoms glued to eight neutrons each weighing the same as a proton. And instead of giving it 16 electrons, they decided on 8...always one electron per one proton per any given atom. And, the thing is, you probably believed them because you thought they were super-smart. You didn't realize that they were being devious to suit cosmic evolution.

To explain how eight protons can stick together at the core, even though protons repel each other, they just invented the "strong nuclear force," a super-glue, inventing it in the same way that cartoon characters can do the impossible. Now you know how they arrived to their relative atomic weights, by being absolute law-breakers.

It is completely stupid to suggest that a positive force such as one protonic should be able to attract just one electrons. I don't care if the electron is orbiting or snaking or hop-skipping-and-a-jumpin, there's no law that should prevent more electrons from being attracted. Does a magnet only attract one iron filing and then call it the day? Only an idiot claims that a positive core attracts only one electron. The entire physics establishment is filled with fools.

In an attempt to save themselves from looking like fools, they assigned the electron exactly the same level of negative charge as the proton has positives charge. There. They think you will now be better fooled if they do it that way. You're supposed to respond with, "well, that makes sense." But no it does not make sense, because a magnet can attract more than one magnet where they all have the same level of attractive force. There's nothing to keep a second and third and fourth magnet from bonding with a central magnet after it's already been bonded with the first.

In reality, an H atom is the largest of all atoms, and it's stacked with layers upon layer of electrons. The electrons define the energy of the atom, not from the atom's motion, but from the inter-repulsion forces of the captured electrons. So long as they are captured, they constitute no energy, or potential energy only. They exert energy only when freed from atoms. They push outward and do work by doing so.

Electrons get released from atoms when atoms merge. In combustion and liquid formation, there are always atomic mergers and the accompanying release of heat. Heat is expansion. The electrons expand as they move away from one another. That's work done, that's heat energy. They expand materials when they enter their atomic pores, and they push air atoms when they themselves expand in the air. What can't we understand about this easy-to-understand thing? It's child play.

H atoms have the strongest inter-repulsion forces. It's heat in a gas that lends all gas atoms their inter-repulsion forces. The higher the gas temperature, the more forcefully the atoms inter-repel. The larger the atoms, the more forcefully they inter-repel at STP. Therefore, there are fewer H atoms in a gas at STP than O atoms. That's why H gas weighs less.

You often hear that hydrogen gas, due to having such small atoms, leaks easiest out of any tiny pathway from an otherwise sealed container, but I say it's because H atoms repel each other with more force at any given temperature.

And so God used the atom with the most heat captured upon them, to form the sun. When immersed in heat, H atoms resist coming close together more than any other atom, which allows the sun to puff up more than would be the case with other atoms. In being puffed, electrons released from H atoms can flow more easily between them to escape into space.

I suggest that electrons are released when H protons are destroyed, which is to say when they have their positive charges ruined, possibly due to the great weight caused by the powerful gravity force. As gravity is sourced in heat, the sun produces its own gravity force continually. It could be gravity that causes gravity, if gravity destroys H atoms. I suggest that God could have caused initial heat in the sun to form enough gravity to begin the continual heat-release process working automatically. If heat production maintains gravity force while gravity force makes heat, then gravity makes gravity.

Heat is a negative charge because heat is made of electrons. This negative charge causes all atoms in the vicinity to become net-positive, and thus gravity grabs hold of, i.e. attracts, all atoms. I can prove that gravity repels electrons from atoms because it's so easy to make dopes of evolutionists who say that comet tails form when sunlight melts their ice. What utter fools. There is no ice on comets, and while they once could not know it, they do know it now. They claimed that ice balls are orbiting around the sun just to keep people in the dark about the true nature of gravity.

The reality is, as rocks near the sun, solar gravity repels electrons from rock atoms progressively more forcefully. These electrons become largely trapped inside the rock's pores, and in the atomic pores, but they work their way to, and out of, the comet surface. The rock becomes hot and bright, therefore, and as the electrons screech out the rock surface, they take rock atoms, and rock chunks of assorted sizes, with them. As the electrons are repelled away from the sun, they push the rock atoms/chunks along with them to form the tail. There are parts of the tail that are losing (emitting) a sufficient number of electrons to form visible light, because light is a wave through the electron aether that fills space.

Yes, solar gravity fills the solar system with an electron aether because electrons from the sun are constantly streaming out of it. Whenever one electron in motion strikes an aether electron, that's one light wave formed, that's one quanta of light. The electron that starts the wave is not the electron that falls as light upon some atom. Rather, the electron that starts the wave starts a domino effect, aether electron bumping aether electron, until the last electron in the row (the wave), the one beside an atom, pierces into the atom's captured electrons. The latter thus get jiggled, and as they too strike aether electrons, they send out light in return, usually what we call color.

These are part of the atomic-physics facts, should anyone care to know them. There are no other viable options that humans can think of. The wave I speak of is not new; it's essentially like a sound wave: atom-to-atom bumping until the last atom in a curved row strikes the inner ear. Light travels in a straight row, sound in a curved row; can you figure out why light goes straight?

I reason that it's due to the speed of the bumping. The faster the bump, the less a sideways motion occurs. A wave is motion of a particle, nothing more. Sound is sourced in a vibration i.e. moving atoms. If the forward motion is permitted to go sideways to any degree, then the wave spreads out as it goes forward rather than keeping to an arrow-straight path as light bumps do.

Earth gravity compresses the air and thus forms air pressure. Although gravity pulls air atoms only into one direction, yet air pressure acts in all directions equally because air atoms repel each other in all directions equally. In being compacted against the earth's surface by gravity, it takes work to move air atoms. A bird could not fly if it did not take work for its wings to move air atoms aside. It's the air atoms' slight resistance to motion that allows birds to fly, and this resistance to motion is what makes sound waves travel slower than instantly.

Electrons, on the other hand, which fill the atmosphere and the cosmos, are not compacted toward any surface so that they should offer resistance to motion. A bird in a sea purely of electrons, which defines a vacuum, cannot fly, because the electrons move out of the way of the wings without absorbing any of the work from the wings. For even if a piano weighed zero, it would move aside with a push of your finger, and your finger would feel no resistance. Electrons weigh zero because they are repelled by gravity. Weight is purely an effect of gravity force upon particles. As you run through the air, electrons move out of your way without your feeling them.

It takes work for a sound wave to pass through air that offers resistance to motion, and consequently, a sound wave is not instant. But if a wave passes though a medium having zero resistance to motion, then, as soon as one electron bumps an aether electron, the second one, and the third one, and the fourth one, etc., begins to move as soon as the first one moves. And so the light wave can act instantly from the first electron to whatever the wave strikes. A light wave is like a straight stick of electrons. As soon as the handle of the stick moves a quarter inch, all atoms in the stick move a quarter inch, and the tip of the stick starts to move as soon as the stick's handle starts to move. Instant effect, no time delay, faster than an effect at 186,000 mps.

If this is correct, then evolutionists don't want it because it makes starlight reach earth instantly, or almost so, but evolutionists need light speed to be much slower in order to boast of stars billions of years old. Two updates ago, when these sorts of topics were being explained, I gave a reason for the "slow" speed of light at 186,000 mps.

The problem for the evolutionists is that they need mirrors to test the speed of light, but that involves the bounce of the light stick into the atoms of the mirror, which predicts time delay because atoms are like cushions. Atoms are surrounded by hovering captured electrons that act as cushioning to the striking of light. The angle of the light striking the mirror determines the sort of bounce mechanics taking place. It takes time to compress the cushion, and more time to spring back from the cushioning to reflect the light back out from the mirror, and, to boot, some of the light's motion-energy stays in the mirror. That small time delay, with some loss of energy, predicts an erroneous light-speed test.

Yes, for speed in measured by distance divided by time. If a car moves 60 miles in two hours, it's velocity is 60 / 2 = 30 miles per hour. If light moves 60 miles in zero time, it moves instantly, but if it moves 60 miles in more than zero time, it will have a slower velocity. The bounce into the mirror, or the multiple bounces when more than one mirror is used, slows the light speed.

The idiots are so idiotic that they literally think a photon particle travels like a bullet, from A to B, at 186,000 mps. Only a person not thinking can believe such a thing, and if that's you, slap yourself. It is a shame that even Christians have come to believe it, but when light is viewed as a literal wave -- no particle-wave duality permitted -- light only acts as if it were a particle travelling at 186,000 mps. A stick moving one mile per hour acts faster than 186,000 mps because it acts instantly from end-to-end.

Do you have any idea of how fast 186,000 miles per second is? Could a piece of metal survive a crash at that speed without instant disintegration? Then how could an itty-bitty photon collide endlessly at that speed without even getting a broken leg, and without losing any speed? It's a cartoon, folks, you have been duped by the evolutionists' cartoons, one after the other, they have no end to them.

But even if light were defined by a photon particle, the people seeking light speed have no idea how much time delay there is when it strikes an electron in the mirror atom. It needs to strike the electron, then bounce off. They cannot measure the time delay involved, but it predicts light acting faster than 186,000 mps if there were no time delay.

Why have they never told you about this time delay? It's not as though it didn't occur to them that the delay should exist. Why do they tell you what "facts" to believe rather than allowing you to grapple with the many problems to their theories? Because, they want to brainwash you into big-bang-friendly "science." The big-bang got the photon travelling at such an enormous speed. It works for their big-bang, but the photon is ridiculously impossible.

There is some evidence that light is instant where all frequencies of light have been measured to travel at the same velocity. Huh? If they measure every frequency as going the same speed, then they all get slowed down by the mirror(s) and nothing more, meaning they ate go instantly apart from the mirror. If, for example, weaker red light were slower than stronger blue light, they would show different velocities after being bounced off of mirrors. But if weak light travels at the same speed as stronger light, it's only due to aether electrons offering no resistance to motion whether the light is weak or strong.

The true definition of light frequency is the number of electron emissions per unit time. That is, frequency is the number of waves per second, since one wave is the result of one electron emission. If you send weak electrical flow (e.g. 24 volts instead of 120 volts) through a light bulb's filament, there will be fewer electrons emitting from the filament per unit time, and so the red light that results is of lower frequency. Yet, if each emission travels instantly to a target whether the electrons are coming out more or less numerous per unit time, then all frequencies of light waves will be acting at the sane speed.

When the volts are increased when sending electrons through the filament, they have got to come out of the filament at greater speeds as well as more numerously per unit time, same as when a greater number of water molecules come out of a water hose at a faster speed too. The speed of the electron flow if predicted to determine specific frequency of light waves.

There is no such thing, as the stupids claim, of light frequency for one wave. A single wave does not travel with vibrational frequency; that's a retard's idea so obstinate that he refuses to see a light wave as a one going through a material medium. Only a fool claims that a light wave takes a snake-shaped path when there is clearly the alternative of light passing straight through the electron aether formed by the sun (and partly by the earth's heat source). Only an evil man rejects the latter wave for the former. The evil is in the motive for rejecting the conventional wave. The evil is where, above all else, science is abused and hijacked to fit big-bang needs. Abusing science to fit your pet theory is retarded. "Retard" means: they aren't using all the science, only whatever supports their case, in combination with inventing (= the abuse) some of it where needed.

Whenever they speak of solar flares, they always say that the sun sends "charged particles" toward earth. They know that electrons are these charged particles, but they don't want to popularize the electrons...that the sun emits constantly in massive numbers. Why not? Because the common people might arrive to the truth of what those electrons constitute, both heat and light, and then the people might start a rebellion against the establishment's long-standing retardations. I'd love to see a happy rebellion, especially if the retards are laughed into oblivion.

One needs to be a retard to claim that electrons orbit protons on the one hand, and to then say that magnets send electrons down a wire like water through a hose. How can orbiting electrons move atom-to-atom? Are you kidding me? Or, if they are orbiting at fantastic speeds, how can they all suddenly be made to flow along a wire in the same direction? Forget orbiting electrons, only an utter fool thinks such a thing is possible. Yes, I'm claiming that the establishment is filled with utter fools. I don't know of a better phrase to describe them...aside from "utterly stupid."

I'm not elevating myself above them. I'm just one who realized that they were falsifying the physics. It's they who are debasing themselves below me. I would never push the ideas they push because I'm not a fool. Perhaps you've simply not understood what exactly they are doing. Perhaps you've just trusted the educators without giving their ideas much thought.

If light barely penetrates the "skin" of most solid objects, how can photons get through a quarter-inch of glass or water? Are you kidding me? Both of those things constitute solid walls for a photon. What will the retards tell us, that the photon takes a winding path around all the atomic cores? Like it has built-in radar and a rutter too? Or that it bounces off all the atoms chaotically until finally it finds escape out the other side of the glass? That only happens as a cartoon; it's not reality. How can photons make a straight line through tens of miles of air atoms? There is not one opening for a photon to make a straight, unhindered line through one foot of air.

But as light is a wave through electrons, then it can flow around the perimeters of glass atoms, and air atoms too, and thus travel atom-to-atom through transparent materials. Yes, for the outer parts of all atoms are electrons, and so after they travel around the outskirts of an atom, they resume moving through the aether between atoms, until they strike another transparent atom, and so on. The only question is: what stops the light waves as they strike non-transparent materials?

I'd say a logical explanation for the sort of light reflection seen from mirrors, which glass possesses to a small degree, is from light energy striking protons at the surface of materials. That light reflection always DEFLECTS out of the surface at the angle that it comes in, same as a ball striking a wall at a 35 degree angle, then bouncing off at a 35-degree angle. It makes sense that the proton is like a concrete wall to light.

On the other hand, the light reflection that is color is when atomic electrons struck by lights waves are jiggled in their captured fields, and, unable to carry the wave around many atoms, they emit light waves back out in all directions at different strengths = different frequencies. If the light energy goes deeply into the material, the light coming back out as color will be weaker, apparently, for example when a material is black, unable to reflect visible light.

In my atomic model, metals have the smallest of all atoms, and as such they have the smallest electron atmospheres surrounding protons. Their electrons are therefore held on more tightly to the proton than the larger atoms like hydrogen and oxygen (found in glass), making it impossible for light waves to circle the protons in transparency, because the power of the proton ceases the bump-bump motion of light waves by its tighter hold on its electrons. Attraction force tends to still/cancel motion, we all know that.

As metals have the fewest captured electrons, they tend to deflect light out as mirrors, possibly because protons are very close to the metal surface, but more likely because, the smaller the atoms, the more protonic material there is per unit area of surface. Metal is just a better concrete wall to passage of light. The larger the atoms, the higher the number of captured electrons, per proton, in the material. The largest atoms are the ones that evolutionists claim are the smallest. Their table of atomic weights is backward. They have all the gas atoms, the transparent ones, as the smallest and lightest of all atoms.

I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that it's more difficult to compress hydrogen gas into a liquid than any other material. I make that suggestion because it's a fact that H atoms repel each other more than any other atoms. They repel each other more than any other atoms because they are the largest of all atoms. In being the largest, it has the largest electron atmosphere surrounding its central proton.

All atoms, of any kind, have only one proton at the cores, and all protons are different for each kind of atom, each proton having a different level of attraction force, and possibly they come in different shapes too. There can be no argument here, for the only way to explain the different sizes of atoms is by their specific power of positive charge. The greater the charge, the greater the loading of electrons. If all protons were the same, as the stupids claim, all atoms would be identical. Throw that idea into the trash like you should the orbiting electron.

The hydrogen proton has the strongest attraction, explaining why it has the largest electron atmosphere. The larger the atmosphere, the greater potential the atom has for inter-repulsion (with other atoms) when heat surrounds it. The greater the temperature in its midst, the greater the inter-repulsion of that atom, explaining why gases increase in pressure with increasing temperature. It means that heat lends negative charge to atoms, and this is due to heat being made of free electrons filling all of space, and thus surrounding all atoms.

So, the larger the electron atmosphere of an atom, the greater the number of free-electron heat it can take in, and thus the greater the negativity that atom can take on. This is what I mean by, "the larger the atmosphere, the greater potential the atom has for inter-repulsion." The larger the atom, the larger its perimeter, and consequently it is squeezed by more free-electron heat that surrounds it. Heat squeezes into the atom from all around it. The greater the squeeze force (at higher temperatures), and the greater the number of free electrons partaking in the squeeze, the more negative charge the atom adopts.

When the hydrogen atom is free in the air, it rises further and faster than any other atom precisely because it's the largest of all atoms. That's because there is a flow of upward free electrons at all times as gravity force repels them into outer space. You cannot receive the concept of negative gravity force without also claiming that gravity repels electrons into outer space. And this is why heat rises, always. You cannot find one instance where heat does not rise, even in a vacuum, even in a solid object whether it's immersed or not in a gas.

The larger the atom, the greater lift power it receives from underneath as free electrons bump it upward. It's as simple as that. Gravity arranges for all atoms of any kind to weigh the same. See explanation in my 4th update of this past August (link at top-left of this page). Once you agree that all atoms weigh the same, you have no choice but to view a water molecule as an HO8 molecule, not n H2O. Or, you can call it an O8H, as I do in the 4th update of this past August, where you can find the explanation for it.

All Atoms Weigh the Same

Watch this kiddy-quality video starting at about 2:00 minutes, then wait for the stupid man to say something, the one who doesn't think for himself, but only repeats what the bigger stupids taught him. He says:

While the heavier ball has the greater inertia, and so resists change in its motion more than the lighter one, the increased gravitational force on the ball exactly compensates for this greater inertia. The result is that both balls, despite their different masses and inertias, accelerate towards the Earth at the same rate.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgqJ5wQF944

If this is a kid's show, he's way over their heads because I can't understand what he's talking about with "exactly compensates." Nor does he explain what he's talking about. How can that phrase make any sense when inertia has nothing to do with the fact that the balls hit the ground at the same speed? This is just another trick of the evolutionists in an attempt to explain what their atomic model cannot. It's a trick to say that a heavier ball is under "increased gravitational force." The fact is, gravity is acting with the same level of force on both balls, yet the heavier one falls with more power because more atoms are falling. The number of atoms in the ball doesn't change the speed of fall.

The heavier ball would definitely fall faster if gravity were attracting it as a single unit rather than attracting its atoms. It doesn't matter how many atoms are in either ball, they both fall at the same acceleration because gravity pulls all the atoms with the same force. It doesn't matter whether the atoms are attached to one another to form a ball, or separated from each other, they are all pulled with the same force regardless.

Let me re-phrase: gravity would pull atom A faster than atom B if atom A weighs more than B. This fact is the evolutionist's nightmare, and so he doesn't want you to realize its implications. If gravity were pulling a ball as if it were a single unit like an atom, then a heavier ball would fall faster than a lighter ball, absolutely. But gravity attracts all atoms equally so that the all balls fall with equal velocities in a vacuum.

The definition of an atom weighing more than another is gravity attracting it with more force. If atoms have different weights, then objects of different materials would fall at different accelerations. That's why this is the evolutionist's nightmare: they don't.

It's like having ten identical elastic bands stretched out and tied to a nail each. Then, beside them, there are 100 of the same elastic bands tied to a nail each. All 110 nails will be pulled by the elastics at the same speed. It doesn't matter that there are only ten on the one side, and 100 on the other. If we attached the ten nails with some welding to form a "ball", and then attached the 100 nails with welding to form a heavier ball, the elastics would pull the package of ten nails at just the same speed as the package of 100 nails. The 100 nails don't get pulled faster due to moving with more total power when pulled. The 100-nail package will do more damage as it hits the evolutionist's arse, but that's the only difference between the two scenarios.

What I'm saying here should be an obvious conclusion of the evolutionists, but they cannot adopt such an idea because it destroys the big bang...because, they witness with their own eyes that any metal object falls as fast as any plastic or rubber object, meaning that ALL atoms, of any type, are pulled by gravity with the same force. And that translates to: all atoms weigh the same.

They can't have all atoms weighing the same, or their entire atomic model goes to the trash, and they need that model, which they have carefully framed for themselves, to push cosmic evolution. It's just that simple.

Nobody in the comments section of the video talks about the key find of this experiment. Instead, they talk about air drag. That's not the point. That's the magician making you look left so that you don't see what trick he's pulling on the right.

If a ball falls as fast as a feather in a vacuum, then gravity is pulling something, in both cases, with the SAME force. It's a trick to say that gravity is pulling the heavier ball with more force. Gravity is pulling both with the same force, but the heavier ball falls with more power.

I'd like to hammer this home by adding that an electromagnet pulling a piece of steel with x force will pull it slower than when pulling the same piece of steel with a force greater than x. It should be obvious to anyone that this is a factual statement. The stronger the pull, the faster the pulled object moves. But this is not what we see from gravity, and the evolutionist exposes himself as a science-lunatic when trying to explain it any other way but as: every atom weighs the same. There is no other explanation. The only thing going on is gravity attracting the atoms. Inertia has nothing to do with the speed of fall. They are trying to trick you into thinking that there's something going on too hard for you to grasp, and they want only that you trust their "superior" smarts.

The great thing about all atoms weighing the same is that one can arrive to the relative areas of the cross-sections of atoms if one can correctly find how many atoms are in any molecules. By cross-section, I mean the total area of the atom's underside by which it receives lift from heat. For example, a water molecule, O8H, has eight O atoms and one H atom merged together for a total nine atoms. You will thus have the big-fat H atom in the center, surrounded by eight O atoms slightly merged into it.

The cross-section of a sphere is four times larger when the diameter is twice as large, and is calculated with: radius x radius x 3.14 (it gets the area of a circle).

It's known that water gas weighs nine times more than hydrogen (at STP), explained by the O8H molecule having nine atoms all weighing the same. Yes, the larger H atom weighs the same as an O atom...because weight is formed from specific mass s the stupids think, but is from the specific attraction force between gravity and atoms. It doesn't matter how much mass the atom has, gravity arranges them all to have the same attraction force toward itself. Get out of your head the wrong idea that mass is synonymous with, or proportional to, gravity force.

Okay, so water molecules weigh nine times more than H atoms, and nine times more than O atoms. We want to know why water molecules get lift into the sky to the height of cloud formation, but no higher. Then, in the cool evening, water molecules come down to earth as dew. It gives the impression that water molecules are nearly balanced in the conflict between upward electrons and the downward pull of gravity. At 80F, the water rises nicely, but by about 50F, it sinks back to earth. It's because the upward bumps from rising heat particles diminishes in the cool air of night, because temperature is defined as free-electron density in the air. The less dense, the colder the environment. It's not as though you can't understand this. When the upward lift diminishes, gravity attraction becomes the boss again upon the water molecule.

We can glean that water molecules, at 80F, get more lift than O atoms at 80F because, if we release pure oxygen at 80F into the air at 80F, the prediction is that it'll spread out in all directions rather than getting upward lift. Therefore, there is no net-upward lift on any air atoms, whether oxygen or nitrogen. Rather, gravity has the upper hand, pulling air atoms down as far as it can get them, and the only thing keeping air atoms apart is the heat in their midst causing them to inter-repel.

So what's the point? The point is that, if a water molecule had exactly nine times the cross-sectional area as compared to an O atom, both would receive the same lift power because the O atom is nine times lighter. That is, with O having a weight of one atom as compared to the water molecule having a weight of nine atoms, both would get the same net-lift power, at any temperature, because the molecule is nine times larger. However, as O atoms receive insufficient lift to counter gravity whether at 80F or 50F, while water molecules do get sufficient lift to counter gravity, at some point between 50F and 80F, it stands that the cross section of the water molecule, the O8H, is larger than nine times that of the O's cross section.

Once a scientist understands this principle, he can find the relative cross sections of all molecules, if he knows what a molecule looks like, but he absolutely does not know what molecules look like so long as he holds to the current atomic-weight model.

My model gives us a hint as to how large the H atom is, in comparison to an O atom, if one just ponders what an O8H looks like. It probably has the O atoms evenly spaced around the one H atom, for as the O atoms repel each other, they will take equa-distance from one another, while saddled onto the H atom. If there is a way to measure the lift force of the O atom, at any given temperature, as compared to the lift force of the H atom, that while give the scientist the relative cross-section sizes of both atoms. If H atoms receive six times more lift, it's got to be because H atoms are six times larger on their undersides, for both atoms weigh the same.

Instead of rising in air, propane gas sinks to the floor, suggesting that the propane molecule cannot be a C3H8 molecule, as claimed, for while that weighs only 11 atoms, it has a giant size due to eight giant H atoms merged together, and thus it expects much more lift than a much-smaller water molecule weighing in at 9 atoms. Therefore, however they arrived to describing a propane molecule having three C atoms merged with 8 H atoms, it's wrong. What they themselves mean by that is that three volumes of carbon gas mixes with eight equal volumes of hydrogen gas to produce propane, but, so far as I know, it's impossible to make a carbon gas, for carbon always becomes an oxide when burned.

If we look at a carbon monoxide atom, which they say is a CO molecule, what they mean is that one volume of oxygen mixes with one volume of carbon gas to produce carbon monoxide. BUT, how do they really know, if indeed carbon gas cannot be made? What they do know is that carbon monoxide gas weighs 28 versus 16 for oxygen, and then they therefore claim that carbon gas weighs 12. So, 16 + 12 = 28. That's how they do it. It appears correct to me. They are saying that a volume of carbon gas would mix with an equal volume of O gas to produce wherein the atoms of both gases are ALL used up in making the carbon-monoxide gas.

In my model, with the oxide gas weighing 28 versus 16 for oxygen, there are 28 carbon monoxide atoms per every 16 oxygen atoms in equal volumes of gas at STP. In their model, there are identical numbers of CO molecules versus O atoms, but the CO molecules weigh more than O atoms by a margin of 28 versus 16. Their problem becomes apparent with this google offering: "In fact, carbon monoxide is slightly lighter than air and diffuses evenly throughout the room." Say what? How can carbon monoxide, with a weight of 28, be lighter than air at 16?

Now you know part of the reason that the goofs invented the O atom's "diatomic" nature, defined as two O atoms joined in order to give oxygen gas a weight of 32 as compared to carbon monoxide's 28. They do this because 16 versus 28 does not conform to their atomic model, but it's perfectly fine with my model.

Carbon monoxide gas weighs almost twice as much as oxygen, but it's not true at all that the carbon-monoxide molecule weighs close to what the O atom weighs just because both gases mix fairly evenly, with the carbon monoxide neither going up nor down in the air. The thing they lack in their model is the upward lift on all gas particles from rising electrons.

In my model, where 16 O atoms merge with 12 C atoms, the carbon-monoxide molecule conforms to an O4C3 molecule. Every four O atoms merges with every three C atoms. Of, if we assume that the monoxide has 8 O atoms per every 20 C atoms, the smallest-possible molecule becomes O2C5, which, like O4C3, has seven atoms weighing seven times more than the O atom. If the monoxide molecule receives about the same lift as an O atom, it predicts that the molecule has a bottom seven times larger than the O atom. That's how my model works, at least at its present development (which isn't much), and it's something to look into for those who have the data sheets to test it.

As carbon monoxide "floats" in air roughly the same as water molecules do, neither having a strong propensity to move upward or downward, it stands to reason that the carbon-monoxide molecule has a smaller bottom than the slightly-heavier water molecule weighing nine atoms. The water molecule weighs slightly more, but gets slightly more lift from its larger size. That's how my model works, and it does seem to work well. It should work perfectly if it's correct.

If someone has the data sheets comparing the upward lift force of different gas atoms, that alone should reveal the relative sizes of the atoms / molecules. The upward lift force cannot be measured by placing gases into balloons, for that lift is a different sort from buoyancy. The upward force needs to be measured with free gases outside of balloons. I don't know how anyone would measure the lift force of free gases in free air.

As hydrogen gas at STP has 16 times fewer atoms than oxygen gas at STP, it suggests that H atoms have 16 times as much repulsion force, because STP has the gases at the same pressure while pressure is due to inter-repulsion. How much larger does the H atom need to be to apply 16 times more repulsion force when both gases are at the same temperature?

What's a Carbon Monoxide Molecule?

When particles are 8 times fewer, they are 2 times as far apart. When there are 8 x 8 = 64 times fewer, they are 4 times further apart. Therefore, any space with 16 times fewer H atoms than O atoms must see the H atoms between 2 and 3 times further apart (center-to-center) than the O atoms, at STP. This a super start for checking out whether my model is correct, and whether their model is incorrect.

As 16 is one 1/8th the way between 8 and 64 while 8 corresponds to 2 times as far apart, I think it reveals that H atoms are about 2.25 times FURTHER APART than O atoms...because .25 is 1/8th the way between 2 and 4. In reverse, O atoms are 2.25 times NEARER to one another, in their container, than the H atoms are in their container.

When envisioning the two gases at STP, just view 16 O atoms taking up as much space as 1 H atom takes up. Both the O and H atoms exert the same repulsion force, but only because the O atoms are much closer to one another. In order to get atoms 8 times more dense, the volume of a gas needs to be reduced by 8 times, at which time atoms are 2.0 times closer together. Reducing the gas volume by 64 times gets the atoms repelling 64 times more, at which time the atoms are 4.0 times closer together. Therefore, we can glean that, when atoms are about 2.25 times closer together, they would repel with 16 times less repulsion force. Therefore, as a postulated fact, H atoms are about 2.25 times further apart, at STP, than O atoms.

Where O and H atoms have the same level of repulsion force when O atoms are 2.25 times closer to one another than H atoms, it works out that the latter have 16 times more repulsion than O atoms if H atoms were as far apart as O atoms are in their STP gas. I don't say that as a theory, but as a postulated fact.

Atoms are magnetic particles. When a magnet is twice as close to a steel nail, there is four times the attraction. But when a magnet is twice as close to another magnet, both the attraction or repulsion between them will be twice as much as four times, or eight times, because both put forth magnetic force, whereas the nail is a non-magnet. That's why I'm saying above that, when atoms are twice as close, they exert 8 times the repulsion toward one another. It follows that, when atoms are 4 times further apart, they exert 8 x 8 = 64 times the repulsion force. Therefore, we can see that, in order to express 16 times the force, they need to be slightly more than 2 times further apart. I'm working with 2.25.

Find "10-inch" in the 2nd update of this month to learn a means for revealing that atoms are twice as close when a volume of gas is cut by 8 times. It's known that a gas will have 8 times the gas pressure when it's volume is cut by 8 times, and that happily matches the claim here that atoms inter-repel with 8 times more force when they are 2 times closer together.

Evolutionists give the carbon-monoxide molecule an atomic weight of 28 because they view it as a CO molecule while they give the carbon atom an atomic weight of 12 versus 16 for the O atom. The problem is, carbon monoxide is not CO. I don't know how evolutionists arrive to an atomic weight of 12 for the C atom. Perhaps it has to do indirectly with H gas weighing 12.67 times less than carbon monoxide gas.

The thing I can glean from their system is that a theoretical carbon gas would weigh more in the range of 6 times that of hydrogen gas, partly because they assign the H atom with the atomic weight of 1 (12 times more than the carbon atom), and partly because they have a diatomic H atom. That is, there are twice as many atoms in their view of an H gas as compared to their view of a theoretical carbon gas, and that gives the H "atom" an atomic weight of 2. It translates to a carbon gas being 6 times heavier than H gas, though I'm not sure whether this is a correct view because I'm not sure that 12 is the correct number for carbon. I don't know how they get 12, and so I can't assess it.

What has me confused is that they claim a density of 1.14 kg/m³ for carbon monoxide gas, as compared to .09 kg/m³ for H gas, a difference of 12.67 times. On the other hand, they give H gas an atomic weight of 1 g/mol while giving carbon monoxide gas is given an atomic weight of 28 g/mol, a difference of 28. I stay clear of their word, mol.

They give water a "molecular weight" of 18 g/mol even though it weighs only 9 times as much as H gas. They should therefore give water a molecular weight of 9, but as they want to have a diatomic H atom, they double it to 18. And for H2O2, they give it a molecular weight of 36 g/mol when in fact H2O2 gas is only 18 times heavier than H gas. They lay booby traps for scientists in this way.

Even if we entertain their diatomic H atom to grant H gas an atomic weight of 2, that's still a difference in weight of 14 times between the two gases while the experimental fact claims a difference of 12.67. Where they have fatal flaws in these sorts of things, I doubt they would announce it to the public / students.

The best thing to do is stick to experimental facts. As they say that carbon-monoxide gas weighs 12.67 times more than hydrogen gas, the carbon-monoxide molecule should be assigned an atomic weight of 12.67 where the H atom is assigned, 1. Yet they give the carbon atom alone an atomic weight of 12. That seems wrong for certain.

We can try assigning the carbon gas a weight of 4, 5 or even 8 times more than H gas. In using 4 or 5, two volumes of a theoretical carbon gas mixes with one near-equal volume of an O gas to produce a weight of 12.67 times more than an H gas.

Oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than an H gas, and so we can see that a weight 12.67 is roughly expected where 2 C atoms merge with one O atom. That is, where carbon gas weighs 4 or 5, a mix of it with O gas can produce either 8 or 10 C atoms merging with 16 O atoms. It works well with the weight of 12.67 because it's almost midway between the weights of 8 and 16, or 10 and 16. If two volumes of C were mixing with an EQUAL volume of O, then the weight for the monoxide gas should be a perfect 12, but as it's 12.67, there must be a little less volume of gas for the one type versus the other in creating the monoxide.

We now have the difficult question of: what exactly does a carbon-monoxide molecule look like? One option is an O2C molecule, which is what we get with a C gas weighing 4, and where two volumes of C gas mix with one volume of O gas to produce carbon monoxide. Or, we would get an O16C10 or O8C5 molecule with a C gas weighing 5, and where two volumes of C gas mix with one volume of O gas to produce the monoxide.

If only one volume of carbon gas were to merge with two of O gas to form the monoxide, the final weight would be far more than 12.67, especially if we assign the C atom an atomic weight of 12, as they do. If one volume of carbon gas (assuming the numbers 4 or 5) were to merge with one of O gas to form the monoxide, then the weight of the monoxide would be midway between 16 and 4 or 5, but that's not correct. I'm just showing you how this can be done with trial and error, using feasible gas mixes to produce various molecular candidates.

The trick is to find how many molecules of the monoxide there are, in its gas, as compared to the number of O atoms in its gas. The STP weight of oxygen gas is 1.43 kg/m³, compared to 1.14 kg/m³ for the monoxide, a difference of 1.25 times. That is, the O gas weighs 1.25 times the monoxide gas, or the monoxide weighs .8 of the O gas. I don't think there's anything in these numbers to tell us how far apart the monoxide molecules are, but it would help if we knew what the molecule looked like, whether an O2C or O8C5.

Carbon DIoxide is made from the monoxide with a second volume of O gas in the mix, as compared to one O volume for making carbon monoxide. As far as I can see, the density of both gases need to be identical. The only difference is that the dioxide molecule has more atoms and thus weighs more per unit volume of gas. The dioxide weighs about 1.97 kg/m³ at STP, which is 1.73 times the weight of the monoxide, meaning that the monoxide has 73-percent more weight from the extra O volume. These are the experimental facts to grapple with in trying to find what the two molecules look like.

It's probably deceptive to conclude that the monoxide is 73-percent O and 27-percent C, the latter being .31 kg/m³ of the 1.14. Merger of atoms involves loss of atomic material, and we don't know how much O material was lost in making the monoxide versus what O material was lost when making the dioxide.

That .31 figure is obtained again when we first minus 1.41 from 1.97 to find that .83 of extra O is added to make the dioxide, and so we then minus .83 from 1.14 to get .31, suggesting that 83 parts O ends up mixed with 31 parts C to make the monoxide, though this 83/31 ratio is not likely the one expressing how much of the two gases were started with to produce the monoxide. This ratio of 83/31, a difference of 2.7 times, is the end product, not recognizing the loss of atomic material during the mergers of O with C.

That is, the final ratio does not tell us what the ratio of the two gases were prior to combustion into the monoxide. Combustion involves loss of electrons from both atoms in the combustion process. Loss of electrons can make some of the atoms heavier because gravity gets a bigger attractive bite into atoms when they lose electrons. But for the genius who still has a working mind (mine's disappearing), I present these numbers with a new way of understanding the atom. Enjoy the tackle.

Another way to make a carbon-monoxide molecule is where a theoretical C gas weighs 8 times more than an H gas, meaning that there are 8 times as many C atoms in its gas than H atoms in its gas. This C gas then has half as many atoms as the 16 in O gas, wherefore the monoxide molecule formed, when one volume of C gas is mixed with one of O, is an O2C1, or O2C for short. This mix of 8 atoms with 16 will weigh midway between 8 and 16 to satisfy the true weight of carbon monoxide known to be 12.67 times that of H gas.

When one volume of C having 8 atoms merges with one of O having 16 atoms, the molecule becomes an O2C1 molecule, of O2C for short. We saw this molecule above with two volumes of C gas mixing with one of O gas, but where the C gas weighs only 4 times as much as hydrogen. Let's go forward assuming that the C gas has a weight of 8, meaning 8 times more C atoms at STP as compared to H gas at STP.

To make the density of a gas 8 times greater, it needs to be cut in half three times, and by doing so the atoms repel 8 times stronger then. C atoms with a weight of 8 therefore repel with 8 times less force than the H atoms if both sets of atoms were at the same spacing. The thing to remember is: at STP (i.e. same gas pressure), all atoms and molecules have the same repulsion force; the only difference is their spacing.

We just saw that repulsion force is proportional to atomic density. Where there are eight times as many atoms, there is 8 times as much repulsion. As there are 2 times more O atoms at STP than the proposed C atom, the latter must have twice the repulsion of O atoms...because both atoms at STP have the same repulsion while we need to double the density of C atoms to match the density of O atoms at STP.

If I theorize that repulsion force is proportional to atomic volume, then, in order for the C atom to have 8 times the repulsion of the H atom, it needs 8 times the volume too. In that case, the C atom is 2 times more voluminous than the O atom in order to have twice the repulsion. Consequently, the H atoms is 16 times more voluminous than the O atom...which is the diameter of 2.5 inches arrived to above. The C atom then has a diameter of 1.25 inches because that amounts to 8 times less volume than a 2.5-inch sphere. A sphere 1.25 inches wide has twice the volume of a one-inch sphere that represents the O atom. Try to remember that repulsion force is not proportional to atomic diameters, but likely is proportional to atomic volumes.

If we go through the exercises above with a carbon-monoxide gas having a weight of 4 instead of 8, changing the numbers accordingly, but with two volumes of gas mixing with one of O gas, we arrive to the same 2.5 versus 1.25 versus 1 sizes above.

With the C atom having 2 times the repulsion force at STP, it MUST have a spacing of 1.57 times further apart than the O atoms at STP. This spacing can be shown below.

Here we go, get your headache medicine out. When a gas is compressed to half its size, the atoms repel with twice the force. When the gas is cut in half a second time, the atoms repel with 4 times the force. When a gas is compressed for the third time, the atoms are TWICE AS CLOSE (repel with 8 times the force). They don't come 1/3 as close on every cutting of the gas just because we cut it three times. Instead, the atoms near each other much more in the first cut than in the second or third cut, because the first cut reduced the gas volume by 50-percent; the second cut reduced it by only 25-percent; the last cut reduced it by only 12.5-percent.

There's a small difference between the whole gas volume and the total amount that was cut; the latter is .875 of the total volume. I've done the math. The first cut amounts to about 57-percent of the total cut; the second cut is 28.5-percent (half of 57-percent) of the total cut, and the third cut is 14.25-percent (a quarter of 57-percent), for a total cut of 57 + 28.5 + 14.25 = 100-percent.

Therefore, after the first cut, the atoms near each other by 57-percent of twice-as-close, which can be expressed as 1.57 times as close. That's why I said above, "With the C atom having 2 times the repulsion force at STP, it MUST have a spacing of 1.57 times further apart than the O atoms at STP." After the second cut, they are: 1.57 + .285 = 1.855 times as close, and after the third cut they are: 1.57 + 28.5 + 14.25 = 2 times as close. This is important math when needed, and should be an integral part of every atomic physicist's handbook. Cutting the gas three times in half to get atoms twice as close makes the atoms repel with 8 times the force. As the H atoms has 8 times more repulsion than the proposed C atom under discussion, H atoms are twice as far apart as C atoms.

So, C atoms at 1.25 inches wide are 1.57 times further apart than O atoms, and H atoms at 2.5 inches wide are 2.0 times further apart than C atoms. These numbers change if the carbon atoms weighs 4 instead of 8. I've shown that H atoms are about 2.25 times further apart than O atoms. We just don't know the distance between any of these atoms.

If the carbon atoms weighs 4 instead of 8, C atoms are spaced 1.855 times further apart than O atoms, and H atoms are then 1.855 more spaced out than C atoms. I'm just showing how the math can be applied by the genius who wants to tackle what I don't have time to tackle. I've been trying to discover the look of the carbon monoxide and dioxide, off-and-on for years, but have been stumped. If one can get it correct, a slew of key revelations about other others can likely be had.

My thinking has been that repulsion force increases with size of the atom / molecule because larger particles can load with more free electrons = heat. It's heat that makes atomic particles repel one another. At STP, the temperature is the same for all gases, and so I'm claiming that the H atom has more repulsion force at STP because it's larger than the monoxide molecule and O atom. I'm claiming that the monoxide molecule has more repulsion force at STP than the O atom because it's larger than the O atom.

If only 8 oxygen atoms can squeeze all around an H atom to form a water molecule (O8H), it seems that 8 atoms 1-inch in diameter would fit about right on an H atom 2.5 inches in diameter. A 2.5-inch sphere has an equator of 2.5 x 3.14 = 7.85 inches long, which can almost squeeze 8 one-inch O atoms upon it all touching one another, yet as atoms inter-repel, the O atoms will take equa-distance while merged into the one and giant H atom.

What I'm trying to show is that the H atom is probably not smaller than 2.5 times wider than the O atom. The logic is that, while a 9th O atom may physically fit onto it, the additional repulsion force that a 9th lends to the whole of the 8 doesn't allow it to stay in the H atom even if some force casts it into it. The 9th is pushed away by the repulsion of the 8.

What they call H2O2, hydrogen peroxide, loads double the compliment of O atoms as compared to the water molecule, meaning that this peroxide has an O16H molecule, and as such, it seems that 8 O atoms get merged into the original 8 (one O atom per one O atom) that form the water molecule.

While the eight O atoms can easily fit fully into the 2.5-inch ball, I doubt very much that they are fully immersed into an H atom. If one could find the upward lift power of H atoms versus water molecules, it could reveal the volume of a water molecule, and from that one could find how deeply merged the O atoms are into the H atom.

With the new-found idea that atomic volume is proportional to repulsion force, and with carbon monoxide gas weighing 12.67 times more than H gas, it follows that the monoxide molecules should exert 12.67 times less repulsion force than H atoms, and 16 / 12.67 = 1.26 times more repulsion than O atoms. I wish I could say that the monoxide molecule therefore has 12.67 times less volume as the H atom = 5.3 cubic inches), or that it has 1.26 times more volume than an O atom, but this is not likely the case because I think repulsion-volume proportionality is expected only with atom-to-atom comparisons, not when comparing atoms with molecules.

If the monoxide molecule having three atoms is only 1.26 times more voluminous than the O atom, then the atoms that make up the molecule must be deeply merged, and therefore deeply shrunk in size. Atomic mergers always shrink atomic sizes, a thing evolutionists do not acknowledge.

Molecules weigh more than atoms, allowing gravity to bring them more-closer together than gravity brings single atoms closer together. That's going to make molecules appear to have less repulsion force than they actually do. A molecule having 8 atoms merged will get 8 times the gravity force applied as compared to single atoms, which MIGHT (I haven't given this any thought) force the molecules twice as close together (when the comparison is at the temperature).

Although one might think that carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide gases should have the same density because the monoxide makes the dioxide with an extra compliment of O atoms, it's probably not true. That is, they don't likely have the same spacing between molecules at STP first because the dioxide molecules weigh more, and will therefore be pulled closer together by gravity. Secondly, having a larger size, the dioxide molecules are expected to repel more.

The evolutionist expects the dioxide gas to weigh less than 1.5 times more than monoxide gas, because he views them as CO2 and CO respectively (i.e. 3 atoms versus 2), and he also sees them with the same spacing at STP. Yet the dioxide weighs 1.73 times more than the monoxide.

Let's entertain what some math found above, that the monoxide molecule with a volume 1.26 times that of the O atom, which is 4.19 x 1.26 = 5.27 cubic inches. That's a ball just 1.07 inches wide, same basic width as an O atom, and so that cannot be correct where at least two O atoms merge with one C atom. It exposes that molecular volume is NOT proportional to repulsion force, no matter how many atoms were we decide to see in the makings of a monoxide molecule.

Atomic volume is not the only factor in play when forming repulsion force. A cluster of metal atoms the full size of an H atom will not receive anywhere near as much repulsion force as the H atom. Can you spot why not? It has to do with the ability of atoms to receive compaction by heat, and metal atoms are lousy for this.

Repulsion force is added to atoms as heat compresses in upon them, but the perimeters of metal atoms do not absorb as much repulsion as the perimeters of H atoms when both are immersed into the same temperature, nor will they climb in repulsion-force levels equally as the temperature is increased around them. If we assume that the up-scaled 2.5-inch H atom above has a proton one inch in diameter, then its electron atmosphere has a greater depth, as well as a greater surface area, into which heat can compress, as compared to a metal atom a quarter-inch in diameter. So, the H atom gets far more heat invasion, and therefore far more repulsion force.

While it's got to be true that, the smaller the atom, the less repulsion force it adopts, it's not strictly by that rule when it comes to a molecule, for its ability to receive repulsion force is from whatever type of atom its made of i.e. molecule size is not all that matters, for we need to need to figure-in the depth/compressibility of the atoms that make up the molecule.

Both the volume and surface area of a sphere are 8 times smaller when it's cut to half its diameter. I'm claiming a heat invasion of 8 times less, and therefore a decreased adoption of repulsion force by 8 times. But this applies to individual atoms, not molecules, that are half the size of others. This eight-fold number can change to other numbers when molecules are half or twice as large as an atom.

I'm proposing that there are two things contributing to the acquisition or loss of repulsion force: 1) the surface area of the atom/molecule, and, 2) the volume of the atoms. Total molecular volume is not what we want to count, but we only involve the volume of the outer atoms that make up the molecule, which are the atoms receiving the heat squeeze. When the surface area of an atom is half the surface area of another atom, I'm proposing that the repulsion force is less by 4 times. And when the volume of one atom is half that of another atom, the repulsion force goes down 4 times too, for a total of 8 times. That is, if both the surface area and the volume are half as much (as in another atom), the repulsion will decrease by 8 times. This is what I'm bringing to the table. If this is correct, then the molecule gets 4 times as much repulsion when it's got twice the surface area of a lone atom, but less than 8 times due to its atoms have shallower depths than the lone atom being compared with.

As the monoxide molecule under proposal has 2 oxygen atoms merged with 1 carbon atom the latter is twice as voluminous as the oxygen atom, that looks like a monoxide total of about 4 times greater volume than 1 oxygen atom, though that's prior to merger into the molecule. As the H atom was resolved at 16 times more volume than the O atom, and 16 times more repulsion force too, a monoxide molecule having only 4 times the volume of the O atom would have a MAXIMUM weight of 12 because H gas has the weight of 1 while O gas has the weight of 16, and indeed the monoxide does weigh 12.67. However, 12 applies only if the 3 atoms of the molecule are left unmerged. But, if they merge by a small volume, perhaps it explains the weight 12.67 instead of the perfect 12 expected by unmerged atoms.

Yes, for if merger makes the molecule less repulsive due to a smaller volume, a O2C gas will have a weight veering toward the 16, not lower than the maximum of 12.

When they are merged, they lose volume as compared to the fullness of their individual atoms prior to merger. Therefore, if the monoxide molecule has deeply-merged atoms, it may have more than 3 atoms, and cannot then be an O2C molecule. The latter was formed when one volume of C gas reacts / combines with one volume of O gas where the theoretical C gas weighs 8 times more than H gas. But we can propose two volumes of O gas in the mix to produce an O4C molecule instead of the O2C. We now have 5 atoms in the molecule.

An O2C molecule, prior to merger, has a total volume of: (4 x 4.19) + (4.19 x 2) = 25.1 cubic inches, or six times the volume of 1 O atom. That math is where the O atom, at 1-inch wide, has a volume of 4.19 cubic inches, and where the C atom has twice the volume of the O atom. Where carbon DIoxide ("di" means "double") has an extra volume of oxygen gas as compared to carbon monoxide, it becomes an O4C molecule when the monoxide is an O2C. As the O4C weighs 5 as compared to the 3 weight of O2C, the difference is 1.67 times when the atoms are unmerged. Repeat: "The dioxide weighs about 1.97 kg/m³ at STP, which is 1.73 times the weight of the monoxide." The weight thus goes up from 1.67 times to 1.73, in the comparison of the weights of the two gases i.e. for when their atoms are merged. It's making sense, though I wish it were not so complicated.

If we assume that the 2.5-inch H atom has a proton one inch in diameter, then its electron atmosphere (has hovering electrons) is 1.5-inch deep. That's going to make a better cushion into which heat can invade as compared to a metal atom having a proton a quarter-inch wide, and an electron atmosphere a quarter-inch deep. So, the H atom gets far more heat-invasion squeezing, and therefore far more repulsion force is adopted by that ability to be squeezed inward. This is the importance of atomic volume when it comes to how much repulsion force it can receive or lose during temperature changes.

Of course, the atoms might not be spherical in shape. One could say that, since we don't know their shapes, neither can we know their volumes. On the other hand, known gas pressures are directly due to specific repulsion forces within the gas, and one can possibly discover a pattern that allows one to find atomic volumes of all/many atoms/molecules by their specific gas pressures. I don't have the time nor tools to do this. Be my guest if you are up to the challenge, though serving Jesus would be a better expression of your time and energy.

Atoms shrink because they merge in the combustion process. The atoms shrink while forming the molecules. The molecule doesn't shrink; the atoms shrink to determine the final size of the molecule at the end of the shrinking/merger process (probably happens in the blink of an eye).

Distances Between Atoms

A way to measure the distances between atoms is to have a data sheet telling how much gas compression is needed to form liquid droplets. In my model, liquid cannot form unless gas atoms are brought into contact. At the moment of the first-formed liquid atoms, during mechanical compression, the atoms have been brought into contact. If this takes place after compressing a gas to 1/8th its original volume, then the centers of the atoms were two diameters apart prior to compression, because compression to 1/8th volume brings the centers of the atoms twice as close. Two identical spheres make contact at their edges when their centers one diameter apart.

If most or all gases need more than compression to 1/8 the gas volume to form liquid droplets, then most gas atoms are more than two diameters apart c-to-c. This is an exciting topic for me because my model can be proven true if it can predict the relative distances between all gas atoms at all temperatures.

Physics talks about "critical temperature," probably not the best name for what they mean. It should be called the equal attraction-repulsion point. It's the temperature above which a gas cannot form a proper liquid during mechanical compression. The liquid can be formed, but as soon as the mechanical compression is released, the liquid disintegrates instantly (not the same as evaporating away). That's because, above the critical temperature, atoms have sufficient heat in their midst to repel each other away in spite of the attractive forces that set in when they make contact. But once the temperature is below the critical point, the attraction between atoms is greater than their repulsion, and thus the liquid remains a normal one after mechanical compression is released.

Online: "That's because oxygen, no matter how much you compress it, cannot be liquified above a temperature of -119 degrees Celsius (-182 degrees Fahrenheit). At its critical temperature [182F], a pressure of 49.2 atmospheres is required to liquify oxygen." Others report 49.7 atmospheres. sort of thing might possibly help one to discover how far apart the O atoms are at that cold temperature.

If interested, see "compress" in the 2nd update of this month for an explanation as to why a gas needs to be compressed to 1/8th (8 atmospheres) normal atmospheric pressure to get their atoms twice as close, center-to-center.

When the outer edges of atoms are 1 diameter apart, the atoms are 2 diameters apart center-to-center. When they are brought twice as close, their edges make contact. When atomic edges are 3 diameters apart, they are 4 diameters apart center-to-center. In order to bring them into contact when 4 diameters apart, the gas needs to be compressed 8 x 8 = 64 times, which is 64 atmospheres of pressure. As oxygen gas at -182 F forms a liquid by the time 49.7 atmospheres are applied, the atoms must be less than four diameters apart prior to compression at that temperature.

The quote doesn't tell us when liquid droplets begin to appear during mechanical compression. I assume it means that, at 49.7 atmospheres of pressure, the gas is fully liquid under the piston. When a gas is compressed, only tiny liquid droplets begin to appear, at first, on the container walls. Further compression makes the droplets grow larger / more numerous, and it then takes more compression to get a full-blown liquid on the floor of the container.

The appearance of the first droplets are the sign that compression has forced the atoms to make contact. Therefore, they ought to make contact at a pressure significantly less than 49.7 atmospheres. Without knowing when the droplets first appear, I can't discover, by use of this information alone, how far apart the O atoms are prior to compression.

The reason that only droplets first appear is that the merger of a few gas atoms (into liquid atoms) makes more room in the container for the remaining gas atoms, and thus they are allowed to move (by their inter-repulsion) slightly away from one another as compared to the make-contact distance (= zero distance). Therefore, a little more compression is needed to bring the remaining gas atoms into contact, but as soon as more liquid is formed, the gas atoms once again create a little distance between each other, needing yet more compression for them to make contact again, and so on, until ALL have made contact when the container is fully liquid.

When one cools a gas at STP to -182F, the atoms do not move closer to one another; only a drop in gas pressure is the result. Therefore, the distance apart of the O atoms at -182F is identical for standard temperature and pressure because no mechanical compression has taken place. This is indicating that O atoms at STP are less than 4 diameters apart.

The quote above doesn't tell us whether the O gas was first cooled, then compressed to 49.7 atmospheres, or, in reverse, first compressed and then cooled. Would it make any difference in how far apart the atoms end up?

Online: "The pressure required to reach this [liquid] point is called the critical pressure which, for hydrogen, is 1.239 MPa = 179.7 psi." That is, a hydrogen gas at its critical temperature of -400F needs to be compressed by 179.2 / 14.7 = 12.2 atmospheres to form a liquid. This predicts that H atoms, at -400F (33K), are less than 2.15 atomic diameters apart, because that's what's needed, as the start point, to net liquid during a compression process of only 12.2 atmospheres.

The problem is, we can once again say that they cooled a gas, at STP, to -400F without changing the volume of the gas, and, therefore, this quote is claiming by inference that H atoms are less than 2.15 diameters apart at standard temperature and pressure. Can that be correct?

Repeat from above, for an STP situation: "So, C atoms at 1.25 inches wide are 1.57 times further apart than O atoms, and H atoms at 2.5 inches wide are 2.0 times further apart than C atoms. These numbers change if the carbon atoms weighs 4 instead of 8. I've shown that H atoms are about 2.25 times further apart than O atoms." Assuming that H atoms are 2 diameters apart, that puts their centers 5 inches apart, and so O atoms become 2.2 inches apart, and as O atoms are 1-inch wide on this scale, the 2.2 figure puts them 2.2 diameter apart. This is a feasible situation to satisfy the two quotes above.

With O atoms 2.2 diameters apart, the C atoms, if they could form a gas, would be 2.2 x 1.57 = 3.5 inches apart. The C atoms can be figured as 3.5 / 1.25 = 2.8 diameters apart. If these numbers are not correct, or if they don't jibe with the points at which monoxide and dioxide gases form liquid under compression, then some other monoxide molecule is needed aside from the O2C I've been using as a tentative candidate. "Carbon monoxide condenses to the liquid at -192° C (-314° F)..."

Bottom line: one needs to know how much compression H gas needs in order to form liquid droplets, as compared to the same for O gas, preferably when compression begins at STP for both gases. Once one finds the compression amounts that form the first liquid droplets for both gases, a good stab can be made at discovering how far apart both atoms are in their respective gases prior to compression.

The key is: the point at which they form droplets is their contact points because atoms cannot merge until they make contact, which allows them to attract each other's captured electrons in spite of theose electrons causing inter-repulsion between atoms prior to their making contact. Can you grasp that? The electron atmospheres causes atoms to inter-repel, but when those atmosphere's are force to merge, a proton of one atom can attract the electrons of the other atom stronger than the electrons of both atoms repel each other, especially as merger causes shedding of some of the electrons.

I suggest that, the more that atoms shed electrons, the stronger the bond, the higher the temperature needed to unmerge the atoms.

From google offerings, air atoms are said to be .00000001 meters apart while "the radius of most atoms is between 0.05 nm and 0.3 nm." Those latter numbers correspond to atomic diameters (not mine) between .1 nm and .6 nm, and as the .1 refers to the smallest atom, which they regard as the H atom, its diameter has been assessed at .000000001 meters (= 1 nm), which is 10 times smaller than the .00000001-meter distance (above) for how far apart air / O atoms are said to be (at normal conditions, to be assumed).

In other words, O atoms are thought to be about 10 H diameters from one another. According to Wikipedia's "Atomic Radius" article, evolutionists wrongly see O atoms about 2.5 times larger than the H atom, wherefore O atoms are thought (by them) to be 10 / 2.5 = 4 diameters apart. I happen to propose that the H atom is 2.5 times larger than the O atom, the opposite to how they see it.

Their data above has H atoms less than 2.15 diameters apart. If H atoms are 2.5 times smaller than O atoms, then they are 1-inch round while O atoms are 2.5 inches round. That places H atoms 2.15 inches apart at most, and the spacing between O atoms then becomes at most 10 times 2.15 inches, which is more than 10 diameters of O atoms. This situation has room to make it work for their model...so long as we don't know exactly when the two gases start producing droplets under compression.

It would be nice to know whether those droplets stand for their model or mine. Perhaps you have access to the data needed to discover it. We need to keep in mind that, when they claim that O atoms are 4 diameters apart, it may be based not on viable evidence or reasoning, but on what their erroneous model needs. It's easy to fudge an experiment to make it conclude what you want it to conclude, when you're a wicked evolutionist. It's how they play best, by cheating the public.

When they give the H atom a width of 0.1 nm, how can you or I verify it? Why should we trust them with that particular number? Is measuring the width of an atom an easy thing that can be attempted without error? Gimme a break, the lunatics make facts from their illusions. They manufacture facts in the shapes needed, bending and twisting in the heat of the devil's furnace.

They view liquid formation prior to when atoms make contact. They say that gas atoms are racing around under inter-attraction forces, and can bond (into liquid) with one another only when they get slow and close enough, and so this erroneous view is not going to get them the correct spacing between atoms. Or, they might get the correct spacing for one or more atoms, but others will be thrown off-kilter because they have their atomic sizes backward, with the smallest being the largest, and vice-versa.

Aside from the process of condensation when heat in air moves into something cold, it's gravity that can cause liquid formation. When liquid droplets first form on the side walls of a container under compression, they are not likely being formed by the force of sideways heat exiting the container through the walls, because there is not much temperature increase in a gas compresses by only 10-20 atmospheres. It makes more sense that liquid forms on the side walls because atoms are pushing one another into contact there.

As the droplets become larger, gravity breaks the bond between them and the atoms of the container, dragging the droplets to the bottom of the container, where the liquid atoms are kept in liquid form by gravity until enough heat is added to it to cause reversion to a gas form. Gravity did not form the liquid in this case, but is the force acting to keep the liquid a liquid.

When a gas is compressed, the heat quantity in the gas is compressed just as much as are the atoms, yet it must be true that most of the heat is forced upon atoms to give them added inter-repulsion. This heat cannot be "seen" by a thermometer because, once it's stacked onto the atoms, it's no longer heat. In other words, when a gas' atoms are compressed to half the volume, the density of heat is doubled too, yet most of it "hides" in the electron atmospheres of the atoms.

Evolutionists don't have that feature to explain why compressed gases don't build in temperature in proportion to the level of compression. They don't like to tell you that a gas compressed to twice its density doesn't get twice the temperature.

H gas reverts to liquid at 20K WITHOUT COMPRESSION because that's the boiling point (it sounds so hot), the cracking-cold point when gravity force upon the atoms exceeds the two combined forces that keep gas atoms afloat as opposed to sinking to gravity. These combined forces are: 1) the inter-repulsion forces between gas atoms; 2) lift from the rising free electrons in the aether. At 20K, there are barely any rising electrons, wherefore we can about say that the boiling point of hydrogen is when gravity force starts to overcome atomic repulsion.

Gravity therefore forces atoms to merge at their boiling points, regardless of how far apart they happen to be. Gravity forces the H atoms to the lowest-possible physical platform (such as the bottom side of a container), and it's that platform that allows gravity to pull the atoms into a merger. Liquid atoms cannot, on their own inter-repulsion powers alone, leave the liquid. The repulsion force of liquid H atoms increases with temperature until, at 20/21K, they have enough power against gravity to leave the liquid as gas.

Boiling point doesn't tell us how far apart gas atoms are when gravity becomes the boss. What we need to know is the specific gas pressure at which liquid droplets first appear during the compression of all gases at STP. That's the point when all gas atoms/molecules make contact, and one can then calculate how far apart the atoms/molecules are at STP, prior to compression. Anyone with time on their hands can do the compression tests, even with carbon monoxide because it does form a liquid.

The boiling point of carbon monoxide is about -314F, and about 297F for oxygen. In my atomic model, the lower the boiling point of any material, the more repulsive are its atoms/molecules. Therefore, carbon-monoxide molecules have more repulsion than oxygen atoms. I had calculated above that the monoxide molecule has 16 / 12.67 = 1.26 times the repulsion of the O atom.

The boiling point of carbon DIoxide is -109F, and as that's 195K versus 81K for the boiling point of carbon monoxide, the dioxide needs significantly more than twice the temperature to find freedom from its liquid. A carbon-dioxide molecule would be an O4C if the monoxide is an O2C, and thus weighing less than twice as much, it needs twice the heat to get lift out of its liquid. How can we explain this? Part of it, at least, could be that the dioxide atoms have a stronger atomic bond than the dioxide molecules.

Secondly, air pressure can weigh down more on the dioxide molecules because they are larger. Air pressure is a function of gravity, and works in reverse to upward lift from rising electrons. Air atoms press down on the liquid atoms seeking freedom from the liquid.

The inter-repulsion forces of H atoms can no longer keep them from being pulled downward to gravity at 20K, a testament to the fact that H atoms have more inter-repulsion than any other atom, for all other atoms succumb to gravity at higher boiling points. I wish I could say that the boiling points of all materials inform as to the relative repulsion forces of their atoms/molecules, but, alas, the rising of free electrons out from the liquid surface contributes to freeing the liquid atoms from gravity's grasp. This is not a simpleton situation.

Madness, I tell you. madness. Try as you might to explain why all the boiling points are where they are, but it's very hard to grasp due to the four main things going on. One of the four, air pressure, can be wiped out of the picture if you can find a chart telling the boiling points in vacuum.

At all boiling points of all materials, the inter-repulsion of their atoms/molecules is going to get close to matching the force of gravity. On the one hand, the higher the boiling point, the harder for gravity to become the boss because, the higher the temperature, the higher the repulsion force of a particular material's atoms. Yet, atoms with weaker repulsion have higher boiling points because they are so hard to get out of a liquid for being so small.

Bottom line: the H atom is so strong in repulsion force that it needs to be weakened more, by removing almost all heat from its midst, more than for any other atom, in order to turn it into a liquid out.

Metal atoms generally have the least repulsion force, in combination with the least lift from upward-flowing free electrons so that they require exceptional high heat to get them to overcome gravity. Boiling point is the game of overcoming gravity, if you are the atom, and the game of overcoming atomic repulsion, if you are the gravity.

The online calculator below doesn't allow entering zero for the gas pressure, but it does allow .00000001 psi, a virtual vacuum. It gives the boiling point of hydrogen, at .00000001 psi, as 4K. The problem is, we don't know whether the numbers given are churned out in accordance with established theories versus actual experimentation. If the 4K number is the reality, it tends to mean that gravity force at absolute-zero about-exactly equals the repulsion force of an H atom at that temperature. Why might God have created a situation like this?
https://www.omnicalculator.com/chemistry/boiling-point

As there is such little heat at 4K, I suggest that the H atom has its own repulsion force aside from what it adopts from surrounding heat. Otherwise, how could hydrogen boil away as a gas at 4K? There's no heat in the pot as it's boiling.

My atomic model claims that gravity turns all atoms net-positive outside of a heat source. This model claims that heat makes all atoms net-negative, but, if so, we should see signs of a transition from one to the other. What would that transition look like? Admittedly, I've not seen anything from science to suggest that the cooling of H gas down to absolute zero shows it transitioning from a net-negative to a net-positive state.

But what if absolute-zero were not the lack of all heat? What if their absolute-zero temperature is the transition point from net-negative to net-positive? After all, liquid helium refuses to freeze at absolute-zero, tending to reveal that some repulsion is in that material's atoms to prevent it from solidifying.

The existence of a transition point should show a material losing all its repulsive state, at which point it enters a neutral state where the outgoing positive charge from the atom equals the negative charge. Then, at lower temperatures yet, that material should show a repulsive nature again, only this time from becoming increasingly net-positive. Such a thing may exist, but only those scientists privy to conditions at extreme-cold temperatures would know it.

Liquid helium, at 2K, repels itself up some container walls to a significant height with the facilitation of (attractive forces in) the container's atoms. Helium liquid at that temperature doesn't jump out into the space above the liquid, however. It needs help to climb the container walls. But why doesn't it do this at 2.5 and higher? Does helium go neutral as it drops toward 5K, and does it then begin to gain a net-positive charge afterward until it has enough repulsion thereby to resist freezing? Why doesn't hydrogen resist freezing at 14K, it's freezing point?

To cool helium or any other gas, they compress it as the first step. A gas compressed has its free electrons = heat compressed, which is why compressed gases get hotter. Some of the free electrons in the compressed gas get force-loaded onto the helium atoms, and the rest begin to migrate through the container walls until their density equals the density of their counterparts on the outside of the container. In this first step, the numbers of free electrons surrounding each atom has been reduced.

As the second step, they release the helium and its free-electron content into a low-pressure container (a vacuum sounds best) which gets instantly colder because the 2nd container is arranged with more volume of space than the first, allowing both the helium atoms and the free electrons to spread out more thin (less dense). It's colder in the second container because the atoms have fewer electrons surrounding them.

The third step is to repeat step one, compressing the colder atoms until the container gets hot, though this time it doesn't get as hot as step one if the same pressure is applied, because the gas simply doesn't have as much heat as it did in the original compression. Then they repeat step two, and so on, each cycle producing a colder gas.

I'm certainly not up to speed on this process, but I assume they just repeat the compress-and-release cycles until the helium gets to 5k degrees. When they compress and release this gas, I assume it starts to form liquid droplets at 4K. Once they have pure liquid gathered up, I assume they compress the liquid to squeeze out more heat, but instead of packing together more tightly with more viscosity toward a solid state as it gets colder, the liquid goes the other way and becomes more liquid, with less viscosity. Doesn't that look like a transition from net-negative through to neutral through to net-positive?

As helium does not bond with any other atom, I sense that it's already a molecule unbeknown to science. By what criteria do they call it an atom versus a molecule? Because it doesn't break apart into its constituent atoms? Maybe they just haven't found a way to do it yet?

Helium gas weighs two times as much as H gas, yet they give the helium atom four times the weight of a hydrogen atom because they view hydrogen gas as a two-in-one "diatomic" atom. I'm not falling for their diatomic atoms. By the fact that helium gas weighs almost-exactly double the weight of hydrogen gas, helium looks like two hydrogen atoms merged together, which is a hydrogen molecule technically, but call it a diatomic atom if you wish (I won't).

The thing is, a gas weighing twice as much a hydrogen, while consisting of a molecule rather than an atom, suggests strongly that He molecules are exactly the same distance from each other as H atoms are, when both are at STP. If helium were made of atoms, then I would be forced to say that there are two He atoms in a space, per every one H atom, and that the He atoms are spaced twice as close as the H atoms. But if He is a two-atom molecule, then their spacing apart must be identical with H atoms.

The way to discover how deeply merged He molecules are is to find how much lift the molecule gets from rising heat particles as compared to the lift that H atoms receive. If the He molecule were, for example, twice the size of an H atom, then it will receive the same net-lift as an H atom, for while the molecule gets twice the power of lift, it also weighs twice as much. (The lift power here has not to do with the relative lift powers of these gases in balloons, as that's apples and oranges.)

A way to measure their lift capabilities is to release the gases separately into a vacuumed tube, and measure the upward speeds. I suppose that twice the speed of the one reveals twice the lift power.

If He is a molecule so as to have identical spacing as H atoms at STP, then one might think that the He molecule exerts as much repulsion force as the H atom. However, in being heavier than H atoms, and because upward lift doesn't apply in a sealed container, gravity pulls the molecules closer together to each other against their inter-repulsion, suggesting that the He molecule has MORE repulsion force than the H atom. That is, if not for gravity in the picture, the molecules would spread out more than do H atoms, proving their superior repulsion forces.

It makes sense for He to have more repulsion force if it's two H atoms merged. As such, He has a greater volume and surface area for heat to dig into and apply more repulsion force, than it provides for the lonely H atom.

The pull of gravity upon all molecule types, of molecules in all containers, pulls molecules in tighter, giving the false impression that the molecules don't have as much repulsion as they actually do.

With He having more repulsion that H atoms, it can explain why He has the lower boiling point of the two, and why He climbs glass walls at 2K.

I see no reason that He could not merge with another type of atom if He were a lone atom. But if He is a deeply-merged two-atom molecule, with two protonic cores imbedded deep within it, I could possible see the potential for it to reject merger with other atoms. Twin-protonic repulsion can repel away the protons of atoms as they come near, not allowing merger.

If very-deeply merged, then high heat may only squeeze the two atoms, of the He molecule, deeper into one another rather than separating them as high heat separates other molecules.

I've got more discussions on the mechanics of electrical and light flows in the 3rd update of next month.

News

You should enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS8I-xfdhKg

The owner of the video above has become at least half a Christian recently. I don't know much of his Christian story.

Dr. John Campbell again with more world-class data showing that vaccines continue to kill and maim all over the world into mid 2023. The death numbers in the data sheets he exposes are on the low side of what's real because the countries who give the numbers are guilty of killing their populations, and will therefore try to hide as much of it as possible. There is no bigger news story today than this, for the vaccines (and perhaps some foods) continue to kill even while not many people are receiving them, suggesting that death blows can arrive years after vaccination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xBiyidQ9g

Anyone who's been vaccine damaged can sue the American government, and then, as part of the discovery process, can get the incriminating data that was redacted in this video; I suggest starting this at 4 minutes:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jtg0WI1d53D4/

I agree totally with this recent and riveting presentation by David Martin; everyone should hearken unto this, realizing that others don't speak this blunt way for fear of repercussions:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zU7meKNhVOpP

For me, the quality of the video above was extremely bad, perhaps made that way by the canadian government to canadian viewers; I could not read the script with an enlarged screen.

I suggest that while the bio-weapon was released, it didn't spread widely as planned. The scheme got steeped in shamefulness just when it started falling apart, when sufficient people began to realize that the "pandemic" was being fabricated.

Vaccine-injured people can sue governments which forced people to vaccinate; this is a good video from Dr. John Campbell to prove in court that governments have been criminal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z22PQkbdpwQ

After what we've recently seen from Walt Disney, it tends to explain the way Fox news went leftward in the past few years:

Fox Corporation...was formed on March 19, 2019, as a result of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company, which was closed on March 20. The company is controlled by the Murdoch family via a family trust with 39.6% ownership share, and by Rupert Murdoch himself to the effect of almost 40%.

Rupert Murdoch is chair, while his son Lachlan Murdoch is executive chair and CEO (Wikipedia).

Murdoch announced he's stepping down as the Chairman. Who will not control Fox, which was once an anti-left bat to CNN's head? The purchase of Fox Corp by Disney appears like a calculated attack on the only right-wing national news media. This is what the anti-Christ left has been doing for decades, buying up as many important educational channels there may crop up. The anti-Christs decided long ago to control education for the purposes of wiping God out of minds. Any Christian can be teacher's voice against anti-Christ "values."

If you are thinking to buy solar panels for your property, maybe hold off to see whether the new type of panels below will be on the market in a couple of years. This panel may explain why Bill Gates is buying up farmland, or why the EU may be targeting farmers to take their land, because this solar panel needs food waste for it's fabrication. I suggest starting this video at about 4 minutes to skip the intro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoIh0ZIg3ac

This new protest in Ottawa comes with another terrible reaction from trudeau. He's not on the defence at all, but is coming out swinging against normal parents, just like an activist anti-Christ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTWMysnds5I

It is imperative that we do not copy conservative canadians who give licence to the faggot activists and lifestyles, afraid of being labeled "hateful." We had best show hatred, terrible hatred against them, because they are out to destroy us. Give them an inch, and they will torment you as they are able. If anything is worthy of hate, it's this activist faggotry romping around the Western nations with devout sanction from the pro-globalist politicians. DESPISE THEM, or God will despise us. This is the Armageddon scenario, dare we be "okay" with end-time Sodom?

Below is a video claiming to show that 5G radiation from a cell phone makes graphene-oxide move. However, there's no proof in this particular video that this is not a trick. The source is not mentioned, and anyone can play a trick like this with a video. What we need to see is a reputable source doing this so that we can trust the material to indeed be graphene-oxide, for starters, and that it is the cell phone causing it to move:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5iN4FLq2k7Ol/

Graphene-oxide is a powerful, positively-charged substance. Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if the negative waves from a telephone can cause it to move.

Perhaps the most important point made on this week's Highwire is in the 37th-46th minutes below, where the FDA admits on paper that it did not study whether spike proteins inserted by vaccines remained in the body, but instead merely assumed, or hid behind what it framed as a safe assumption, that the body would discard them as it does other proteins. I think injured people in America can sue the FDA for this negligence-at-best:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mmdPXf7j8MkS

You should probably look, starting at about the 49th minute above, at the segment on an Apeel glue found sprayed on some fresh produce even now. You will eat this glue without knowing it, and nobody at the FDA cares what happens to you. It's funded by Bill Gates. The glue (a sealer) comes with a "sanitizer" that is a "solvent" not good for us, but the inventors tried to hide the solvents from us, and didn't even tell the public about the sanitizer part of the product. This Apeel glue locks in all the pesticides that you normally wash off.

Also, see Dr. Phillip Buckhaults a little after 1hr20min, for he has been looking at the contents of Pfizer vaccines, and has found DNA in them, which the vaccine companies said were NOT in them.

Sad story for a Christian homeschooling family:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/djB8OUhqJgQ2