January 16 - 22, 2024
Drawings To Show True-Gravity Force Effects
For anyone who read on a perpetual-motion wheel over the last weeks of December and into the 1st update of January, here's a dishonest video claiming that a ball tied to the axle of a circle does not go straight down toward gravity if the string were suddenly let go when the ball is at 3 o'clock. To see that the man is wrong or dishonest, you need to slow the video down, at 2 minutes, to one-quarter speed, and watch until 2:11. You will see the puck slide almost straight up because it begins to slide shortly before 9 o'clock. If it were to start sliding at 3 o'clock, it would therefore slide straight down:
Plus, as it slides, the puck's path is slightly curved upward because contact with the table is affecting its path. Later in the 2nd minute, you can see what looks like a puck traveling UP and away from a line on the table, when in fact the line is moving away from the puck. Plus, the scene is deceptive because we can't see the floor or the items in the room at the same time. I expect that the puck is sliding at a 90-degree angle to the circle's path, though the scene, as shown, doesn't give that impression.
You really need to watch the science magicians closely as they introduce all sorts of erroneous ideas online. It is openly dishonest of this man, to explain the dynamics of a rotating object, by launching off of the puck direction in relation to the line on the table. The line is itself moving downward on the screen, though this cannot be seen. The puck would likewise be moving downward on the screen if the camera were attached to the ceiling. Therefore, this guy is using a trick to distort your thinking, and the question is: why has he not told you what I've just told you?
I would ignore what he's saying about the slinky because one can use such things to deceive. Note how his voice sounds authoritive, like he knows what he's talking about, a typical attitude of the deceivers in science. I'm not sure it's correct to have one end of the slinky with coils much closer together than at the other end, and moreover we are not shown the background of the falling slinky to see clearly what's taking place. Nor are we told whether the camera is following the slinky on the way down versus whether the camera is fixed stationary. It doesn't look fixed, but neither are we told how fast the camera is moving downward, in comparison to the slinky's velocity, as the slinky drops.
There's nothing strange, surprising or noteworthy taking place with this slinky as it seeks to equalize the distance between coils. The top is moving faster than the bottom because the top seeks to reach the other end, not vice-versa, because the coils are under more strain at the top. If you stretch a typical tension spring, they have ends identical to each other (coils same distance apart), but the slinky is apparently not made that way, with each coil having the same tension. The slinky has coils tighter at one end than the other end, according to the real slinky shown in the 11th minute (pause it as it's circling). This little detail needs to be told to the audience because it's not likely part of the conclusions.
When the video began with a ball on a string, air drag was not to play any part in the end result. But with the slinky, not only does air drag (on the ball) bend the angle of the slinky so that slinky's line does not go through the axle of the wheel, but the slinky itself is a little curved to boot, creating an extra fling-potential dynamic not existing in the ball-on-string model. Therefore, the ball-on-slinky is not at all identical to the ball-on-string, and especially not identical to a ball at the end of a metal rod. This guy is unreliable, and therefore deceiving the public with the assistance of a university.
Plus, the circular path of the ball is due almost wholly to the slinky's pulling the outer end inward toward the axle. What should have been done here, to see what happens to the ball, is to release the ball from the slinky, not release the slinky from the center of the circle while still attached to the ball. The string will have no such effect, as the coiling slinky has, if the string is let go from the center of the circle. This guy is guilty of apples and oranges, and should have tomatoes thrown into his face.
It becomes obvious in this video that the end of the slinky with coils closer together is indeed moving toward the end of the slinky with coils further apart, but the video producer deceived you into thinking this was not the case when showing an animated slinky on a black background. The very reason that the ball continues in a circle when the slinky is released -- a thing the video owner doesn't share with you -- is that the end of the slinky with closer coils is springing/moving toward the other end of the slinky (toward the axle) even while the same end is moving away from the axle.
The university becomes an accomplice to this trick, for it just so happens that the slinky was released when the university team knew the outer end of the slinky would fly away from the axle at the very-same speed as the outer end would spring back toward the opposite end, giving the eye the impression that the outer end is not moving in either direction. It's a trick. It's moving in both directions, if you will, so that the net-motion is zero. It's like when astronomers say that the moon is constantly falling to earth simultaneous with constantly going at a 90-degree line to the orbital circle so that the net-motion of the moon (up or down from earth) is essentially zero (ignoring the slight-oval shape of the orbit).
To add to this man's disgusting treatment of this situation, at the middle of the 12th minute, he doesn't show the path of the ball much when the slinky has fully ended it's spring action. But one can glean, barely, that the ball moves at 90 degrees to the circle after the slinky no longer has an effect on its path.
Then, later in the 12th minute, he messes with your head even more, as he pretends he knows what's going on, by showing the animated slinky again, now sending the ball fully AWAY (at 180 degrees) from itself when the spring action has concluded, yet in the experiment with the real slinky, the ball, after it's pulled in toward the slinky, moves 90-degrees to the slinky's path (not fully away from it). This guy is devious, so beware such reckless imposters in science videos, and beware especially computer animations, used by NASA massively to deceive in the first degree i.e. fully intentional.
Elon Musk is claiming that he wants men on Mars in eight years, suggesting strongly to me that he's involved with a faked, computer-animation "visit" to Mars. It's interesting that while Musk's parent(s) was/were living in canada, NASA's faked moon landings were filmed in the "Canadian Shield" (lots of rocks and rock outcrops).
It is off-rail to begin a video with a ball on an unstretchable string, and then to explain it while tied to the end of an unstable slinky. The ball goes 90 degrees to the line of the circle, full-stop, end of story, just as I and most physicists would have predicted.
Next up, similar "magicians" want to redefine gravity so as to fit into some space-time wackiness. There has been some conditioning by long-standing, erroneous physics to make science buffs think it's perfectly acceptable, and even popular, to introduce strange ideas that violate common laws of physics...which is what esteemed physicists have been doing for over a century with Einstein's wackiness leading the way. He was wrong when claiming that gravity attracts and curves light, or when he said that light particles have zero or near-zero mass. He misidentified the electron as the photon, and opened the door to the wrong definition of energy. It is absolutely not E = MCsquared. This is bone-headed nonsense. Energy is not based in light, but in the electron.
In this update, I'll continue to offer diagrams that tell the truer atomic model. This time, I'll deal with gravity. I'm completely confident that I have the correct atomic model, yet there's more to it, I'm sure, than I or anyone else can know at this time. I'm confident because I've inadvertently followed along the path of the caloricists who had advanced the aether. They were correct on both counts, their material definition of heat, and the aether's existence...even though they didn't realize that the aether has its source in the sun.
So far as I've read with what little is available or easy to find online, I don't think they realized that the aether was made of electrons. They weren't understood much in the 19th century, nor had it been discovered yet that they originate mainly in the sun. Here's a set of drawings with explanations as to what gravity is, and how it affects atoms:
This drawing explains how atoms can weigh the same, as arranged by the gravity force "blowing" electrons away that are held to atoms with a force weaker than gravity. What could make more sense? A wind of air will blow all leaves off which are held to the branches with less than the wind force, but all leaves attached with a force greater than the wind force will remain on the tree. Ditto with electrons on atoms: gravity wind blows off all electrons held on with less force than gravity.
What's the situation remaining, after gravity has blown off the weaker electrons at the atomic surface? Clearly, and so easy to understand, the situation remaining is that the perimeters of all atoms have exactly the force of gravity, but in positive charge, from the proton, of course. Same force level, but with an opposite charge. And as opposite charges attract, gravity attracts all atoms with the same force level. As gravity's attraction force on atoms defines weight, all atoms end up weighing the same. I bring this to the world gladly, freely, a terrific revelation of the truth in atomic physics. It obliterates the modern view of atoms, demanding a revamping, a complete overhaul, long overdue.
Let's begin again. Imagine an environment without gravity or heat. We have only a proton within a sea of free electrons. The proton will begin capturing/loading electrons until their outgoing negative charge, in all directions from their entire compliment, from protonic surface upward, equals the positive charge going out in all directions. This point defines not only the distance between protonic surface and atomic perimeter, but the latter's "net-neutral charge" that you see in the drawing. It's a balanced situation that can neither repel nor attract electrons outside of the perimeter.
Enter gravity. It repels from the perimeter all electrons held by the proton with less than G-force level. But of course. At some point between the perimeter and the protonic surface, the electrons will be held with exactly the force level of gravity, and this will mark the new atomic perimeter i.e. with gravity in the picture. The atom is now smaller. This same situation applies to all atoms no matter what shape or size or material make-up of the proton. Every atom has a point where the electrons are held with exactly G force, and thus every atom will have a perimeter radiating exactly G force in net-positive charge. Hence, all atoms will end up weighing the same.
This is not an idea that struck me out of the blue so that I then when hunting for the evidence. Rather, it came to mind when asking how possibly all atoms could weigh the same. The first thing coming to mind when asking that question, and in the meantime knowing that atoms have electrons, is that gravity is a negative force. But of course.
What right do scientists have to deny the possibility that gravity could have an electromagnetic charge? Who do they think they are to deny that possibility when they know that all materials are made of electromagnetic particles? The big question: why do they fear this view of gravity? What has kept them from debating it? It's not even a part of their theories, so far as I've read, as though the topic never cam up for debate. "Just don't mention it" seems to have been their policy.
To prove that gravity cannot be an electromagnet force, they will say that it doesn't affect electrons. But that's an error, for the evidence is overwhelming that it does. It is they who got it wrong to claim that gravity attracts all matter, even electrons.
In an attempt to prove further that gravity cannot be an electromagnet force, they will say that some atoms are positive while others are negative, yet gravity attracts them all. It seems like a conclusive, unassailable argument. However, they themselves tell us that it's perfectly fine to call one of two negatively-charged objects "positive" when it's less negative than the other. Or, when an normal atom has some electrons removed, they call it a "positive" atom, even though it can still be net-negative, because they like to view normal atoms as neutral. But normal atoms are not truly neutral. Instead, all atoms are net-negative.
Say what? Didn't I just say that gravity leaves all atoms net-positive? Yes. But this ignores heat surrounding atoms, which makes all atoms behave as though they were net-negative in their normal states. The trick is to discover why gravity, for the purpose of attracting atoms, ignores, or doesn't acknowledge, the heat-particle electrons surrounding atoms. Even though these heat particles force atoms to adopt their negative charges so that atoms repels atoms with it, gravity retains its bite on all atoms.
There's three considerations I can think of for this situation, but suffice it here to mention only one: the heat particles are not affixed hard to the proton, but can be repelled away, around the atom's bottom's side, and then up toward outer space. As they rise, these heat particles collide with the bottoms of other air atoms, giving them some lift. After circling around many air atoms, they exit the atmosphere into outer space.
For every set of electrons circling the underside of an atom, others come in to take their place. There is a constant stream of heat particles upward, but these do not contribute their negative energy to counter the bite that negative gravity has on the protonic force radiating from all atoms. The only way for electrons to counter gravity force, on behalf of an atom, is to be fixed hard to a proton. Thus, only captured electrons counter gravity force, on behalf of an atom, yet there are never enough of them upon the atom to radiate as much negative force toward gravity as the protons radiate positive force toward gravity.
To put this is simpler terms: so long as free electrons can be moved up and around atomic perimeters, they cannot fully counter the protonic force radiating toward gravity. They give lift to atoms, which is an anti-gravity force, to be sure, but it's not enough of a force level to cause atoms to rise constantly/permanently from the grasp of gravity. Heat-particle lift can raise atoms only so high, but as heat-particle density decreases with height, gravity eventually gets the upper hand, forbidding a higher rise for the atoms.
Before coming back to atomic lift by heat particles, it's best we first prove that gravity repels heat particles. In this drawing, I try to design an experiment that keeps 99-percent of the hot air away from a solid copper rod. The idea is to prove that heat rises without the kineticist stepping in to muddy the waters with the red-herring claim that, no, heat doesn't rise, but rather hot air does and heats the copper rod in its higher sections. This is a red herring, a falsification, they should be ashamed of themselves. They are not physicists in the true sense to hold to such irrelevancy.
It's known that all heat sources, including flames, have free electrons, yet the science wizards refuse to define heat as the electron itself. There is nothing we can do for them to open their closed minds. The point here is that there is absolutely nothing strange with gravity repelling electrons if gravity itself consists of electrons. Have you ever heard of anything more logical, less complicated, and smacking of the truth? How could the scientists, with all of their collective minds, not have figured this out over the past century, since becoming familiar with the electron.
There is no evidence that gravity attracts electrons. There is no evidence that electrons have weight. But I've just shown you that electrons pumped into a solid metal rod rise up the rod. How can that happen, do you think, if not by gravity repulsion? Go ahead, I'll give you a thousand years to figure out an alternative answer. You won't find one.
And the fact that heat also goes, in smaller amounts, down the copper rod is yet more evidence that we are dealing with electrons, for they inter-repel in all directions, including downward. They move downward, but gravity repels them upward. They can only come down as far as the repulsion force between them exceeds the gravity force pushing them up. There are all sorts of electromagnetic battles going on, this being just one of them.
Scientists should apply themselves to finding how distant two electrons need to be from one another for when their mutual repulsion forces equals the force of gravity. They can call it something like "G distance of electrons." And they may as well find the G distance of atoms too. But they will not get the funding for such work because evolutionists do not want atoms to repel one another via heat particles, otherwise the big bang cannot form stars. There you have the quagmire between the fantasies that evolutionists desire versus the obvious realities. If you to attack their core principles, their holy cows, they will drown you in the quagmire, be it ever so severely.
This next drawing is self-explanatory. Heat rises. But this drawing needs some elaboration to combat the kineticist's argument that a vacuum has some gas atoms remaining that can allow straight-up rising atoms. They will argue, "hotter air rises," but they don't properly or justifiably explain why this is so. There is a big and bulging difference between hot air in a balloon versus hot air by itself. The hot-air balloon rises from a principle of buoyancy, but air atoms by themselves, not inside of any skin, do not get buoyancy applied to them. If you can figure out how a single air atom gets buoyancy applied to it, and I'll give you a thousand years to find it, send me the answer. You can't do it, and especially not if all gas atoms attract one another.
This problem is exacerbated by the kinetic theory itself because it has gas atoms flying about randomly in all directions. Kineticists like to say that atoms fly about equally in all directions, which begs how they go upward more than they go downward when a flame or other heat source is put to them. As they view hotter air as having faster air atoms, ask: why should faster air atoms go up while slower air atoms do not? There's no answer. If they are bouncing off of one another in all directions, they are expected to do so faster if something should speed them up. And that's all there is for them to appeal to. They are lost and wayward victims of their own doings, and cannot be helped if they have denied the obvious realities for this long. But there are other people who will listen to the truth when they sense they are hearing it.
Even though astronomy has now seen comets up close to see that they are rocks, it yet refuses to tell you that it becomes a fireball due to the emission of captured electrons from the rock atoms. This idea that gravity repels electrons couldn't have evaded smart minds, but they are loath to adopt the fact as their own. Last I heard, they are telling people that there is ice beneath the rock crust upon comets, but nobody should be stupid enough to believe that.
They have been proven wrong by telling that comets are ice balls, yet refuse to admit error because the only other alternative is that rocks are losing their electrons. As the comet tail always points away from the sun, it's plain-jane obvious that solar gravity is a negatively-charged force repelling electrons.
As the comet moves away from the sun, its atoms re-load with electrons from the solar wind. The only mass the comet loses is the rock atoms and fragments that are eroded from the surface rock as electrons shoot violently out the atomic spaces into outer space. These fragments get pushed away from the sun by the streaming-away electrons. As electrons eject from atoms and rock pieces, they emit light because light is a wave through the solar-wind electrons. Is this making too much sense? Do cosmologists get bored of simple-to-explain realities? Are they inclined to making everything appear as a difficult mystery so that they can invent new and exciting ideas?
This next drawing expresses Galileo's discovery that all substances fall to gravity with the same force level applied, which is not the same as the same total force. Galileo may not have realized that gravity was pulling individual atoms rather then whole objects in one lump-sum, but we today have no problem with that idea. If gravity pulls atoms individually, then it doesn't matter whether the ball has 10 atoms, or 10 zillion atoms, both balls fall at the same speed because it's just atoms falling in both cases. The atoms can be attached, or detached, it doesn't matter which, they all fall at the same speed because they all get pulled by the same force level, meaning they all weight the same. The object with the most atoms lands with the most ka-pow for obvious reason.
The next two drawings borrow from Galileo's discovery to begin showing why larger atoms rise with more power. The first of the two shows what scientists thought was empty space. It's filled with rising free electrons which they shunned even after they learned that electrons were crashing into the earth in the solar wind. They even found a way to deny the entry, of these solar electrons, into the atmosphere. Why? So that they might not need to change their atomic models, what a bunch of louses. For fear of being disrespected, they continued to unleash false ideas upon us all. Shame, great shame.
The second drawing has an analogy that isn't the best because the golf ball is larger than the ping-pong ball. But, the point is, a blast of air to the undersides of both balls will make the lighter ball rise higher. And from this analogy, we understand that, where two balls had the same weight, but with one larger than the other, the larger one would rise higher because it is able to exploit more of the blasted air. There's more air striking its underside, and this is exactly the scenario with larger atoms in a sea of rising electrons. Now you know why the hydrogen atom is the largest of all atoms, in spite of the heard-hearted wizards claiming it's the smallest.
A hard heart is loathsome to make a change. A hard heart sticks to the mind's errors. Some people would call such a person a fool. Whatever word we use, we have a big problem because these people are powerful to retain their errors, and they teach them to the kids as young as possible.
This next drawing shows the buoyancy principle, which works only on whole objects, not with single atoms, or with a group of single atoms. There's nothing on the bottom side of a single atom to give it lift by the buoyancy principle. The latter needs a sea of liquid or gas to perform, but there is no such sea around a single atom. The sea of electrons is not such a sea because it's not pulled by gravity. Buoyancy is an boomerang-effect of gravity acting on a sea. That is, gravity pulls the sea's particles downward, and the particles return force in the upward direction as a result, because they repel one another.
That's right, even while merged, water molecules repel one another, which is why water can barely be compressed. The molecules merge only to a certain point, until the built-in repulsion forces say, "no further." You can merge this far, and this far only, when the merger force between two atoms equals the repulsion force between them. It's another battle between electromagnetic forces...which always seek equilibrium.
There is a situation in which electromagnetic particles cannot find equilibrium, in the sea of electrons in the air. There's no ceiling to box them in. If they are in a closed container, free electrons can find equilibrium, and thus they assemble at equa-distance from one another. But in the air, they become progressively less dense with height, because space above a sphere becomes eight times more voluminous with every doubling of height from the sphere's surface. Now you know why heat particles can lift water molecules only so high, and no further.
This next drawing tells you why water molecules can be lifted only so high, and water droplets to less height. As I say, when the upward power of rising electrons upon the bottom sides of atoms/molecules is equal to the downward power of gravity upon the atoms/molecules, the latter cease to rise.
This is a good place to mention that all molecules are heavier than one atom for the obvious reason that molecules are defined as more than one atom merged together. When two or more molecules are merged together, they are defined as a droplet. From this we can gather than molecules get higher lift than droplets.
Oxygen atoms weigh nine times less than a water molecule, but are far smaller so as to get less lift. There is an entire field of scientific study here to determine the true diameters of atoms by the specific lift they receive at identical temperatures. I cannot find a chart telling of these lift powers for the different gas atoms. Perhaps you can.
You cannot use the lift power of gases in balloons. You need to find something like the speed of hydrogen atoms rising in a vacuum, as compared to the speed of rising oxygen or helium atoms, for example, and make some stab as to what their respective diameters are from those velocities. You might start with the presumption that twice the diameter gets four times the lift, and thus four times the velocity.
You should be able to see why the orbiting-electron model just can't be the reality. There are four things wrong with this picture, not only the ability of an electron to orbit, but also it's ability to enter or begin an orbit. That doesn't happen with random motions, and the only expectation with particles in motion is that they are random. It is STUPID to think that electrons can flow in straight lines in electrical wires, and that they can then enter orbits around the metal atoms as though they were born to do so naturally. It is stupid to think that an electron approaches an atom in a straight line but then enters an orbit for whatever reason they invent.
And they did invent, like poof, the so-called "Strong Nuclear Force," which is what they claim keeps the inter-repelling protons clustered together in the atomic core. I could invent that too, if ever needed to explain how anything can keep from breaking a law of physics, but I won't invent it because that's stupidism science. It's not as though there isn't an alternative theory that they couldn't grasp. The alternative is one proton per atom, golly, what a concept.
If that's not enough breaking with common sense, they went and made the electron just as strong as the giant-by-comparison proton. To boot, they invented a new law: one proton can attract only one electron. How stunning is it when science can just invent laws and call them facts with any dissenters nailed to the wall if they make a fuss, saying, "you can't do that." We are dealing with jackasses protected by whole governments the world over. They are not going to tear down the physics establishment just for the sake of replacing it with law-abiding principles that have the ring of logic. It's not important enough to the political rulers to replace the science of the jackasses because they are dangerous jackasses, able to remove politicians from office by making them unpopular.
Here's a drawing to help you visualize how impossible the orbit model is when you think of a solid material filled with orbiting electrons all in the same environment, all susceptible to destructive collisions. At the speed they are flying, an electron cannot move out of the way of an incoming electron due only to a bitty-bitty inter-repulsion between them. The faster they fly, the less their inter-repulsion can cause deviation in their paths. Besides, all the inter-repulsion in their midst would contribute to orbital destabilization.
Has any physics jackass ever mentioned that orbits are delicate things? No, because the physics jackass doesn't want you to doubt the orbit model. Any deviation from the perfect orbit would begin to destroy the orbit, can't you figure this out on your own without someone telling you? Not if you are a jackass. Deviation from a perfect orbit, either up or down, will cause greater deviation with every new orbit, and so the more a body orbits per second, the sooner the orbital destruction takes place. Therefore, at zillions of orbits per second, you would expect that electrons deviating from perfect orbit would have zero orbit left after less than one second.
And so, if you wish to be a jackass, just believe that all the zillions of atoms throughout the universe are in perfect orbit always. Hee-haw, is that not the wildest thing you never heard before? How many perfect orbits are there in just the snowflakes of one snow storm alone? Zero, because electrons don't orbit. You are a brain-eating monster if you claim they do. Do you says that the electrons orbiting the atoms of a cannon ball remain in perfect orbit as the ball is exploded out the cannon, or after it hits the rocks? Are you crazy? Can you imagine how delicate is the orbit of a wee-wee electron?
Instead, when a cannon ball is shot out the cannon, it looses electrons from the ball surface. It gets hot. Everything you strike suffers frictional heat because you are knocking electrons off the surface. You cannot only scratch them off with your fingernail, but rub them off with even your smooth finger. You feel that heat as you rub the table? That's electrons entering your finger. And, no, they are not orbiting only to re-enter orbits once you stop rubbing.
Don't confuse negatively-charged gravity with what science calls "negative gravity," the unproven concept that a gravity force repels all things instead of attracting. That idea is just as wrong as claiming that normal gravity attracts all things. It is such a simple thing to resolve that, if gravity were negatively charged, it would repel electrons, and there is evidence galore that electrons are repelled upward. What in tarnation could send electrons upward if it isn't gravity?
One way that science might keep the idea of negatively-charged gravity at bay is by claiming that the earth is positively charged. Not so. It can't be. It is a mistake from an assumption that, just because the ground wire of your house goes to the dirt, therefore the earth is positively charged. First of all, electricity from your grid will flow into the ground so long as the dirt has less negativity than the electrical wire. Electrons run from high to low pressure, wherefore it will run from highly-negative to lowly-negative conductors. Secondly, even if the dirt and/or its water is positively charged, it doesn't mean that the entire planet is net-positive. It isn't. As electrons are repelled upward, the planet -- at least under our feet for some ways -- has a net-negative charge. It's as simple as that.
It is wrong to suggest that, since the sun is attracting the earth, therefore one must be negative while the other is positive. It seems to be a wise choice, but it isn't. Instead, all planets and stars exhibiting gravity are negatively charged, and this arranges attraction of all atoms in its field. The negativity alters the charge of atoms and makes them attracted to itself. All atoms in a negative field become positively charged, but this doesn't mean that the earth is net-positive just because it's made of atoms, for it's also made of free electrons, and when these surround atoms, the latter have their net-positive charge countered as though eradicated. It's not eradicated, or gravity would have nothing to attract, yet there is a negativity radiating from free electrons compressing themselves around atoms such that it superimposes itself on the net-positivity of the atom.
If you like Biblical archeology that glorifies the Bible, I am absolutely sure you will love this on Nineveh:
Did you notice that the Assyrian king loved the bull god? Who was that? Baal, Moloch, or Zeus? This recalls that I traced Zeus and his mother, Rhea, to northern Iran's Ray, ancient Rhagae, not far east of Nineveh. Ray is in Tehran province, which has a name like "Taurus." Nineveh is now at Mosul, and Lake Van has both a Mus location and a Taran region. Zeus' son, Ares, was named after the Aras river north of Nineveh. Assyrians may have named Syria, beside Tarsus and the Taurus mountains. Tarsus was named after Tyrus (Tyre), where Zeus' bull symbol was traced my a myth writer.
Dr. John Campbell, if I know him enough by now, is trying to tell his audience, without telling his audience, that Schwab's World Economic Forum is plotting, or knows of a partner-in-crime which is plotting, to introduce a new and dangerous virus that will bring disease to the human race. The Davos people at this WEF are already dubbing it, "Disease X," begging whether Elon Musk, who loves "X," is behind it. I haven't been keeping tabs on whether Musk is for or against the mRNA vaccines that are still killing people to this day. I'm not accusing him of being behind this new thrust to vaccinate the world, I'm just asking, wondering.
This other video from Dr. Campbell is great due to the large audience he has. Not many have the ability to keep to youtube when giving such messages as these:
The way I'm gauging the next vaccine war against the world is that the attackers will need to unleash a dangerous virus in order to justify forced vaccinations. I don't see how else they can do it without some tyrannical force because the majority of people have become anti-vaxxers by now. I don't see how forced vaccinations can go better for the goons the second time around, especially if they exercise harsher tyranny than they showed in round one. It's not we who should fear them, it's they who should fear God who has prepared a vast prison without relief, without possibility of escape, for the wicked.
Round two could be the stepping stone to the mark of the beast.
It appears that scientists have been wrong yet again, this time about fossil fuels (I really like this speaker on most issues he mentions):
I don't like watching Christian persecution, but sometimes I feel the need to share stories. In the case of the latest Armenian crisis, it might, in the end, be a good thing that many Armenian believers have recently been forced to flee to find refugee status in neighboring places. Armenia is in Caucasia next to Muslim areas, a to-be-dangerous region when the anti-Christ takes over the Middle-East. The Turkish leader, who's been entrenched as the national leader, seems to be evolving his anti-Christian, anti-Israel sentiments into military activism:
It's not just me who trashes canada; demonism has been invited into the country by its liberal leaders, and, guess what? The demons came. I've told readers more than once, that everytime I came back from Bible-belt Texas, after spending months there, I got depressed the hour I entered canada, just driving along the 401 highway with stone-faced Canadians, whom I knew to be going with the robotic flow of liberalism, and harsh, mean-spirited feminism; even the churches allow themselves to become infected, like being in a quagmire, not knowing how to lift themselves out:
The new canada is by design of the Schwabian globalists, no doubt about it. They want us like robots, go to work, don't spend money on enjoying the fruits of your labors...because the global government wants that fun money for itself, and trudeau serves Schwabianism by taxing us to death, meaning that canada is the role model for other Schwabian states:
However, these Schwabian agents in political power will eat the fruits of their wicked works when they become locked up into their homes for fear of being seen in public, because the citizens will despise them, and who knows, maybe we'll get lucky when some wacko shoots trudeau dead as he's shot many Canadians dead with his vaccines. Stay home, psycho-trudeau, stay locked up and be scared, you murderous rat.
Some good news is that Schwabianism took a major hit in 2023, and we hope to see more in this coming year. The new vaccination and mask-up programs did not materialize this winter just because of the political losses that Schwab was personally responsible for. He will not apologize to the underling politicians who lost their power due to his policies. He will try to get that power base back. Watch for his tactics, and prepare for the worst because he aims to starve people into compliance. Woe to the Western nations who've forsaken the Creator. Woe, woe, woe is coming. The evil spirits have set up camp, and God's not running to get rid of them for the people, do you understand this?
Store up your foods in this momentary lull. Spend your evenings drying foods instead of watching TV. Listen to podcasts while peeling veggies, and slicing them up for the hydrator. Fill mason jars with dried goods, heat them in the oven to 215 F, put some lids on them, and pack them away for consumption years from now. It's your food security; everyone should have it to stave off an emergency. The more the people have stored foods, the less that will be needed by others in an emergency. I've just popped open a jar of dried chicken, jarred in July of 2021, and it's perfectly edible even without re-hydration. It's chewy enough to eat right out of the jar. Get together with others, go buy 10 or 20 chickens from a local farmer, and dry it all. When you are done, get more chickens. Ask for unvaccinated ones. Ditto with beef.
The next Schwabian leader to fall may be in Germany, a big deal if it happens:
If lockdowns return, it'll be the Schwabites who get blamed. No matter what strange program attacks the world of normalcy, the Schwabites will be fingered, and, sooner or later, as they push back in spite of opposition, their leaders will be shot one at a time, when it goes too far. They are picking a war with the common people, it's been made obvious, a mortal war, to the death, do you understand?
HEE-HEE, here's the new "globalist" representative of Argentina at the latest Davos meeting opening up remarks attacking Schwabite-et-al collectivism and communism right under his nose!!! EXCELLENT ONE!
I would disagree with the Argentinean president where he claims that the gross domestic product (GDP) has doubled over 33 years recently, and in even fewer years more recently. I disagree because a loaf of bread had doubled over those years too, and so one should not compare the GDP in one century/decade to the GDP in the next century/decade by the dollar as the measuring stick, but what the dollar can buy. Aside from his supporting monopolies in the name of capitalism, I congratulate the Argentinean for the way he's fearlessly rebuking, and even insulting multiple times, Western leftism in its face, very, very good.
There's a movement in Schwabism right now to make farming illegal on the grounds that it pollutes the environment. In other words, they pretend to care so much about people that they are prepared to criminalize pesticides and herbicides, but are just fine with starving them to death instead. In other words, their concern for the environment is an act, to facilitate starvation, and to create chaos as another means of depopulation. This is what's going to get their leaders shot; it's inevitable if they continue to foment such murderous programs.
I'm not very happy with Polly in her latest video where she shows what I think is misplaced fears for people like Dr. John Campbell, whom she resents. I've resented him in the past too, for being an absolute and dangerous fool, but he did what most did not. He relented with trusting the authorities, and has not since stopped exposing them. Polly thinks he's some sort of a faked truther with a purposeful agenda, shared with other rewarded fakes, to walk his audience into the next globalist trap. Woe horsy, you're going off the cliff here.
I have fears for fakes too, who play truthers for harming truthers, but Mr. Campbell doesn't strike me as one of these. I think he's tried to make up for his error. I know that many medical professionals allowed themselves to be fooled where they should have known better, but fakes who actually work for the goons don't go as far as Campbell has in opposing them. Campbell has openly opposed WHO's coming agenda to control medicine in all nations, which is not likely what a fake would do who has such a wide audience. Fakes with wide audiences would be solidly controlled, and not permitted to speak against the WHO's coming agenda, in my opinion. The next plandemic, and bid to control the world, is being placed on the shoulders of the WHO. It's the holy cow of Plan B, and Campbell has been inciting the medical establishment to oppose it.
Let's not attack our own team players to such a degree that Polly does. If and when he becomes a traitor, he can be cut loose then, but to do so prematurely, on a mere suspicion or two from his original attitude, can be hazardous to the team. And let's not drive ourselves into a disturbed rut, fearing the fakes who plant themselves on the team. For various reasons, I've mainly stayed away from most of the social-media people she shows in this video below, and am probably better off for it mentally. They are, however, our "friends" in that they oppose different facets of globalism. It's just that the divided interests of video producers is a depressing thing for me. The drive to make much money, and to become popular for the purpose, is not setting a good example. In many cases: better off is the one who fails than the one who succeeds. Blessed are the losers in this world, if they will be the first with God. Polly was on her way to becoming a big winner on youtube, but she never became so big as when youtube cut her off and sent her into financial poverty. Maybe she understands that. The one who wears the scar of youtube's knife could wear it like a jewel:
One of the chief requirements of being a Christian is to forgive those who repent, and so with delight I forgive nurse Campbell, who's now doing the right thing. I don't know whether he's a Christian, but he's doing the right things on his vaccine issue. It's doubtful he's a Christian, or I would have caught sight of it by now. There is always eternal hope for people who do the right things after they have done the wrong things. God's always looking for people who do the right things. It's His self-appointed job. Let's not resent those whom God is willing to forgive, or we might not be forgiven for our follies, weaknesses, and poor performances.
Here's a Christian video producer I've not known before, so far as I can remember. I really like his message that our number one purpose is to be one with God, but I would add this extra: God's number one purpose is to be one with us. Don't ask me why, we are certainly unworthy of it. God's asking us to join Him, to play our part in fulfilling His desire to love us, and so foolish is the one who resists Him. It should be astounding to learn that God lives to show good people how multi-faceted and powerful His love is. "The Kingdom of God is within you."
If you don't know Schwab of Davos, he's talking at the 5th minute of the video below which celebrates the Argentinean leader's appearance at Davos. Schwab emphasizes FIXING the world as an excuse to change it, and everything is said to appear constructive and beneficial to the human race, but of course. Und here he expozez that hiz anti-globalist enemies are libertarians, and then he defines libertarianism as a destructive force, meaning he's projecting his own conspiracy-happy plots to the feet of his enemies.
I'm not a classical libertarian because its movement excluded God's liberty. God gives freedom to those who respect Him, otherwise everyone is a slave to sin and headed for the prison of Hell. There is no freedom for those who don't start off on the Right Path. You can go down the wrong path, but if you finally get onto His path, what you did on the wrong path will be forgotten by Him.
As Schwab has now mentioned his enemies by name, it shows how desperate he is to fix the damage they have done to his organization since the plandemic that he himself inspired to fruition. There is even a question as to whether his organization founded the plandemic to "fix" the world, his way. He has given his audience a choice, now, by revealing the enemy. His audience can now decide whether they are on his side or on libertarianism's side.
French libertarianism, adopted by the fathers of the Unites States, served its purpose in both de-throning the vatican and rivaling Biblical Christianity, replacing them with a masonic lip-service to a mutated "God," a money-happy, worldly-minded God not much like the real God. Fortuitously, libertarians will assist in combating the 666, yet be wise and stay the course of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than being swayed to such things as Trumpism's American-dream chasing.
Whatever they decide, they now know, if they didn't already, that he has just made an admission to his being on-side with world control rather than on the side of the liberty desired by the people. He himself loves liberty for himself, but he doesn't want it for others because the devil despises humanity. The demons within Schwab cause him to despise humanity, to steal from it, and to destroy and kill it when it's no longer needed for his purposes. The wicked gluttony of Schwab. The bottomless stomach. His partners are those who never have enough money.
Schwab's stupidity is glaring where his partners are corporate leaders, for his part in the climate-change agenda is putting larger corporations in jeopardy. Duh, how are you going to keep corporate leaders on-side once they start going down the whirlpool, due to phasing out gasoline by making it much more expensive? Bankers need to feed corporate-loan money, but if staying in business is impossible due to tyrannical climate-change policies, there go poof, the customers of the bankers, gone.
Here's the "God" of Albert Einstein, suggesting He degraded God to a spirit-less energy force because he had the personal mission of gaining honor and popularity in the eyes of men, a goal that he didn't want the thinking / active God to spoil. I think Musk doesn't want Jesus to stand in his way of his projects, and I think Musk knows that Jesus doesn't want his Mars project, just to name one:
Schwab is the typical masonic goon who puts an angelic mask on his plans, for public consumption, but when he sees opportunity to convert a major, corporate player to his agenda, because he/she looks at least half-like-minded, he comes out with the real agenda to his/her face to check out what the response is. And he goes from there, recruiting goons like himself, sending them back to their own nations as support tools who jobs include more recruiting. This has been going on for many decades back into the 1800s, by other masonic / illuminatist goons, not just Schwab.
The Shining Star is coming, the Son of God, Most-Popular, the Forever King of the Universe. Oh how they hate to read things like this. Therefore, let's say it more: Jesus is already the most popular person ever to live, and He hasn't even started to do the things that will make him popular, loved, and great. His destiny is the top-most place in Utter Glory. Who does Schwab think he is by comparison? Does Schwab want to be glorified for his love of fine and expensive dining? What exactly has he done for the Kingdom of God that he should escape the eternal prison of Hell? When is a good age to repent of one's animosity to Jesus? Is Schwab not old enough yet to do the right thing? Apparently, he continued to grow as a tree of poison fruit, and has never tried to change.
There are several accusations against Elon Musk in this video, suggesting that he's been an imposter. In the 9th minute, we learn that Trump-founded Space Force "owns" much of Musk's SpaceX:
This Tucker Carlson show shows that the Bush family, including Carl Rove (beloved by Fox news), is a political machine seeking to take over Texas. Ken Paxton tells how the Bidenites / Obamaites / Clintonites recently came after him to remove him permanently. Paxton tells in this video why he hasn't done anything a voter fraud (he's not allowed). Unless the Christo-conservative voters stay steadfast, Texas will fall to the gangsters:
Here's the number-on problem of activist pro-Trumpers:
Here's a "popular" video topic...where Trump is the guiltiest party of all according to his own boasting that he himself was the most responsible for getting out the vaccines:
This is a very pertinent message as per the ongoing fight against farmers / food:
Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture