In the video below, we have what is now a common lie that gravity is not a force. It's as though the scientific establishment has suffered a deep but laid-low crisis wherein it's adherents have proved Newtonian gravity false (a thing I agree with), and are now desperate to find a new explanation for gravity but steering clear of electromagnetic gravity, even though the latter makes perfect sense of things.

Even in videos telling that some in the science establishment frowned on Newtonian gravity, the graviton, when going over to Einstein's ridiculous definition of gravity, there's no reasons given as to why gravity can't be electromagnetic. It's as though this idea should not be brought to your mind, as though the evil spirits having much sway in the thinking of the ungodly steer clear of the truth, by nature.

The lunatic entertainer in the video below pushes all sorts of nutcracker ideas from modern and old physics, and his audience regularly applauds him for be so super intelligent when the fact is he's too stupid to be ashamed of himself for openly pushing poison physics. In this video, he portrays time as a real entity existing outside the human mind, and he credits an aspect of time as the definition of gravity as though time is somehow able to affect the direction of material motion. I don't think "science" gets nuttier than this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PfjsPdBzg

Note how he uses clocks, as if clocks are synonymous with time. Clocks have no connection to time. Clocks just count numbers for us, and run at a steady speed. Clocks have the 1 coming before the 2, and so on, but this is all they are. It is asinine to claim that clocks near the ground tick slower than clocks in the air, as this wallop of a dope claims. There is no time near the ground. There is no time in the air, or in space. You cannot grab it, you cannot see it, smell it...it's not there. Nobody created it but humans, a figment of our imaginations, not a tangible thing. Animals don't acknowledge time, only humans do, as a tool.

One step of your foot comes before the next step, when we walk, and "before and after" is what we mean by time. "A long time" doesn't mean time is long. Before-and-after does not exist as an entity in space. This goofball claims that, because time ticks at a different speed in the air, all objects fall toward the ground. Laughable, and they call it "time dilation." But we haven't heard everything yet, because new wacko ideas are popping up like mad these days in the arena of science entertainment, because the audience is praising those who push them, which is the real scary part. Instead of viewers commenting that these quacks are quacks, they are pretending to understand what's being said, and even calling it correctness. SCARY. This is demonism, as if people affected by evil spirits naturally praise lies, and naturally stay clear of realities that can make people well.

Just because one clock is slower than another doesn't mean a different amount of time occurs at the slower clock. It is impossible to have a different length of time one mile in the air versus on the ground. Anyone who doesn't know this instantly, when hearing it from the goofball above, is in danger of being duped by all sorts of wacko ideas.

At the start of the video, he says "gravity is actually curvature of space-time," and he has a little computer animation, a little cartoon, to "prove" it, to convince any stupid viewer who might come along of it's understandability. These stupid viewers have extraordinary high ratings of their own mental faculties because they can "understand" things most others can't, and the reason most others can't is because they still hold some sanity. It's "hip" or "woke" in physics today to pretend to understand space-time, because they think that anyone who doesn't is of lowly mental aptitude.

Curvature of space-time? This is insanity. Curvature of space is itself insane, but curvature of space-time is doubly insane because there neither exists space nor time. For if space is nothing, then it doesn't exist. Science used "space" initially as a tool to describe nothingness. If space is filled with particles, it's no longer pure space, technically. We can say that space exists between particles, fine and true, but then we can't say that space is something. When they say "space-time," they mean complete-empty space is a real thing that exists. LUNATICS. Space has volume, but volume is not a thing.

The establishment that created the big bang was possessed of deranged lunatics who viewed space as a real thing created by the big bang. LUNATICS. Before the big bang, there was no space. LUNATICS. The big bang rolled out space. LUNATICS. The big bang ever makes space bigger. LUNATICS. And space can somehow create matter, this is where they have been going with this all along, to give God-rejectors a way to create all that we see apart from a God. The goofball in the video above is our impish enemy, worse than a goof.

Nothingness cannot be a something in the real world. It is a "thing" only in our minds, a word to denote nothingness. One cannot create nothing. No-thing is not a thing, hello? If we have a jar of nothing, we call it "space" to describe it, but there is no space-thing in the jar. If we say that space is an entity, we enter lalaland. Keep it sane. It is impossible to imagine no space. It is impossible to imagine what came before space if space was created. Just leave it at that. Don't let them convince you that space is somehow a living, energetic thing in its "dark matter."

The lunatic in the video above says, "yes, time can curve," and what he does here is to set the viewer up to think that time curves objects into a direction. If you can imagine time curving, you are a lunatic. You're losing grip. If you can imagine time as something existing in space, you're gone mad. I-had-dinner-before-I-went-to-bed cannot curve. I-first-tripped-down-the-stairs-at 3:10-o'clock-and-broke-my-skull-two-seconds-later is not curve-able. The-passing-of-time does not literally pass. I-had-a-bad-time is not bad time.

Isaac Newton was not wrong in claiming that gravity exists in both bodies, the one pulling and the one being pulled. But what I reject is the claim that all atoms contain a gravity particle, or some means of force that is not electromagnetic. Gravity is indeed electromagnet, and this can be proven. I provided some of the proof in the last update; if you want to find it, search for "the stupids committed themselves," and read from there.

They are trying to condition every student today into the belief of space-time "fabric." They even write it as "spacetime," as if it's one thing rather than two combined. Evolutionists are dangerous and have the darkest pits of Hell reserved for them. Evolutionists are distorters of reality, distorters of God's nature, will and plans.

A google offering:

Gravity is a weak force, but has only one sign of charge. Electromagnetism is much stronger, but comes in two opposing signs of charge. This is the most significant difference between gravity and electromagnetism, and is the main reason why we perceive these two phenomena so differently.

You'll hear it repeatedly that gravity is very weak, which is a complete distortion of the reality. The idea has the secondary purpose of trying to make gravity look like something other than electromagnetism. Gravity can pull a mountain, how is that weak? Gravity can pull the moon way up a quarter of a million miles away. Weak? They have got to be kidding.

Where do they get weak? They get it where they cannot detect the gravity between to metal balls no matter how close they place them. They cannot detect it, not because it's weak, but because gravity doesn't exist in the balls as they think it does. Therefore, when they say it's a weak force, it's based on a faulty premise. If they rub the balls and make them electric, they can either attract or repel, but they view this as something other than gravity because, as was said in the quote above, gravity "has only one sign of charge." That's wrong, but they just don't get it.

Electromagnetism weakens with distance from its source. Earth gravity has a source thousands of miles beneath the earth surface, and can pull things to itself less-strongly than a strong magnet can pull a nail. But this is because the magnet is so close to the nail. If the magnet were thousands of miles beneath the surface, it wouldn't be able to pull the nail at all. How does this make magnetism stronger than gravity?

A negatively charged part of a magnet attracts a positively-charged part of a magnet, and gravity is the negative charge of interior, planetary heat attracting the positive parts of all atoms. It's the same as, and radically so, a magnetic attraction.

I've never come across anyone open to investigating whether gravity is electromagnetic. The first order in such a discussion is: how can gravity attract all atoms. It's the only question that matters, for they know nothing about gravity aside from it's pulling atoms. If they deny that it pulls atoms, its evil spirits introducing lies.

After we ask how it could possibly be that gravity pulls all atoms, the next logical question coming overwhelmingly to mind: does gravity provide for all atoms to be charged opposite to the electrical charge of gravity? The next question: is gravity negative or positive? That's when it dawns on us the gravity is likely a negative charge from electrons in the earth. If the wackos had accepted that heat should be defined as the material of free electrons, it would have instantly hit them in the face that gravity is from the free electrons in the heat of the planet. But they have stayed clear from this simple and logical track. Why?

As evolutionary-based scientists have been a bag of dead mens' bones in God's sight, He didn't save them from becoming blind, I assume, because, for example, to this day, they cannot accept or see that gravity repels electrons. Therefore, gravity has both attraction and repulsion, just like magnets.

I'm not writing this to convert evolutionists, but more to steer people away from their follies. Even if the goal were to convert evolutionists, I wouldn't show respect for their follies. I wouldn't use respectful terms to describe the old evolutionists responsible for the follies. And where, in some cases, follies were advanced by non-evolutionists, they could have been working with, and influenced by, evolutionists. They were infesting fields of science because evolution was an outcropping of the scientific community, which, in those days, was fledgling and maneuverable. That is, it was scientifically naive, gullible, easily steered by snakes. But what's the excuse of modern scientists for their nesting with the snakes?

Heat Rises Due to Gravitational Force. That's Correct.

You can prove that gravity repels electrons by placing a light-bulb filament into a vacuumed container, and noting that almost all the heat rises straight up. You can't credit this to rising gas currents because there's no gas in the container. You can do the experiment with a light bulb alone if you can find a light-bulb company that still makes bulbs with vacuums. I did the experiment decades ago with a 25-watt Sylvania bulb, because I was told by Sylvania, on the phone, that these bulbs had vacuums.

If you are able, and science labs are, you could prove that straight-up heat from a filament is loaded with electrons, yet the goofballs in evolutionist-controlled physics refuse to acknowledge, or fail to see, that electrons and heat are one and the same, even though they know that heat exists wherever there are free electrons. They have the choice of viewing heat from free electrons as the speed-energy of electrons, or the inter-repulsion of electrons. Why did they reject the latter, and why do they never talk about it? Because, if they give a reason for rejecting it, the reason won't be reasonable, and thus it could backfire and sabotage their view of heat.

Heat is the material of electrons, but only if the electrons enter a material. Heat is known to expand materials as it enters them, and while they say that this expansion is from atoms vibrating harder with increased heat, the real reason can be, and is, due to a greater density of electrons within materials, causing more inter-repulsion. The latter, when trapped in a material, causes it to become larger. It works, and should therefore be part of the discussion on the nature of heat, but, clearly, the establishment chose not to bring this idea to mind, because they haven't got a bullet to kill it. They chose not to bring it to your own mind because it's plausible, yet they don't want you straying from their definition of heat as motion/kinetic energy. DISHONESTY, the father of lies.

What do you suppose will happen to air that's impregnated with more electrons? Duh, the electrons will repel each other away, and thus force atoms further apart, the very definition of expanding air. Yes, and they know that heat expands air. Yet the fact that they have never introduced to you the possibility that heat is an electrically-charged material is a testament to their dishonesty, for they know that the HOT sun sprays the solar system with free electrons, and they know that electrons are electrically charged, and so what is their problem when avoiding a discussion on whether electrons are the real cause of heat? Their problem is that they have no argument to kill the idea, and they want it dead at all costs. Therefore, they are the problem, the killers of realities, and so God will kill their souls.

The light filament (defined as a thin metal wire) possesses a flow of electrons pushed so hard across it that it can't keep them all in. Some electrons spill out of the filament, into the space of the vacuum, and they repel each other in all directions, which is why some of the heat goes even to the bottom of the container. There will be less heat at the bottom, more at the sides, and mostly at the top...because, along with their own inter-repulsion, gravity repels ALL electrons upward. They are so concentrated at the top that they will melt wax on the outer side of the container; not so at the bottom of the container. It melted the wax only at the top in my experiment using the Sylvania bulb.

It's then a no-brainer that the electrons making it to the bottom of the container do so because their inter-repulsion forces are in all directions.

There's going to occur a maximum-density of electrons in the container when the number of electrons emitting from the filament equal the number of electrons passing through the walls of the container to the outside air. And in that maximum-density situation, if it's hot enough, some electrons will be forced to the bottom of the container, but relatively few because gravity force is in the container too.

Electrons would not be more dense at the top unless their inter-repulsion were weaker than the force of gravity upon them. If the density of container electrons were made to increase with higher electrical flow through the filament, the situation could be produced where the container electrons come so close that they all repel each other more than gravity repels them, at which time, I think, electrons would become equally dispersed in the bulb. BUT, by that time, the glass might glow red or even melt.

The upward flow of electrons especially penetrates the top wall of the container, and will enter wax there, or your finger. The simple-to-arrive-at truth is: if gravity were not repelling the electrons, they would distribute themselves evenly throughout the container, and would then leak through all container walls equally, providing EVEN HEAT all around the container. But this is not what takes place, and I don't think you can come up with any plausible explanation for the concentration of electrons at the top other than their being repelled by a force outside the container that can get into the container.

What kind of force can get through the container walls? Not wind. Not blowing your breath on the container. Only electromagnetic force.

It's not heat if the electrons don't enter your finger. The filament is loaded with electrons whether the electrical power is on or off. If you touch it while the electrical power is turned off, no electrons enter you finger because they are captured by protonic attraction. Turning on the electrical power frees them to transfer atom-to-atom in the filament, and they, midway between atoms, can then enter your finger both as heat and as electrical current. The heat is more-simply the bleeding of electrons into the skin, but the electrical flow into the skin becomes an atom-to-atom transfer of captured electrons across the water molecules of the body.

The accepted view of heat cannot explain why heat goes up a metal rod in far greater amounts than down the rod. Guaranteed, if you take a vertical, two-foot metal rod and heat it in the middle, wax will soon melt at the top but not at the bottom, even if you encase the top half in some concrete to keep hot air off of the rod. There's only one explanation: gravity repels electrons, and free electrons are the true definition of heat. This is not a small discovery, but it's a shame that it's a discovery after a century of the kinetic definition of heat ruling the science labs.

I can say: you are forbidden by God to teach that heat is kinetic energy now that you know you can disprove it with the metal-rod-and-concrete experiment. If you are unwilling to do the experiment, God forbids you -- all of you goofs of the establishment -- to teach that heat is kinetic energy, for this experiment disproves it. The kinetic energy imagined in vibrating metal atoms, if increased in a metal rod by a torch flame, a goes up as much as it goes down, but the experiment shows otherwise. The experiment therefore obliterates the kinetic theory of heat. FORBIDDEN TERRITORY. But the goofs are, by nature, law breakers, violators of God's will gladly.

My discovery (1992) that electrons are repelled by gravity was a century after the discovery of the electron. Just try to imagine how much lab work went into understanding the electron, during that century, yet the fools fooled themselves with the false claim that gravity attracts all matter, i.e. even electrons. Where's the proof? There was none. There can be none, for it's a fact that electrons move upward. Science can prove it, but don't want you to know it.

Science labs knew more than anyone else, aside maybe from plumbers, that heat rises in metals. Therefore, why did they not realize that heat could not be kinetic energy? Some of them must have realized that this is a problem for kineticism, but when the news got to kineticists, they kept it hush, because demons have an agenda, and the agenda was the kinetic theory of atoms, far-more important to demons than reality. We should not think that demons introduce false Biblical doctrines alone, through people, but also false science when it can turn people into atheists. That's what I'm talking about.

Let me stress it: atomic kinetic energy, as they see it, goes downward as much as it goes in any other direction, wherefore: what were they thinking when they saw heat rising in all of their hot experiments? Didn't they do tests to see if the kinetic theory can be busted? That's what true science is, to test theories regardless of where the science takes things.

And then there are Christians who think that they will just stick to teaching the Bible and not worry about going against big-bang science, as if false Biblical doctrines were all that mattered. Science is probably making more enemies of God, and distorted Christians to boot, than heretical cults.

In their erroneous view of air, air atoms are crashing constantly in all directions equally. In their view, air atoms crash with greater speeds, yet still equally in all directions, when the air atoms are heated. Yet this view of atoms cannot explain why heated air rises more than it goes downward. The goofs lie to you when they try to explain this with the cheap-shot claim that lighter air rises on the buoyancy principle. Yes, hot air rises, but why does it rise, that's the question. Kineticism can't explain it with the buoyancy principle, that's my point.

Hot air rises on the principle of buoyancy only when air is in a balloon. But there is no buoyancy applicable in free air outside the skin of a balloon. In a balloon, the air is made into a single unit, but outside of the balloon there are individual atoms. It's obvious to physicists that buoyancy cannot apply to a single atom racing in empty space, especially as he sees air atoms attracting one another, for buoyancy is defined as more air pressure at the bottom of objects than on their tops. In the kinetic view of atoms, there can be no greater pressure at the bottom of a lone air atom than on its top, in order to give it lift. If you can see that, why can't they who ought to know much better than we?

Why should air atoms rise more than they fall just because they are made to crash faster? There is no logic here, no explanation for rising free air. Free air will rise as fast as, or faster than, a balloon of air at the same-hot temperature, even though buoyancy on a single atom is a big fat zero. It's so fat that the establishment can't help but see it. The blubber is all over their experiments, but, the problem is, they don't want to see it.

The correct explanation: adding heat to air adds more electrons around the air atoms, and as gravity repels the electrons skyward, they bump the bottom sides of atoms, and give them lift. The electrons bump the undersides, then pass around the atom, on their merry way to outer space. The larger the atom, the higher and more-powerful the lift. You might be interested in finding "all atoms weigh the same" in the last update.

Guaranteed, that since all atoms weigh the same, a situation that gravity itself arranges, the lift force upon individual atoms will be proportional to the square of their diameters. That is, an atom with twice the diameter has four times the bottom-side area, and will therefore get four times the lift force due to getting four times more upward bumps. For me, this proves that the goofs have atomic sizes backward when saying that the hydrogen atom is the smallest. No, it's the largest because it's known that hydrogen atoms get more lift than any other.

Hydrogen atoms rise to the top of a container of mixed gases because they get more upward bumps. A water molecule is larger than a hydrogen atom, and therefore gets more upward bumps, but hydrogen goes higher in the container because water molecules weigh more. The race to the top of a container is a battle between gravity pull and upward electron bumps. When we assign a hydrogen atom the weight of 1, it's known that water weighs 9. Therefore, when water molecules get the same lift force as hydrogen atoms, there are 9 times as many electron bumps under the water molecules, suggesting that there needs to be 9 times the electron density in their midst, which, hopefully, is 9 times the temperature...though it may be hard to know what 9 times the temperature is.

Rudimentaries of a Wrong Atomic Model

Here's how the goofs operated. They first of all assumed wrongly, without evidence or logic, that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms. This very theory then led to their "discovering" and listing the wrong atomic weights, and that in turn led to their sizing of atoms, which, of course, must be wrong if not true that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms. And that's all one needs to say to show that they have got their atomic weights and sizes wrong.

These were not geniuses when they set out, and they are worse that quackpots today because they should know better by now. They are condemned to humiliation, shame, and eternal torment...unless they make peace with their Creator as He requires it.

They saw that a hydrogen gas of a particular volume weighed 16 times as much as an oxygen gas in an identical volume, and with their idea that both gases have the same number of atoms, it was very convenient for them, because they could now claim with "certainty" that the hydrogen atom weighs 16 times less than an oxygen atom. And in their multiple-proton madness, they also made hydrogen 16 times smaller than the oxygen atom. But all of this is error if they did not get the premise correct, and you should know better than they that there's absolutely no way for a grand, cosmic coincidence to be true wherein all gases at STP have the same number of atoms. That's not science, that's irresponsible, neglectful buffoonery unless one can show why it should be so. And they have no explanation that you can be proud of.

The premise is called "Avogadro's hypothesis," and you will find that in almost every presentation of this hypothesis, nobody ventures to tell why the establishment called it a fact. Video speakers just gloss over the mechanism that causes all volumes to have the same number of atoms. No proof is granted, because the goofs are stingy in this regard, because there's no basis in the hypothesis.

It means that H2O is wrong. That is, there is no H2O molecule. It was based on the premise that all equal volumes have the same number of atoms. As it is undeniably true, with undeniable experimental proof, that all atoms weigh the same, it's easy to determine that a water molecule is HO8. That is, one hydrogen atom into which are merged 8 smaller oxygen atoms. I'll try to be concise to show why this is the true molecule, and then move on to the topic at hand.

It's known that two volumes of hydrogen gas mixes (reacts) with one equal volume of oxygen gas. Rather than there being the same number of atoms in all three volumes, all atoms weigh the same, wherefore there are 16 times as many O atoms per volume as there are H atoms per volume, for oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than hydrogen gas. Therefore, for each hydrogen atom in the two volumes, there are 8 oxygen atoms merged to form water, explaining why water gas weighs 9 times more than hydrogen gas. Yet it also tells that a water molecule weighs 9 times more than an H atom, and HO8 (nine atoms in all) indeed weighs 9 times more because all atoms weigh the same. Concise. You can ponder this all you want, knowing that it's the dogged truth. If you want the proof that all atoms weigh the same, ask Galileo at Pisa, or see my last update.

These errors based on Avogadro's assumption pale in comparison to how they wrongly designed atoms, with multiple protons at their cores. One should be able to see immediately how ridiculous this idea is, yet it's maintained to this day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXzWjJCWTI

When the fool asks why the addition or removal of one proton changes an element so drastically, he's a fool to answer it. It's like somebody who starts a video with the "fact" that the moon is made of cheese, and then claims to know exactly how many packets of cheese the moon is made of, and which cows it came from. There's almost nothing he can't "know" because he makes it all up himself. With his cart of "facts," each bottled with attractive labels, he dazzles his stupidified audience in the way a magician operates. Evolutionists are magicians, tricksters, foul creatures, rapists of your mind, smooth-talking killers of your soul...unless you reject them, despise them, and for that purpose, it greatly helps to know how they are wrong all over the place, including the atomic model and related topics.

Pioneers of physics were often experts in math, but it's all vanity if the numbers in the math are wrong due to having the wrong atomic model. If they calculate that the moon is made of 14.5 zillion packs of cheese, does that look productive to you? Is it worth the goof's time to have made those calculations over 40 years of his life? What good is it if he receives top prize at the global science-fair summit for deceiving the whole world on what the moon is made of? He goes to his grave an absolute fool who doesn't realize he's a fool. And the same can be said for those who applaud him.

It's just as unlawful to say that multiple protons are glued together at the core of atoms as to say the moon is cheese. Both are equally ridiculous. We can ask: what could possibly be wrong with the alternative theory in which all elements have only one proton at their core? Why can't they be different protons? Why should we believe that every slab of cheese on the moon is exactly identical? Who decided that every proton is exactly alike? Avogadro's buddy? If you were a gambling man, would you bet on unstable, inter-repelling protons at atomic cores, or stable, lone protons? Then why are you thinking that I'm delusional rather than they?

What motivated the goofs when inventing the theory that all protons are exactly alike? Only a total goof tries to explain 100-plus elements with identical protons for all of them. Why did they go this difficult route? Why didn't they adopt each element with a unique proton? EVIL LURKS.

Let me tell why. The big bang. It was their god. The big bang made the stars, they say, but, their problem was, stars are almost all hydrogen, and planets have all the elements. How can they explain that the stars got such a lopsided make-up from the same big-bang explosion, with so many hydrogen atoms per few steel atoms, or per so few copper atoms, etc? They decided that steel and copper atoms, and all other elements, were made of hydrogen atoms. That's right, to this day, the absolute goofballs view every atom as a multiple of one hydrogen atom. FOOLS. DECEIVERS. All on behalf of framing big-bang viability. The atomic model is based on conformity to big-bang needs. This isn't science; it's the religion of anti-Christs. EVIL COOKS THE BOOKS.

The goof in the video above now wants to dazzle his audience on the nature of nuclear power. Instead of crediting the captured electrons, he credits something very akin to cow dung on the moon that he claims is part of the evidence for the moon being made of cheese. Ignore the Higgs field, which does not exist, but was invented to produce a potential creator of materials as the offspring of the big bang. In their view, the big bang created god-the-creator, so to speak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWN0DrbNSE

As you can easily see, they're nuts to devise the atomic nucleus as they have it; and then go and define gravity as some quarky outworking from within the proton. They haven't got a clue what's in the proton, don't be fooled. Things only gets worse by the decade as they invent fix to broke. At one time, they said the proton could not be divided. Then came new-generation yahoos who loved to invent anything-goes to see if it could fly.

Somebody once decided which errors are let loose on the public, from a barrel of snakes to choose from. Not anymore. Now the general pool of lunatics can pass off their own ideas via youtube, hoping for some rags-to-fame energy to materialize. It predicts betrayals, but let the fun begin already.

The point of showing the video above: they are inclined to define nuclear energy as particles in super-fast motion/vibration, for they are dependant upon it because they were too stupid to see their stupidity when they assigned the hydrogen atom only one electron. Atomic electrons -- lots and lots of them, like the hairs on your head -- are the true definition of nuclear energy, through their repulsion forces rather than their speeds, but the goons can't credit electrons for nuclear energy if there's only one per proton. That's partly the reason they sought a different explanation while ignoring the electrons.

They can measure the heat formed when a hydrogen atom is made positive in charge, and the heat is very negligible. They think that only one electron goes free when a hydrogen atom is made positive, and so they think that roughly a hundred electrons freed from each uranium atom can't possibly account for the massive heat formed in nuclear energy. That's how you can know that atoms have a massive number of atoms, and because hydrogen is the largest atom, it has more captured electrons than any other atom. In a water molecule, eight O atoms are sunk (merged) into one H atom.

Electrons are held tight by protons, and should protons be instantly destroyed, there would be a "big bang" of exploding electrons, flying apart with a force many times greater than ordinary explosions (like hydrogen gas exploding). Even ordinary explosions, resulting from only a small percentage of freed electrons, behave as expected (outward flight of material in all directions) with electrons released suddenly from protons. No quarks needed. No goofballs needed. Just freed electrons. It's why every explosion comes with heat.

Someone in the comments section admits that the atomic model is ridiculous: "Honestly, I've been watching particle physic videos for years and could explain almost none of it. But after viewing this video I think I am many steps closer. THANKS!" No, you're just brainwashed enough by now that you think you can spot a piece of reality in a well-presented illusion. You're delusional now because you've badly wanted to grasp a mirage for years. Sooner or later, if you respect these goons, they will destabilize your good senses much worse than flat earthers could.

How could grown men possibly assign one electron per one proton? What possessed them to view a hydrogen atom in that way? I don't see anything demanding such a picture. It seems they decided to minimize electron-orbit congestion because the public would rebel otherwise. It's already ludicrous to invent orbiting electrons, and so the more they give hydrogen, the more they need to give uranium, and the latter already has a traffic-jam problem as it is. Had they assigned ten electrons to hydrogen, they would have been compelled to give uranium 10 times the orbiting electrons = ping-bing-crash-bang-kaboom.

Then, having decided that part, they needed to trick the public with the notion that each weensy electron has as much negative charge as the gigantes proton has positive charge, otherwise the electron couldn't remain in orbital balance. By this concept they trick you into thinking that all's dandy to have as many protons at the core as there are electrons in orbit, per any type of atom. What they're asserting is that the big bang had a big brain that knew to give the electrons exactly as much charge as protons, only in reverse charge so that they would attract one another. Then the big-bang brain went a committed suicide by exploding, and from the dust it created atoms.

Here's evidence that atoms can't have multiple protons. Entertaining the impossible, that a single electron orbits just dandy around one proton, how can electrons orbit around a cluster of two or three protons since that doubles and triples the positive force on EACH electron. What the goofballs want you to let them get away with is the idea that three protons allows three electrons to orbit without problem, just as one proton at the core allows one electron to orbit just dandy. But this is a trick, and anyone with a degree in physics should see it, yet they all, like anti-physics buffoons, allowed the evolutionists to get away with this trick.

We all know that if Jupiter's gravity were to triple, ALL of its moons would spiral inward and be swallowed up. You can't say that a protonic core three times stronger won't swallow three orbiting particles just because the charge of the three protons is equivalent to the charge of the three electrons. The three electrons are independent of one another, and they all get pulled in, three times stronger, if there are three protons glued together at the core. End of discussion, I win, they lose. Their model is a farce.

Their response is, oh ya well if there are three electrons they all repel each other outward so that they balance out the extra inward attraction, and therefore they keep orbital balance...providing there are the same number of protons and electrons in the atom. No, absolutely not, for the three electrons repel each other sideways, NOT STRAIGHT OUTWARD. They need to repel each other three times more in the straight-outward direction to perfectly balance the three times more of straight-inward attraction.

Orbiting electrons would repel each other only partially outward, but partially sideways. The more orbiting electrons, for example, 50, the more they repel each other closer to a perpendicular line (midway between inward and outward) than to the outward direction. This problem, too, can explain why the inventors of the orbital atom didn't give hydrogen more than one electron.

As orbiting electrons are impossible, that's why you can have the confidence to know that neutrons do not exist. The entire atomic model of the goons can be scrapped, considered a mere invention of hardheaded, wicked men who closed their eyes to the deep problems and impossibilities. The big bang was, from the start, an assault on the Creator, and it continues to be, and so the big-bang must be protected above all. Any atomic model that does not prop up the big bang must be rejected with ferocity.

The same goof above in this next video talks like he knows what happened at the big bang, but he's merely aping what others have agreed to, who constitute a big-bang cult. Note how this good speaks so confident on behalf of the cult, as though he's either a cult member, or feigning it to make youtube money. The best I can say is that this goof makes an absolute jerk of himself while sounding like he knows what he's talking about. I'm showing this video because the title claims to be on how the first atoms were formed, though he barely delves into that part, likely because he's knows it's problematic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ra9oaLouGU

Note how much he has the temperature of the universe dropping over the first seconds after the big bang, as if he really knows these details to a tee just because he learned it from the "experts. This is not an intelligent person. This is an ape, a follower, and he's hoping to make big youtube money on this and similar trash. His problem is, which he (and almost all others) doesn't mention: the longer time goes on after an explosion, the further apart the exploded particles move away from each other. And so he's avoiding this issue while simultaneously tricking your subconscious believe that, after a few hundred-thousand years, the protons and electrons weren't so far from each other that they couldn't have come together for a little wee kiss. He pretends to know exactly what goes on in the first second, but when it comes to how far the particles were from one another, 400,000 years after the explosion, crickets.

He doesn't want you to know even the ballpark distance between particles. You're not supposed to ponder this. This is evidence against big-bangers. But as so many are willfully deceived buy the big bang, he's decided he'll make money off of the fools.

In the mind of a sane person who realizes and understands this problem, the vast distance between particles is the death of the big bang, especially as hydrogen atoms repel one another. Even if we allow him to get away with the coming together of protons and electrons by their mutual attraction, to form hydrogen atoms, the latter refuse to come near to one another, but move away from one another. It's the only option left after one recognizes that kinetic atoms cannot exist.

It's all the harder for particles to draw near to each other when they are travelling at fantastic speeds near-parallel to each other. In an explosion from a small point, particles tend to travel near-parallel to each other. Even if they were screeching a mere inch apart at 100,000 miles per hour, they could not attract each other for a kiss. The forward force would prevent sideways migration, and certainly the screeching electrons are not going to enter orbits around protons even if they did kiss at those speeds.

So, the goofs want it both ways, fantastic speeds for a long time to explain the universe as we see it today, and easy/mild come-together of protons and electrons. This is why they don't mention the fast speeds, and huge distances between, big-bang particles if ever anyone of them ventures to explain atom formation. DISHONESTY.

In the 13th minute, Mr. Jerk has a drawing, a cartoon, showing many particles near to each other, and all moving at different speeds and directions, at random, which is not the scene expected from an explosion, where the speed of particles was inconceivable at that early time, and the direction for all particles would have been outward/away from the explosion. But the false representation of his cartoon scene is well suited to convincing the viewer that, no problem at all, the particles came together to form atoms.

This video is the work of a fantastically wicked and stupid person who, when he comes across like he's serious, is a real and present danger to the human race. This is the anti-Christ cult at work, packing the lies into the minds of people who'll pass both them, and the anti-Christ agenda, on to their children. This video owner, and many similar others, have big-bang cultists eating out of their hands. They work together to advance this stench.

Aside from the pie and flower shapes, this video below shows atoms roughly as I see them, with non-orbiting electrons, and lots of them. The speaker, a goof, then ruins the video by saying that his zillions of electrons represent orbiting electrons somehow, an idea espoused by others too, as though atomic physics in the young generation wants to veer away from the orbiting electron, because it doesn't make good sense, but isn't yet willing to take the dive because the old-stuffy establishment biggies are threatening repercussions if big-bang needs are abandoned.

How can orbiting electrons be illustrated, as they are in this video, as million of electrons in an electron atmosphere of a protonic core? It bends the mind, but don't worry, science has a name for it, and people are deceived when there's a name for it. The speakers "wave functions" of orbital electrons is, first and foremost an invention, and secondly its jargon to make people believe that physicists really know what they're taking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Xb2GFK2yc

With a not-so-great draw package, I made these unprofessional diagrams of what a real atom should look like, though I have no idea what scale the electrons should be sized at in comparison to the atomic sphere.
https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomsRepelElectronCloud.png

https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomsRepelCrossSection.jpg

To Prove Inter-Repelling Gas Atoms

There's one quote saying that hydrogen-gas atoms travel at about 4,000 miles per hour. I can't stop telling you how utterly mad and blockheaded evolutionists are. Do you have any idea how fast that is? Try to imagine a car passing you at that speed, and do you think a wee hydrogen atom can collide with zillions of other H atoms without all suffering the loss of their electrons? Try to imagine how many collisions there are per second? At this speed, it's travelling over a mile each second. Try to imagine how wee-close to one another they are, and how many collisions there are over a gigantic mile.

Imagine how hot a steel ball would be when smashing at 4,000 mph into a granite cliff face. The reason this ball would be super hot in that collision, or even disintegrated, is from the loss of its electrons.

Why would evolutionists choose such a vast speed for the H atom? Because, they committed to the error that every hydrogen atom is so small, and so sparse as compared to other gases, that they needed this vast speed to produce the gas pressures which they can measure.

They wouldn't need the speed if they chose the alternative to explaining gas pressure, but they chose speed because it conforms to the big-bang explosion. They did not choose to view gas atoms as tending toward stationary because it requires the definition of gas pressure as the repulsion force of gas atoms. And they did not want gas atoms to repel each other because the earliest atoms could then not come together to form stars. It's not coincidental that all aspects of their atomic models prop up their big bang as best as possible.

Try to imagine how delicate an electron orbit is, and yet they say with straight face that atoms collide at over 4,000 miles per hour??? Only an idiot who doesn't know how to blush would make such a claim, and yet the whole scientific community did not openly rebel against this claim. It has been an utter embarrassment since the "great enlightenment" because that movement was itself an anti-Christ cult into which evolutionists immersed themselves. This was the primordial swamp with low lives evolving into lizards and snakes.

How can all gas atoms repel one another? Due to electrons in their midst. And that's why you never hear atomic physicists mention free electrons in space even when they are teaching on vacuums. Free electrons filling all of space is forbidden territory for these shameless creatures of the lie. In my drawing below, free electrons are shown in blue:
https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomSeparation.png

There you see two liquid atoms merged in atomic attraction, because the proton of one atom attracts the electrons of another atom. They can merge because the outer layer of atoms are not concrete walls. Instead, they are hovering electrons with space between them, and as such they can slip into the hovering electrons of other atoms. But for that to happen in the first place, some outside force needs to make them kiss against their will. Gravity can be such a tyrant. But it's not only boss-gravity that forces atoms together, but also pushy electrons.

The drawing shows how free electrons squeeze-in between the atoms to push them apart. For every kind of gas type, it takes a different temperature -- a different free-electron density -- to keep them apart. Once apart, there's only one logical thing that keeps them apart, and that's inter-repulsion. Air atoms are above their critical temperatures, and so will not bond when wind causes them to collide and (temporarily) merge. But water molecules are below their critical temperature so that wind and gravity can cause them to merge such that they stay merged, as liquid droplets.

It's gravity that forces water molecules together as dew, on the top surface of a leaf, for example. Here's a not-so-great drawing on the formation of dew and wall condensation:
https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomsRepelDropletMergers.jpg

There is only one reason that dew forms at night rather then during the day: cooling temperatures. Nobody disputes this. The only dispute is on the mechanics of dew formation, though nobody makes any dispute, for they all go with the kinetic-theory version of dew formation. I reject it.

They say that, when water molecules are colliding at slower speeds, by night, they are able to bond in greater numbers, but when colliding faster by day, they are not as likely to merge. I don't know how many miles per hour they claim for water molecules, but I do know that, at such speeds, water molecules could never be water molecules. Their atoms would break up and not hold together during collisions. They would moreover be losing electrons galore so as to become positively charged (causes them to inter-repel). Forget it, this picture is nonsense.

The reality: when the part of the earth faces the sun by day, the density of free electrons is high, and water molecules are given lift because there are sufficient numbers (by day) of free electrons repelled upward by gravity. But as the air cools by night, the free-electron density is lower so that the rising electrons are not always able to lift water molecules. The latter slowly drop toward the ground, and when making contact at the ground, they merge and remain merged by atomic attraction, in spite of their inter-repulsion which keeps them separated when not in contact.

To put it another way, when the air is cold enough that the downward gravity force is stronger upon them than their inter-repulsion, they merge as dew. There's no mechanical problem with this view, no violation of any known physics law. There's no repeated collisions at enormous speeds.

The force level of water-molecule bond is weak, so weak that a light wind can erode them apart. In conjunction with wind, or even when there is no wind, water molecules come apart from evaporation, which in reality is defined as erosion by free electrons rising through the liquid / droplet. As free electrons in the liquid are forced upward by gravity, they lift water molecules at the liquid surface into the air. Wind helps to dismember water molecules at the liquid surface. No breaking of physics laws here. Just plain-Jane erosion by electron and air currents.

Sunlight (light waves through the free electrons of the air) "pumps" free electrons (of the air) into dew drops to facilitate evaporation. Everything hinges on the free electrons that the goofballs ignore, to the point that what I'm saying here is toxic to the brainwashed science buff, and extremely offensive / threatening to the proud science "expert."

Although a goof who pretends to be extra-intelligent knows that a light wind can cause water molecules to dislodge from one another, he claims that gaseous water molecules bond into liquid when they go slow enough...at hundreds of miles per hour. Do you see anything here resembling a cracked brain, where the left side can't take warnings from the right side not to be that stupid? If the demon is on the left side, woe, but if there's a demon on both sides, woe-woe. He's now a programmed wobot of the demons.

They have molecules colliding at different speeds, and even the slowest ones are moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Yet if a wind of 10 miles per hour can dislodge water molecules and turn them to a gas, how does he think that water molecules colliding at hundreds of mph could merge in the first place, and then stay merged while vibrating at hundreds of miles or hour? He thinks this way because he's utterly stupid, unashamed to teach the ridiculous. He deserves to be stripped of all respect. He's an idiot box who ignores the realities, self-disguised as a respectable scientist. FRAUD.

Water molecules are made of hydrogen atoms, and he thinks they vibrate at thousands of miles per hour. Even though he sees the H atom as the smallest of all atoms, having just one electron for the oxygen atoms to attract, he yet thinks that oxygen and hydrogen atoms stay merged as water molecules, and this while oxygen atoms are themselves vibrating at thousands of miles per hour.

To be clear, if any science goof, though as destructive as a Tyrannosaurus Rex, has a change of mind and heart as to abandon atomic physics, I wholeheartedly forgive and commend. I would even worry on his behalf, lest he should fall back into the error that once gripped his spirit. I would be his worry-momma, for this is how the Spirit of God programs us, to care for others, which is exactly why I despise the destroyers of others.

He thinks that hydrogen atoms refuse to bond with other hydrogen atoms because they are moving too fast to bond. He thinks that oxygen atoms refuse to bond with other oxygen atoms because they are moving too fast to bond. Yet he has no problem seeing oxygen atoms bonding with hydrogen atoms to form the water of all the oceans. How can this be a scientist? How is this not a fraud, a shameless liar?

He knows that hydrogen and oxygen gases bond as water molecules when the two are heated together to a high temperature, in which case the atoms are speeding about even faster than at atmospheric temperatures, and yet he has nothing to say in objection to the impossibility of the kinetic theory to explain this formation of water. How do we describe this kind of fraud? How does he explain that H and O are moving too fast to bond at minus 100 degrees, and yet they bond at a few hundred degrees above zero? I don't think the establishment even ventures to explain it. I think it just hopes the problem doesn't come to your mind.

The only way for O and H to bond at high temperatures, or when a spark is caused in their midst, is for one and/or the other to lose electrons, which changes the electric charge such that the two atoms attract from a distance more than they would ordinarily inter-repel. But this doesn't work for kineticism because, if one or the other, H or O, loses electrons due to the extra speed, so must the other lose electrons, in which case both the O and H become positively charged, resulting in inter-repulsion instead of attraction from a distance.

As they have one proton per one electron in every atom everywhere, they themselves believe that all orbiting electrons are captured by the same amount of force, in EVERY type of atom. Therefore, if two atoms collide, one H and one O, we can't argue that one or the other loses electrons while the other does not. And for the same reason, we can't say that one loses electrons while the other gains one or more. Besides, do they think it's easy for one atom to lose an orbiting electron only to see it enter an orbit in another atom, as if orbital formation is a perfectly natural and easy trick for atoms to do, even when the kinetic situation is crash-crazy-bonkers to begin with? If atomic physicists were true lunatics, they would have an excuse, but as they claim to have normal-functioning brains, they are guilty of great sin.

The kineticist claims that atoms can bond into liquids when they slow down enough, because they are all in inter-attraction at all times, even when separated. How can all atoms be attracting each other? Do they even explain it? This is their biggest big-bang need, and yet do they explain why atoms should all be attracting one another? I've been viewing their materials for decades, and I can't remember one instance where this matter was discussed. They don't want it to come to your mind. If they had a good proof for inter-attracting gas atoms, they would be splashing the textbooks and videos with it.

How can gas atoms attract so strongly that they would merge and bond while colliding at hundreds of miles per hour, or better? Even if we say that they merge without a collision, i.e. while travelling side-by-side in the same direction for a mild kiss, they are a nano-second from their next harsh collision, and do they then remain merged, even when they are hammered by atoms all around them, a zillion times per second? Shame you buffoons. You taught my children lies on behalf of an at-war-with-God big bang. More than shame to you. Punishment is hanging over your head, following you around, from which there is only One escape.

There is nothing you can say, in your defense, to the Judge, the Son of God, after you've gone to your grave in defiance of His people whom you've helped to beat up and marginalize with big-bang monstrosities.

It gets worse, for there are a hundreds if not thousands of gases made of molecules rather than lone atoms, and we are to believe that all of these molecules attract each other too? Their forming liquids is explained in the same way as with lone atoms, a slow-down in speed allowing them to bond. By what cosmic chance can all gas atoms and molecules attract each other? What reason can they give for this vast coincidence that cracks all logic to boot? If they have no explanation, then it is in fact a cosmic coincidence. On the other hand, I can explain the reason that all gases have inter-repelling atoms / molecules, because the free electrons of the aether in combination with gravity arranges for all atoms to have the same charge.

Besides, to show the utter contempt of atomic physics for mankind, they know full well that every identical gas atom, and every identical molecule, must either be neutral in electric charge, or must have the same charge. They can't say that half the oxygen atoms are negative, and half are positive, so that they attract each other in that way. If they admit that all identical gas atoms and molecules have the same charge, it causes inter-repulsion. If they say that all gas particles are neutral in charge, then they cannot explain liquid formation unless they invent some attractive force between all gas particles. And that's their "graviton," their gravity particle that they don't talk about. They are too ashamed of it, yet they heap contempt on you by insisting that all gas particles attract, without telling you of the impossibility.

Again, as solid balls show no attraction to each other when they are placed a fraction of a millimeter apart, how are single atoms and molecules going to attract each other into a bond when flying hundreds or thousands of miles per hour, and crashing to boot??? IMPOSSIBLE. CONTEMPT ON YOU. They distort your understanding of atoms with fantasies.

Just so you don't think I'm wrongly describing their theory of liquid formation: "Under appropriate conditions, the ATTRACTIONS [caps mine] between ALL gas molecules will cause them to form liquids or solids." Atomic physicists need to be punished.

The only alternative to their theory is that gas atoms inter-repel. There's no other way to explain how gas atoms remain apart but by inter-repulsion. Atomic merger is not a problem whatsoever to explain, when starting from a scenario in which they all inter-repel: there are forces that force atoms together in spite of their repulsion. What's the problem here? Nothing.

It's known that air atoms weigh on the ground. Therefore, all one needs to see is this primary-school-level diagram to prove that air atoms inter-repel:
https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomsRepelCannonBall2.jpg

Repulsion forces between objects is a form of contact. Therefore, atoms can transfer their weights to the ground through their inter-repulsion. I've seen a video showing hovering magnets just as you see them here:
https://www.tribwatch.com/AtomsRepel/atomsRepelMagnets.jpg

Note how the magnets hover at a greater distance from each other as they are higher off the weight scale. The same applies to air atoms, explaining why air atoms are less dense with height. The kinetic theory predicts the opposite, because kineticists claim that slower atoms create less distance between each other. In that case, colder = slower atoms high in the sky should be more dense than faster atoms at the ground.

How does the kinetic view of atoms explain progressively less density of air with height? Do you think kineticists never encountered this question? Why didn't they inform students of this glaring problem for their theory?

If they claim that air atoms are closer to one another at the ground because there's more atoms weighing down upon ground-level air atoms than air atoms higher up, they are then opposing their kinetic theory. They are then dishonest for not revealing that inter-attracting gas atoms cannot weigh down on each other.

They can't say that air atoms transfer weight downward due to making contact for a small percentage of the time in which they are flying about. That's not logical, not correct, first because, when they do collide, there is no atomic path in any direction by which the force of collision can be transferred. Besides, collision force is not weight force.

I win, they lose. I am triumphant over them, and almost nobody cares, almost nobody is prepared to adopt my views, because "everyone" prefers to go with the flow of professionals. Even when I explain the reasons for their errors in conjunction with the reasons for my correctness, I'm considered the delusional one. There are so many things to point out as trash that a reader may think I'm purely anti-science, like one with an axe to grind against evolutionism.

The Big-Bang Father and Son

Someone, they say, discovered neutrinos, said to be formed when atoms "decay" (modify) into other atoms i.e. they transform into other materials. But, in the real world, materials do not turn into other materials unless they undergo chemical reactions, which involves a removal or addition of captured electrons, not a removal or addition of a proton of the atomic core. I'm not calling the core a "nucleus" because it can bring to mind multiple protons and neutrons, which is slander. Evil mischaracterization of the atom is slander against it. "Neutrino" is another slander word.

In neutrino formation, a neutron in the atomic core turns into a proton. It's magic, and who are you to disagree? Scientists can't see this taking place, but if they say it happens, who are you to disagree? And this is how the magicians, cartoonists, operate. After years of your hearing "neutrino," it becomes plausible in your mind. After some more time passes, they're calling it a fact, especially if someone can feign an experiment as done correctly to provide "proof" of its existence.

Neutrinos do not exist, and we need only show where science goofs are going wrong when they claim to have discovered them. It would help if atomic physicists had a spine to disagree with the establishment, but this is like when doctors lose their job for not obeying the medical dictators in government. Science, too, is attached to government by a slimy tentacle, which we saw recently in the plandemic.

As I understand it, some decay process didn't produce as much energy as some physicist expected, and wonering where it went, he invented a neutrino that gobbled up some energy...and took it back into its secret den, hiding in from the lab investigators. The alternative explanation is that the goofballs wrongly predicted how much energy should have been expected in the "decay" process...a process that doesn't exist. As their atomic model is not the real one, there are going to result many errors as fixes, and so every error becomes "repaired" by another error, sheer invention.

Here's what some fool "discovered," that a neutrino turns a proton into a neutron but simultaneously forms a positron, defined as a positively-charged electron: same weight, same face, same nose and ears, as an electron, but positive in charge. But of course he "found" this positron, because he knew that the establishment decided on one electron per proton, and so if one proton is obliterated into a neutron, then the discoverer knew he had to eradicate one electron too, but rather than "discover" that one electron went missing, it was more enjoyable and ear-tickling to bring a positively-charged electron into play. This isn't genius, just a cartoonist wasting his life away with the fantasy that he's brilliant.

Then, when we learn that neutrinos might be able to help explain the earliest part of the big bang as well as shed light on "dark matter," suddenly we can begin to see an explosive motive for inventing the neutrino. We can glean that top-level cosmologists are chewing the cud about it, wondering how to use it to advance big-bang "science" in a palatable-to-the-public way.

Like free electrons, neutrinos are said to move through matter. But, in not having any charge, they say, neutrinos cannot be detected by electromagnetic equipment. But how would they know that they have no charge, since they can't shoot them through the magnetic field between two poles of a magnet? The same applies to free electrons; when stationary, they cannot be detected as curvature between two poles of a magnet. The long-standing claim has been: there's a curved path of an electron when it's shot between the poles of a magnet, and that curvature is how the specific mass of an electron is calculated. But if the neutrino doesn't curve in a magnetic field (even if it could be shot through one), how can they determine its specific mass? There's got to be some dazzling make-believe in this somewhere.

Quote: "Neutrinos are the lightest of the massive fundamental particles in the Standard Model. We know that neutrinos have mass because we have observed them change from one flavor into another, a process that can happen only if the neutrinos have mass." DAZZLING FLAVOR, but of course, how could I have been so blind? There's more than one kind of neutrino, how can I be so straight-jacket crazy as to deny the existence of even one? Beware having an open mind, because, the bigger the opening, the more trash they'll throw into it.

Free electrons don't come with packed gunpowder to be ignited by a trigger. Free electrons do what they do when practically stationary in a magnetic field, and nobody is talking about what they do there. I never hear anyone discussing the abilities to discover / find free electrons in space. Nobody talks about this, it's taboo. You are not supposed to know that the air is jam-packed with free electrons = the light-wave aether. Neutrinos yes, but not electrons. See anything suspicious here?

Plus, they say that neutrinos are either so small as to not interact with gravity, or that gravity affects them ever-so-slightly. It's starting to sound as though they could mistaken aether electrons as neutrinos, maybe deliberately so as to avoid the confession that all of space is jam-packed with free electrons.

Neutrinos can be a super way to launder government money in the task of discovering them. Then, those tasked with discovering them will say, "yeah, last year we discovered a couple of them; keep the money flowing and we're sure to find a couple more this year." And waddaya know, they did "find" a couple more. Atomic physics: predicted to be a racket by now. "Say what, you want to hire me to find neutrinos? If the money's right, I could probably believe in them."

They say that cosmic neutrinos have a mass of millions, or even a billion, times less than an electron, and that they pass right through your body while photons cannot. They even say that neutrinos originate from the sun, and yet the goofs refuse to suggest that these bitties could be the light-wave aether (shows dishonesty). I'm not suggesting that neutrinos exist as the aether, but that the goofs could be unwittingly playing with weightless electrons but misinterpreting them as neutral particles. They even say that some neutrino species are created by electrons, suggesting that whatever method "discovered" this type has indeed been misinterpreting electrons for neutrinos.

Quote: "To agree with the observations, this [neutrino] particle had to be electrically neutral, possess practically zero mass, and move at the speed of light" That sounds just like a light wave. It's known that a ray of light does not bend when shot between the poles of a magnet. Even though the light moves across the aether, which is itself negatively charged, the light wave does not get bent by the magnet because aether electrons are practically stationary between the poles of a magnet. Whether or not there is a light wave moving through the magnetic field, aether electrons are not moved toward either pole. Therefore, even though the light-wave medium is negatively charged, the light wave is considered neutral in a magnetic field.

Neutrinos, they say, get their mass from the Higgs field, uh-oh. Where are they going with this? And who are you to disagree once they find a way to pretend that the big bang created matter, out of nothing, in a cosmic "field", the son or father of the big bang? Which will they decide on, the father or the son? Was the field there before the big bang? Did the field ignite the big bang? There's no law in the imagination of an evolutionist to oppose this idea. In his imagination, anything goes. But to make anything stick with the public, he's got to manipulate your thinking. And he's been working you over with neutrinos with an army of youtube cartoon makers. Sooner or later, you will be treated as a freak if you reject these bitties as factual. That's how they operate.

Quote: "Cosmic neutrinos are generated by cosmic rays in extragalactic sources that can be thought of as 'cosmic accelerators'" What's that? Oh, just the idea that the big bang accelerates the creation of outer space, nothing the imagination can't handle. Cosmic accelerators, big machines spitting out neutrinos. Sure-sure, yaw-yaw, count me in, I'm a believer.

Quote: "Physicists have hypothesised that neutrinos – one of the most abundant fundamental particles in the universe – could be the origin of all matter in the universe today." A hypothesis today, a fact tomorrow.

Quote: "The most energetic neutrinos ever witnessed were cosmic neutrinos captured by the IceCube experiment, a neutrino telescope made of a cubic kilometer of Antarctic ice. Researchers witnessed neutrinos with petaelectronvolts of energy, or one thousand trillion electronvolts." Anybody could fake that in what looks like a money-laundering operation. Sure, if you pay people to find neutrinos, they're going to find them with rigged experiments because, if they don't find them, they'll lose lucrative jobs. And, the more they pay them, the faster and better they will "discover" neutrinos. This is science for cash, not new at all.

Quote: "Neutrinos reach us from sources distributed over all redshifts." Why should this be the case? Because, as they conspire to prove that neutrinos are the space-makers, and as they think space is expanding (i.e. being made) faster in red-shift zones, so they "find" dense neutrinos streaming from those regions. Just as money and pockets go together, ditto with neutrinos and red-shift regions. This is tactical engineering of human minds, when they propose a key theory needed to advance the big bang, then release the make-believe evidence for it.

So what they did was to build some equipment by which to catch the effects of neutrinos, and they placed it deep in the Antarctic ice. The way to know they're either nuts or faking things is their claim that neutrinos form new particles, muons, for example, in the ice. The muons emit light in the ice, they claim. Can you think of anything else that could be emitting light in the ice? How much light does is emitted in the ice? It can't be much, because we can't see light any in an ice cube, in a dark room, above the Antarctic ice. Yet they say that neutrinos are just as present in a dark room in your house as they are a mile deep in Antarctica.

The discovery of new, fantasial particles never comes to an end because they want to ingrain into your mind that particles can be whipped up no problem, like it's expected rather than miraculous. In this way, fools tend to think that, yes, the material universe came into being from the big bang, or whatever there was before it that packed all the material into the big-bang point.

If you think particles are CREATED by light, you're a moron of the establishment. "Cosmic rays" is nothing but invisible light that they can portray as magical. Your chief belief ought to be: evolutionists are magicians, enchanters, inventors of false realities to dazzle your senses. Antiprotons are another invention for when they need negatively-charged protons to make sense of their errors. Need more negative force for any experiment that doesn't go as predicted? Call on the antiproton to the rescue.

Quote: "Muons are elementary particles similar to electrons but with greater mass. They are created naturally in cosmic rays and play a crucial role in particle physics." The question is why they compare muons to electrons, but also how they arrived to the mass of a muon. If they came out and said that muons have the same mass as electrons, we would say: maybe they are electrons? But if they claim that muons have a mass significantly different than electrons, they can trick us into thinking that they are not the same particles. Would they play a trick like that? Is the sky blue?

It appears that they are confusing the cosmic aether -- stellar and solar winds -- with neutrinos, and that they are confusing electrons as muons. An electron is shot between the poles of a magnet, and because they claim to know how fast it's moving, they calculate its mass by the amount of curvature it exhibits through the magnetic field. If they're wrong in how fast they claim it's moving, they calculate a wrong electron mass.

Quote: "The mass of muon particle is 207 times that of an electron and charge is equal to the charge of an electron." If they are wrong in the ways they determine masses of particles, a muon could very well be nothing more than an electron. What are the chances that both have been found to have the same amount of negative charge, if they are not the same particles?

Are there free electrons a mile deep in the Antarctic ice? Yes. Where do they come from? From the molten mass of the planet. Do they travel through the rocks and the ice, as neutrinos are said to do? Yes. Is there any light down there in the molten core? Yes, light waves are formed when captured electrons from the molten material are released as heat particles. As there is a steady stream of heat emitting at the earth surface, it follows that there's a steady production of new, internal heat, somehow.

So what are you saying, John, that the neutrinos that turn into muons are just electrons and light waves through them? What are you saying, John, that evolutionists are just making fools of themselves? How can light waves go through rocks, John, when it's known that sunlight barely penetrates a rock's surface?

Because, Smarty Pants, radiation energy can't be destroyed, and there's much more energy in the molten material than mere sunlight on your face. The energy pool in the melted rock can travel a long ways through the rocks, don't you think? The distance between the molten mass and the Antarctic ice is only a few thousand miles or less, not anywhere near as far as the sun (that brings sunlight to your face). Radiation energy spreads out and weakens with distance from the heat source.

They must have it backward when saying that neutrinos under a mile of ice comes from the cosmos. It must be coming from below. The steady flow of heat through the rocks is a "rock wind" though the atomic pores of rock material. This rock wind is the aether through which light waves can flow. The rock wind must be what they imagine as (or know to be) a mass of flowing neutrinos, and the individual electrons must be their muons. If this is all correct, then neutrinos don't create muons. That would be wishful thinking by the big-bangers. And the neutrino generators are the stars and sun, not some mystery thingies hanging out in deep space which they have yet to identify.

I think that continual heat formation in the earth is due to the great weight of rock crushing protons, crippling them, and causing their electrons to go free. I wonder what bare-naked, crushed protons look like as a mass, totally devoid of their electrons. That would be fun to know.

Nobody has ever had a naked proton in their possession. You can't strip the electrons off of protons while retaining some protons in your hand, because your hand would be exploded away with the rest of your body.

A hydrogen atom devoid of its lone electron is not a proton. Hydrogen gas makes more heat than any other combusted gas, not because hydrogen atoms have only one electron, but because they are the largest atom with the most electrons. Big bangers need to "prove" to you that hydrogen atoms are the smallest because they need to prove to you that all other atoms developed from hydrogen atoms, because stars are made mainly of hydrogen. That's why the stupids adopted Avogadro's theory, because it makes hydrogen the smallest atom, perfect for big-bang "science."

Quote: "The solar neutrino problem can be described as the discrepancy between the predicted production of electron neutrinos in the sun and what was being observed on Earth in various detectors." You don't need to have a dog's nose to sniff out the neutrino-electron equation here. It seems they want you to ignore solar electrons, and call them neutrinos.

The negatively-charged solar-wind aether has no detectable charge if whatever is built to detect it is built within the aether. If you build a weight scale in the air and set it to zero in the air, it registers zero weight for the atmosphere. If you build a weight scale in a vacuum and set it to zero in a vacuum, it will theoretically register (on the screen) 14.7 pounds per every square inch of scale platform, when brought out of the vacuum.

It therefore makes a lot of sense that their fiddling with particles in space has caused them to find aether particles that weigh almost nothing, for the aether weighs nothing in that it's not attracted by gravity. In the old days, there were good scientists insisting on the existence of aether particles, and I'm sure they would have clamored in vain that they were weightless, for the new science of the day declared otherwise, that all particles have weight...unless it was their precious photon. It could be almost weightless, but the light-wave medium was ruled out as weightless.

And now, suddenly, the sons of the new science of a century ago are announcing weightless neutrinos WITHOUT confessing their prior sin in which they taught that gravity attracted all things. This is why they say that neutrinos are ALMOST weightless, so as to not sin against their fathers or look like unreliable fools. They keep within the framework of gravity-attracts-all-things, even when they see evidence of, and logic for, weightless electrons. If you tend to equate mass and weight, it's evidence of your brainwashing. Mass does not necessarily weigh.

I have the suspicion that a few elite physicists know that neutrinos are free electrons of stellar winds, but that they don't want to admit it, but instead give them another name, and pretend-announce that there are distinct differences between them. Study of neutrinos goes back to about the time of the predictions of solar-wind electrons. The establishment failed to announce either as the aether even though either befits the aether. This was photon bias. One could not unseat the photon, for doing so would undermine the orbiting electron which catches and releases photons.

Quote: "The solar neutrino problem was first observed in 1964, when Raymond David Jr. and John Bahcall proposed an experiment to test whether converting hydrogen nuclei to helium in the sun is the source of sunlight. Through the use of computer modeling, the number of neutrinos of different energies that the sun produces was approximated" I strongly suggest that numbering these neutrinos was pseudo-science. Therefore, when this team measured the neutrinos that entered their experimental apparatus, and when they concluded that only one-third of the solar neutrinos entered, they were likely wrong to use "one-third," for they could not know how many neutrinos the sun produces. The "computer model" above was a prediction "based on luminosity and energy" of sunlight reaching the earth. They pretended to know how many neutrinos there should be per unit of luminosity.
https://people.nscl.msu.edu/~witek/Classes/PHY802/Essays/Hawkins.pdf

They found their one-third by counting how many argon atoms were made radioactive by the inflow of neutrinos into their pool of liquid. But as there are no neutrinos, they need to give credit to some other aspect of sunlight for the radioactivity of argon. Logically, we credit sunlight. Wow, that was easy. What evidence is there that neutrinos were responsible rather than sunlight? I'm not going to be convinced that argon was altered in the liquid without allowing sunlight to reach the liquid. The team was imagining that neutrinos were entering.

When they say that neutrinos don't interact with matter, what experiment(s) exactly proved this to be the case, and can that experiment be interpreted in another way? The aether does interact with matter, as a rule. It enters all materials, and the goofs say the same for neutrinos, in which case it's not true that neutrinos don't interact with matter. What do they mean by that? How do they mean that neutrinos are not part of matter? What if they are the very electrons attracted by protons? Wouldn't that make fools of neutrino investigators and "experts."

After further investigations were conducted after the 1960s: "The results concluded that while all neutrinos produced in the sun are electron neutrinos, most of the neutrinos become muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos in the vacuum of space between the sun and the Earth." I suggest that we are reading a load of trash. We're back to "flavored" neutrinos, sweet fantasies of the big-bang seekers of father-god with a small 'g.'

I've yet to find how they arrived to a massless neutrino. Same article: "Conclusion: The Standard Model lacks proper explanation as it describes the neutrino as massless." Later, they changed it to having a little mass due to the discovery of neutrino "oscillations," defined as its ability or tendency to change from a neutral electron (fiction) to a muon (fiction), for example. They say that a neutrino could not oscillate unless it had some mass, yet oscillation is merely a fix, not a reality.

It was a fix for observations that didn't comply with a prediction, but even the prediction was baseless...because they pretended to know how many neutrinos the sun was spewing. When you read up on this topic, the pioneers of neutrino discoveries come across as scientific giants, because their little elves write the articles, but when you just have the smarts to realize that all the fact-talking is nothing but "decay" trash, the pioneers are reduced to fools jumping to conclusions desirous to the devil.

Wikipedia's article on Neutrino Oscillation is so long and above your head that this topic exposes itself as one of the most-important ones going. Yet, for all their troubles, and censoring Creationists, a good lot of people believe in a Creator. Christians are the chief witnesses of the wickedness of evolutionists, and we testify against them. We do not forgive them for warring against God to their deaths.

Britannica: "For many years it seemed that neutrinos’ masses might be exactly zero, although there was no compelling theoretical reason why this should be so." No reason for the theory. Just comes out of the blue. It sounds as though the big-bang quacks were determined to INVENT the smallest particles possible in the lead-up to announcing the creator of matter. See how this racket works? Need a god-particle? Just invent one, and find proof of it in ways people can't prove nor disprove. Then pay for two or three corroborating experiments, then move on to the next step of finding and proving grand-daddy matter.

Lookie:

On 4 December 1930, Pauli wrote a letter to the Physical Institute of the Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich,...

Dear radioactive ladies and gentlemen,

...[blah-blah]...I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save the "exchange theorem" of statistics and the energy theorem. Namely the possibility that there could exist in the nuclei electrically neutral particles that I wish to call neutrons [neutrinos]...The mass of the neutron must be of the same order of magnitude as the electron mass...

...The electron neutrino was discovered by Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino

The 1930 goofball was trying to solve how negative energy could disappear from atoms, and so he invented a neutrally-charged electron, not exactly genius to fix the problem, but absolutely inventive. It was useful for like-minded idiots, and so it evolved into the massless neutrino. It could be taken off the shelf whenever needed, like when headaches arose. If it wasn't quite enough to fix things, then grab an electron anti-neutrino...head-shaking laughable.

The neutrino was introduced just two years before the big neutron was "discovered," and Pauli above even suggested that his neutrino was to be placed into the atom along with electrons and protons. One could get the impression that talk of neutrons arose during a drunken bash one night, when like-minded buddies went out for beer. And when the idea went around, they decided to make it stick to the nucleus. It had nothing to do with creating matter out of big-bang debris, but that would come later with solar neutrinos about the time that postulations were being made that electrons flowed from the sun (verified afterward by space craft).

The problems with the postulations (about Pauli's time) were that protons were included as streaming from the sun along with electrons, because brainwashed physicists of the day couldn't conceive of electrons flowing out alone. If electrons were going free from the sun's hydrogen atoms, then hydrogen protons had to sailing along. And this is why you will read the falsification that the solar wind has both protons and electrons, a thing that was predicted before spacecraft "confirmed" it.

If they did not lie about it, they would need to explain how electrons alone were in the solar wind, which is to say how naked hydrogen protons could remain in the sun alone without their electrons. This picture would result in doubt in their atomic model, a very serious threat to the establishment of all their wickedness. Electrons alone in the solar system would mean that hydrogen atoms had plenty of electrons, and retained some of them. It was far better to claim that hydrogen protons were sailing away from the sun along with the electrons. However, by doing so, they disprove their own big-bang theory. They were between a rock and a hard place, both choices tending to be their ruin...except that nobody talks about it. And so why don't we talk about it?

They never say that hydrogen atoms are flowing through the solar system as the solar wind. They always say it's a mix of electrons and protons, and some will even say that there's about a 50-50 distribution, as this befits their view of the hydrogen atom. But wait. How far apart are the protons and electrons??? The wicked, dirty, disgusting, stinkin, deplorable goofs won't say. Are they closer than they were 400,000 years after the big bang??? BUT OF COURSE they are closer, the goofs will admit. And are they travelling slower than they were 400,000 years after the big bang? BUT OF COURSE they are slower, the goofs will confess.

Then why don't the protons attract back their electrons as they sail toward earth??? Uh, er, it takes millions of years, the goofs will argue, and the solar wind only takes three days to fly by earth.

Yes, but if the solar-wind protons and electrons didn't come together near the sun, how can they come together when they are much further apart at the earth, or zillions of times more distant million years later? Poor goofs, the laughing stock of the planet. The ones who think they are wisest of all are being spit upon by the solar wind.

There are two possible methods of heat creation in the sun, and fusion isn't an option because fusion is a figment of the erroneous atomic model. Protons cannot be fused. One way for the sun to create heat is for hydrogen atoms to merge to form helium molecules. That right, molecules. As helium doesn't bond with anything else, it's possibly a molecule of merged atoms. The goofballs claim that helium is an element, and as such they define it as a lone atom. But if it's a lone atom, it would be able to merge with oxygen atoms, for example.

If the sun produces free electrons (heat and light) when helium molecules are formed, there's no protons at all available for to sail into space. However, the other way that the sun could produce heat is by crippling atoms in its deep interior, and so perhaps crippled protons (unable to re-capture some/all its electrons), or pieces of protons, could be sailing away into space.

Evolutionist science is now at the point where massless particles are the norm, which begin to produce some mass as a way to explain the birth of matter. This is all made possible in a "Higgs field," where massless particles are viewed as ghosts, you see, spiritual particles. This is their fodder fed to your imagination in hopes of making you comply with atheistic creation. You won't be able to understand Higgs-field science, but that's not stopping razzle-dazzle youtubers from trying to make you fall in love with it.

Today, people "understand" Higgs-field science without understanding how particles can be massless. They understand the meaning of massless particles, but cannot understand how they can be massless. Nobody can explain how a particle can be massless because the definition of "particle" is an item having mass. To invent one begs the imagination to see ("understand") the impossible. If it's not matter, what is it? Nobody can tell you. But that won't stop the goofs from inventing some explanation that tickles the ears of anti-Christs.

Even if you can find a video opposing Higgs-field brainwashing, the speakers are infused and polluted by the erroneous atomic model so that they don't really know what they're taking about. I loath watching videos on Higgs field mechanics. It makes me feel that by brain is being hijacked, because it is. Higgs field is a cult. Speed-of-light, massless particles are an invention. There's nothing to propel particles to the fantastic speed of light, it's just untrue that they exist, massless or otherwise.

Whenever you see a youtuber presenting Higgs-field "science," look closely at the face, and see a fool duped by other fools. Fools are breeding fools everywhere. It's more spiritually dangerous in youtubeland than television was. youtube in conjunction with censorious governments want to make sure that it's laden with anti-Christ material. We can all be fools at times, in the sense that we can all be tricked, but Christians can minimize it by identifying anti-Christ societies and cults.

Here's Higgs mixed with Superman as if to advertise big-bang atheism to the next-generation children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oa71iB_Z4Q

The owner of the video above believes in typical trash from atomic physics, and even thinks that gravity force is related to the speed of light, but I welcome his criticisms against the particle inventors, and hope this type of in-fighting grows in leaps and bounds. In reality, gravity is the source of light. That is, not the gravitational force, but the emission of gravity particles, is what causes light, for heat particles in an internal cosmic body are identical to gravity particles.

The speed and domino-effect nature of outgoing light waves are unrelated to the pull or repulsion of gravity on anything. Light and gravity pull are different forms of energy not touching on one another. Gravity does not pull/attract light just as gravity does not attract a water wave or a sound wave. Gravity attracts water and atoms, but not the waves propagating through them. Gravity does not attract air atoms more than it usually does just because sound traverses through those air atoms. Gravity repels the light-wave medium, the aether, but has neither a repulsive nor an attractive effect on the outgoing light wave. There can be no black holes, as defined by extra-strong gravity pulling in light.

However, there are black sun spots, and there may also be "dark" suns (not truly dark). Sun spots are created (my discovery) when the material of exploded solar flares dives down toward the sun faster than its electrons are being emitted earthward. In this case, the emission of electrons does not strike any aether electrons in the direction of earth, just as a ball tossed backward at 50 mph from a car, itself moving forward at 60 mph, does not move backward, but moves forward at 10 mph. If electrons emitted from solar-flare materials move toward the sun in spite of being emitted toward the earth, those materials look black at the earth. The materials will show light if viewed from other directions, but not when viewed from the earth when they are travelling fast enough away from the earth.

If there could be a star travelling away from earth faster than its electrons are emitting toward earth, no starlight will reach here.

Avogadro

I can't help myself when I use "idiot" when it fits. The idiot in the video below, even though his title is on Avogadro's number, mentions exactly zero words and zero seconds to inform his audience why it should be true that every gas at STP has the same number of molecules (or lone atoms). The entire atomic model is based on this idea, yet nobody tells us why it should be true. This is wickedness.

This speaker is a wicked man who should know better than to deal this trash as foregone conclusion for which there is zero evidence. We can be sure that, in the course of making this video, he went searching for the evidence to show Avogadro's theory correct, but, not finding any, that's why he's presenting none. Yet he's glorifying Avogadro anyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSQlM72_MiU

Asking google for proof that Avogadro is correct, it presents a Quora page entitled, "What is the proof of Avogadro's law? From what experiments did he conclude that?" The first and only respondent (at this time): "It’s not exactly a ‘proof’...", yet he goes on agreeing with Avogadro anyway without stating the pitfalls such as the theory TOTALLY OBLITERATING the atomic model. Is that just a small thing? There's nobody else responding to the title above, which makes sense where there is no proof for Avogadro's theory, no experiment to show that he had a basis for presenting it.

The only evidence for Avogadro's theory that you will find is "word salad" or wizardry or something you won't be able to understand. That's how evolutionists play, to offer a scientific-looking proof that you can't follow, that you don't want to try following, to make you think that it's true without showing how it's true. All we want is the logic in plain English: why should all gases at STP have the same number of molecules / atoms? I can't find one person with an attempt to answer it, yet something so important should be at the top of a google search, and, if true and provable, the articles and videos would be rife and forthright.

Someone writes: "The proof for Avogadro's law comes from experimental data and mathematical equations. By conducting experiments with different gases and measuring their volumes, scientists [who?] were able to determine that equal volumes of different gases contain the same number of molecules when at the same temperature and pressure." No experiment is cited, and no proof is offered, we are to simply believe this statement.

Therefore, I declare: water is not an H2O molecule. Carbon-dioxide is not a CO2 molecule. And on and on it goes: none of the atoms described and illustrated by science are true atoms. NONE. NOT ONE. All are based on Avogadro. All are therefore wrong.

As the entire atomic system is based on Avogadro, the silence is defining on anyone trying to show what justification physicists had in adopting Avogadro. Anyone who makes the attempt must use circular reasoning. For anyone with a good brain, it's realized that, just because gases are at the same temperature and pressure, it's not good reasoning to conclude that all these gases must have the same number of molecules.

In order to make such a jump-to-conclusions, there ought to be a basis, a comprehensible reason that 10 zillion hydrogen atoms should form exactly as much pressure on container walls as 10 zillion carbon atoms, or 10 zillion iron atoms, or 10 zillion ammonia molecules, or 10 zillion carbon-monoxide molecules....see any problem here? The first thing coming to mind, if you're not as brainwashed sap, is the high unlikeliness of that picture.

As all atoms are not the same, what logic is there for one speedy ammonia-gas molecule to strike anything, such as an inner container wall, with exactly as much force (i.e. gas pressure) as one carbon-monoxide molecule? This is what Avogadro requires in spite of their not being the same molecule. All atoms and molecules, in spite of their having different numbers of protons and neutrons, all strike all surfaces with the same amount of force when the temperature is identical for all. Yet there's no way to argue that temperature is the basis for this grand coincidence; otherwise it would be splashed all over the science articles on Avogadro.

It means that, by some cosmic coincidence, an atom having twice as many nuclear particles must be travelling and colliding at half the velocity. An atom having five times as many nuclear particles must be travelling and colliding at one-fifth the velocity. Let me stress it: an atom having 43 times as many nuclear particles will be travelling and colliding at 1/43rd the velocity. Oye, what fool would subscribe to this folly? That's called a cosmic coincidence for which there is no basis. Scientists are not supposed to go there.

They are not supposed to look like such fools, yet evolutionists didn't mind because they were able to manufacture an air of respect for each other to compensate, and with a pinch of deception they convinced fools to be their fools. And fools bred fools until the whole world pronounced evolutionists as geniuses not to be toyed with.

In case I lost you, let me explain. An equal volume of oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than hydrogen gas, for which reason Avogadro thought that oxygen atoms weighed 16 times more than hydrogen atoms. Then, as both volumes produce the same gas force/pressure, it follows that oxygen atoms need to be speeding and colliding at 16 times less speed, for speed is proportional to the force (twice the speed = twice the force (per any given mass)).

As atoms don't speed about and collide with container walls, I'll need to rephrase the picture above: as gas atoms inter-repel, Avogadro wants us to believe that an atom having 43 times as many nuclear particles will inter-repel at 1/43rd the force. There's no logic, no reason, for this coincidence. Instead, the larger the atom, the more it ought to inter-repel.

As atoms don't have multi-particle nuclei, I'll need to rephrase the picture above again: as gas atoms inter-repel, Avogadro wants us to believe that molecules in a gas weighing 43 times more than another gas will inter-repel at 1/43rd the force (of molecules in the other gas). I'm using "43" because it shows the magnitude of the coincidence better than smaller numbers.

What reason can be given for a gas, weighing twice as much, to have molecules repelling half as much? If we say that the heavier of the two gases has atoms twice as large, they ought to repel more, not less. If we say that the heavier of the two gases has smaller atoms in order to explain half the repulsion force, how can smaller atoms weigh twice as much?

I have the solution. It's a provable fact. I don't come empty-handed. All atoms weigh the same because all atoms fall to gravity at the same speed of acceleration. It's a potent proof. It's been experimentally verified. It's not complicated to conduct the experiment, and there's no tricks. It stretches the mind because people can't understand how a giant heavy ball falls only as fast as a tiny wood peg. There is only one solution, and as much as science has known it, science failed to inform the world because the admission requires trashing the entire atomic model. I love it. Encore. Don't stop. Grab the garbage bag.

We now start with the fact that all equal volumes of gases have as many more atoms as their weights suggest. That is, if the gas weighs 22 times more than hydrogen, then it has 22 times as many atoms than a hydrogen gas. Etc. This is simplicity.

My problem is that I can't be sure whether they are correct in giving the carbon atom an atomic weight of 12 due to carbon gas being 12 times heavier than hydrogen gas. There is no carbon gas. Assuming that a theoretical carbon gas does weigh 12 times more, versus 16 times more for oxygen gas, then: one volume of carbon has 12 carbon atoms per 16 oxygen atoms in its equal volume. As "CO2" means nothing more than one volume of carbon mixed with two volumes of oxygen gas to produce carbon-dioxide (by chemical reaction), we need only to know, to discover the real carbon-dioxide molecule, how many volumes of carbon-dioxide is/are produced by the merger of the three volumes. The google robot is sent bonkers when I ask for that piece of information.

If the three volumes produce two equal volumes of carbon dioxide, then 6 carbon atoms merge with 16 oxygen atoms to create the carbon-dioxide molecule. Possibly, therefore, the carbon-dioxide molecule is a C3O8 molecule. Or, if the three volumes produce only one volume of carbon dioxide, the mix is now 12 carbon atoms per 16 oxygen, and the molecule then looks like a C3O4 molecule.

Is this a small discovery, to have the ability of knowing the true atomic mix of all molecules? Step one: discover how many equal volumes of gases are needed to create the molecules by chemical reaction (not easy to find with the crippled google robot). Step two: weigh the gases (before they combine to form the molecules). Step three: do the math as was done above. And don't assume that all stated atomic-weight numbers of the goofballs are a correct representation of the weights of respective gases. These tricksters cannot be trusted.

Carbon-dioxide gas is said to weigh 1.836 grams per liter, and oxygen gas 1.43 grams per liter, a difference of 1.28 times. However, they assign an atomic weight for carbon dioxide of 44, which is 2.5 times as much as the 16 they assign oxygen gas. The 2.5 figure is almost exactly twice as large as the 1.28 times, and so these numbers tend to reveal why oxygen atoms are said to be "diatomic," meaning that an O atom is viewed as an O2 molecule, two O atoms merged as one. Without this diatomic O atom, their atomic model fails at explaining the weight differences involved here.

But this is a numbers trick they must be playing because it's the O atom to which the goombas assign a weight of 16, not the O gas. If they now want to make the O gas weigh twice as much due to having a two-in-one oxygen atom, then they've got to maintain that one volume of carbon (atomic weight 12) mixes with two volumes of oxygen gas each having an atomic weight of 32. The weight of the carbon-dioxide result then becomes 12 + 32 + 32 = 76, and because I think they will submit that TWO liters of carbon dioxide are the result (from the reaction of the three liters), they are forced to predict that one liter of carbon dioxide has an atomic weight of half of 76, or 38, which is not at all the 44 claimed by their atomic model.

Carbon MONOXIDE gas weighs 1.23 grams per liter, lighter than oxygen gas (1.43 grams). How do they explain this when the two gases combined weigh far more than 1.23 grams? When they call carbon monoxide a CO molecule, what they mean is that one liter of carbon gas mixes with one liter of oxygen gas to produce one or two (I don't know which) liters of carbon monoxide. Okay let's do the math: 1.23 + 1.43 = 2.66 grams in total.

As carbon monoxide weighs only 1.23, the product of mixing the two liters needs to be nearly two liters of carbon monoxide, for only then could it be said that each liter weighs a little less than 2.66 (we're trying to get them to 1.23).

I suggest we reject diatomic atoms as fixer-up inventions. They even make hydrogen a diatomic atom. I suggest that the carbon atom has been wrongly given an atomic weight of 12. And the thing is, the carbon atom is the basis of the atomic-weight scale.

Assuming that carbon has an atomic weight of 12, we then assume further that a theoretical carbon gas weighs 12 where oxygen gas weighs 16. That is, the carbon gas would weigh 12/16ths (.75) that of the 1.43 grams per liter that is the known weight of oxygen gas. That makes the carbon gas weigh 1.43 x .75 = 1.07 grams.

Having said that, we now add the weight of three liters of gas needed to make carbon dioxide: 1.07 + 1.43 + 1.43 = 3.93 grams, and if we assume that the three liters results in two liters of the dioxide, the latter then weighs half of 3.93, or 1.96 grams. We now have something to work with, where 1.96 is 1.37 times heavier than oxygen gas. I can now say, based on all-atoms-weigh-the-same, that the carbon dioxide gas has 1.37 times as many atoms as the oxygen gas...providing that the three initial liters (if indeed they are perfect liters) do result in exactly two liters of the dioxide. If not, we just adjust the numbers accordingly, i.e. when we find the true number of resulting liters.

I'm just showing how one goes about finding the relative numbers of atoms per gas, not a small thing. Nobody's going to take this theory on because it first requires a knock-out punch to the evolutionist model, but evolutionists are dictatorial goons who'll fight with fang and claw to protect their foul turf. I don't want to go to my grave with these ideas locked away in my head. If you would like to use them to prove that all atoms weigh the same, by figuring and listing the true numbers of atoms per gas at STP, and fiddling around anywhich way you think can prove something new, all powers to you.

To find the relative numbers of atoms in carbon MONOXIDE, the math is: 1.23 grams / 1.43 grams = .86 times as many atoms as in the oxygen gas. How can the monoxide weigh less than oxygen gas when it takes a mix of oxygen and carbon gas to produce the monoxide? The combined weight of one liter of carbon gas and one liter of oxygen gas is 1.07 + 1.43 = 2.5 grams, where the 1.07 assumes that a carbon gas weighs 12. We could change the 12 if we could find reason to do so.

With a total weight of 2.5 grams, we are left to conclude that the two liters result in exactly two liters of the monoxide, for we then see that one of the monoxide liters weighs half of 2.5 grams, essentially the monoxide's known weight of 1.23 grams. See any problem here? How can two volumes of atoms mix to produce two volumes of merged molecules? We expect that when two equal volumes of atoms merge, the full bodies of the atoms become smaller due to merger, predicting less than two volumes as the monoxide result.

Therefore, we already have reason to change the 12 to something smaller, if there's less than two liters of the monoxide product. if, for example, we turn the 12 to a 9, the weight of the monoxide is 9/16ths of 1.43 grams, or .8 grams, and so the 1.07 above changes to .8, wherefore the math changes to .8 + 1.43 = 2.23. grams as the weight of monoxide result, though there's going to be less than two liters now, and more than one liter, as that result. How do we find the exact volume? It seems impossible where carbon is not a gas, and thus it's not going to be found on google, and probably nowhere else.

In keeping with the 9 as the atomic weight of carbon gas, the only math that works is a result of 1.8 liters of the monoxide weighing 2.23 grams. To find the weight of gas for 1.0 liter, we do, 1 / 1.8 = .555, and we then multiply the 2.23 grams by .555 to find the weight of 1.24. That's close enough to the real weight of 1.23 grams per liter.

Although we cannot know the true weight of a carbon gas, the numbers I'm showing you suggest that the atomic number for carbon is less than 12, and probably less than 9, for the latter number took us to 1.8 liters as the monoxide exhaust, and this seems still too high so that the 9 should be even lower. I have no idea how they arrived to their 12. If correct that the number should be lower than 12, then their claim of a diatomic oxygen molecule is surely a concoction, for it was devised to jibe with a 12 for carbon.

We could then say that they initially concocted the 12 to jibe with a diatomic O atom, for this eliminates what appears to be their correctness in going to a diatomic atom. See what I'm saying? The diatomic atom appears correct in a couple of ways for jibing with the known weights of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, but the correctness vanishes if the 12 is in error, and as there is no pure-carbon gas, so far as I know, it's all-too possible that they concocted the 12 figure because nobody can disprove it (by making a pure-carbon gas and weighing it).

Wikipedia has an article on diatomic carbon gas, if indeed that's what it is, but, conveniently, you can't make it: "It occurs in carbon vapor, for example in electric arcs; in comets, stellar atmospheres, and the interstellar medium; and in blue hydrocarbon flames." This may not be carbon. You can't trust physics explanations, especially on extreme substances, due to being studded with atomic-model errors.

Quote: "Although C has 4 electrons that can be shared with another C, but we never see a compound like C2. This is because, C has very small size and the orbitals..." Blah-blah trash. C2 is diatomic carbon, but is said to exist only in extreme heat, which is a contradiction because it's said to be kinetically unstable (breaks apart easily) at room temperature, yet higher heat should only make it more unstable i.e. unable to exists as two carbon atoms merged. It appears that we are being played when it comes to what C2 really is.

Apparently, one cannot make a carbon gas by dissociating carbon monoxide. I can't even find an article on the products of the dissociation of carbon monoxide. The google robot is anti-educational by sending searchers into wayward paths when it pretends it has your information at one click. Then you get to a page that has nothing of what you asked for. But the robot pretended it did, so that the pages get clicks, pages that probably pay google to get clicks.

How hard can it be to knock the O atoms out of the C atoms in carbon dioxide? One article was insinuating that this material has the strongest atomic bond strength of all materials. But what happens to the carbon atoms after the oxygen atoms are bumped off of this molecule? Do they form a carbon residue instead of a gas?

Someone who sounds like he knows the facts: "If you continue heating the [wood] carbon [in a vacuum] it will become liquid at about 3550 deg. C and then boil (evaporate) at about 4,827 deg. C." One then needs to extrapolate on how heavy the carbon gas would be at STP, in the range of room temperature. There's room for error here, especially if the carbon gas needs to be kept very hot to prevent if from becoming soot on container walls, or if it's got other gaseous materials mixed in with it. I've never heard of anyone using a carbon gas in any experiment or factory process.

The atomic weight assigned to beryllium metal is almost exactly 9.0 (9.012). It's a very suspicious number because evolutionists need atomic weights to be whole multiples of the 1 they assigned hydrogen atoms. Thus, beryllium atoms are assigned four protons = four hydrogen atoms, and five, non-existent neutrons. It's laughable, but none of these goons want to laugh along with me. As beryllium gas starts to form in the neighborhood of 2,000 degrees C, there's very much a question as to whether beryllium gas at STP weighs exactly 9 times more than hydrogen gas. Don't bet on it.

They apparently couldn't get away with assigning the boron atom (boiling point 4,000 C) a round atomic number, and settled on 10.8. And lithium they gave 6.94, perhaps after a deal was struck between who thought it should considerable less than 6.94, and those who wanted bang-on 7.0. It seems strange that these three metals should have atomic weights so close to that of hydrogen; I'd like to know the backstory on that, if it's in plain English.

I searched "Avogadro wrong" on youtube, but after scrolling past 20 or so videos on Avogadro, none, not one, dared to use the common sense enough to ask how possibly his theory could be correct. They all in lock-step described what a mole is, like cold-blooded murderers of true science who want to show off their college-training wits. Do you think youtube is hiding videos from those who attack Avogadro. It could be true because this theory is the crux of the entire atomic model, and that in turn is the crux of the atheistic cult of science. Young atheists are fun-looking because they are eager as children to have fun in life without God's restraints. They may not yet know or acknowledge the fruits of forsaking God, which are the opposite of fun.

Someone writes: "[The mole] was [initially] the number of atoms in 12g of carbon 12". That's how you can know that a mole is wrong, imaginary. Mole's requires an "ideal gas" that does not exist. View that as "imaginary gas" due to real gases not being exactly as the goofs predict them, but view it a lot worse than they are confessing it to be because their Avogadro system is as good as a universe away from correct. One doesn't need to be a physics expert to spot their errors. Just follow the logic from the basement of their theories, and spot all the cob webs and nasties that are so predictable before you even get to main floor.

Someone writes: "A mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters at standard temp and pressure (experimental observation). Using magical sciencey methods, they counted the number of molecules in a mole of gas and by coincidence, it was the same as Avogadro's Number." Yeah, sure, because they intended to count that many in a way you can't prove or disprove. They wish to think that every 22.4 liters of ANY gas has the same number of atoms, which they call "Avogadro's number," though he had nothing to do with it.

Someone writes: "The number itself was determined a century later [after Avogadro] by Jean Baptiste Perrin. Perrin did it by measuring the mean-squared displacement of colloidal particles suspended in water. He was able to do this because of Einstein's revelations about Brownian motion."

And that reminds me, if you load videos on Brownian motion, all you see is the near-microscopic jiggling of atoms, supposed "proof" that atoms and molecules everywhere are all racing around and colliding. That is, Brownian motion is the basement proof that the kinetic theory of atoms is the real one, and so all one needs to do is to show that there's no basis for jumping to that conclusion just because some atoms suspended in liquids have back-and-forth motion. For it could be caused by something else, such as free electrons (heat) streaming through the liquid when repelled upward by gravity. Electrons repelled upward in a liquid will form minor currents in the liquid, duh, and currents can move atoms, duh.

Therefore, by rejecting the truth about heat, and choosing the kinetic theory instead, they ruled out the existence of electrons in liquids, and thus chose the kinetic theory to explain Brownian motion. It wasn't even an honest mistake, because they chose kineticism as part of the building blocks to an atheistic cult. Einstein, though he spoke of God, was a major accomplice to those building blocks, like one who stabs God in the back while smiling upon His face. This is the same Einstein who witnessed electrons jumping out of atoms when light struck them, but by that time, he was of the opinion that no electron aether could exist. Rejecting the reality, he chose and advanced cobwebs and nasties.

I've just googled " "Avogadro was wrong" " in quotation marks, which gets different results as compared to googling the same phrase without quotation marks. However, google no longer brings up all pages having what you ask for in quotation marks. I know because, when I ask for something in quotation marks that exist on 20 or 30 or 40 of my own webpages, google brings up one, two, maybe three pages alone. All the rest are ignored because google programmed my pages to be mainly ignored in searches. If I were the judge in a law suit against google, that company would pay dearly. I continue to publish updates weekly because I hope that God will get me the vengeance that I desire, and a correction to the situation.

Someone writes (square brackets mine]:

Accordingly, on our hypothesis, when a gas combines with two or more times its volume of another gas, the resulting compound, if gaseous, must have a volume equal to that of the first of these gases. Now, in general, this is not actually the case [ouch]. For instance, the volume of water in the gaseous state is, as M. Gay-Lussac has shown, twice as great as the volume of oxygen which enters into it [two volumes of steam versus one of oxygen to begin with], or, what comes to the same thing, equal to that of the hydrogen instead of being equal to that of the oxygen [two volumes of hydrogen to begin with].

https://bookdown.org/jcog196013/CM5003/atomic-theory-1.html

Just because the author made this admission against the will of the evolutionist cult doesn't mean he's got a good science head on his shoulders that stays clear of obvious errors. The webpage shows diagrams telling, for example, that three volumes of hydrogen mixes with one of nitrogen to form two equal volumes of ammonia, though it's not likely that they are exactly the same in volume. They just want us to think so because it befits their atomic and gaseous schemes where all atoms are divisibles of one hydrogen atom.

In the drawing, it shows two volumes of DIATOMIC hydrogen mixing with one volume of diatomic oxygen to form two volumes of H2O steam. The person who made this drawing is too stupid to realize that Avogadro's theory has a million-to-one chance of being correct, because nothing can explain the coincidence that is in the basement of his cold-and-hard idea.

In order to make Avogadro work, they need diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. It won't work otherwise. What they do, with three volumes of gas to produce steam, is take, from the one volume of oxygen gas, one of the two atoms of each diatomic O2 atom, and stick them into one of the two volumes of diatomic H2 atoms, and thus they envision the formation of H2O molecules. Then, they take the remaining O atom from the O2 atoms, and stick them into the second volume of H2 to make water there too, and the final result is exactly as many H2O molecules as the two volumes once had H2 molecules. Voila: that's Avogadro's prediction come true.

But if the atoms are not diatomic, they need to take half of the O atoms from the one volume of oxygen gas, and put them into the one volume of hydrogen gas, and the other half of the O atoms go into the second volume of hydrogen gas. There's two ways to view this scenario. View 1: Each of the two volumes of hydrogen is half filled with HO molecules, and the other half remains unchanged H atoms. View 2: each hydrogen volume turns to H20 at half the original density of H atoms.

Yes, this is correct, for they can't say that each of the two hydrogen volumes becomes H20 because that would reduce each hydrogen volume to half what it started with. That is, in keeping to Avogadro's law, they would need to join half the O atoms to the top half of each hydrogen volume to produce HO, and then they would need to take the bottom half of each hydrogen volume and move it to the top half to form H2O, but now they cease to have two volumes of water as the exhaust. Now they have only one volume of water as the result, if they want to stick to Avogadro's law where the density of the original H atoms are exactly the density of resulting water molecules.

Or, to put it another way (if they start with non-diatomic atoms to produce H2O as they see it), the steam filling the entire two volumes of hydrogen will spread out to half the original density, obliterating Avogadro, for his prediction is that the density of gas atoms / molecules doesn't change after mixing gases reactively. The fix is to imagine each O and H atom as O2 (O-O) and H2 (H-H) molecules. This would be fine if there's hard evidence for it rather than coincidental situations that can agree with it at times but not always. If they cherry-pick the evidence, that's not hard evidence.

I don't blame Avogadro for advancing his theory, as a theory for the experts to inspect, for they knew little about atoms in those days, but I do ram later evolutionists for taking his idea and running with it. To this day.

I've just googled " "I disagree with avogadro" ", and a Quora page came up at the top saying that, somewhere on the page, someone said, "Why always evolution? So, I'll start the ball rolling by saying I disagree with Avogadro's hypothesis." But when clicking to the page, this statement was gone. It looks like the censorship team made it disappear. This is the world now, where evolutionists continue to rule the education systems, those responsible for Armageddon. VENGEANCE WILL ARRIVE. Sit tight. Or better yet, stand up and expose.

Go ahead, venture a guess as to why every gas at STP should have the same number of atoms. I'm not reading one author, as I load articles and videos on Avogadro, who ventures a guess or an explanation. They all with blind eyes accept Avogadro as fact, like people too stupid to even ask before presenting his idea, like people who think that, if it's acceptable for others to be this stupid, I'm jumping in.

I loaded the article above because it has "Avogadro was wrong" in it, like so: "John Dalton heard about Avogadro’s - he did not like what he heard, even going as far as to say that Avogadro was wrong." Dalton objected for the wrong reason(s). There had to be countless books / comments written/spoken on whether Avogadro was wrong, and likewise there must be thousands online, but google and youtube are crickets on that topic.

Then you have the writers who offer word-salad, smoke and mirrors to give the impression that there's evidence for Avogadro by showing how moles work. But a mole does not prove Avogadro right or wrong. The question is: is it true that a mole of gas has the same number of molecules? Do all moles have the same density of atomic particles?

Perhaps you have gleaned "evidence" for Avogadro's law because the resulting molecules from all chemical reactions have the same amount of kinetic energy as the original gases that produced the reaction. In that case, you could imagine that all the molecular collisions keep all results at the same density of particles.

For example, atoms in the initial gases have a certain amount of kinetic energy, and if they create a three-atom molecule upon reaction, you can then imagine that the molecule will have three times the kinetic energy so that the molecules keep the same distance apart as the atoms had formerly stayed apart. However, if this explanation were true evidence of Avogadro, it would be splashed all over the place.

That potential explanation underscores the importance of hammering home the reality, that gas atoms inter-repel, for that in helpful for the obliteration of the kinetic theory. Kineticism cannot stand if gas atoms repel by electromagnetic force, for there is then double the reason to prevent gases from forming liquid molecules. Kineticism, by itself, cannot explain liquid formation because collisions keep the liquid molecules from existing even if they did form for a fraction of a second upon atomic contacts. It's a fantasy that liquid molecules can stay bonded when colliding at fast speeds.

If you spray water against a wall through your hose, the water breaks up into small droplets when splashing away from the wall. If you then spray those small droplets at a wall at 1,000 mph hour, they break up into smaller droplets, and if you then spray those smaller ones at a wall at 1,000 mph repeatedly, millions of times with ever-decreasing sizes of droplets, that's why liquid molecules in a gas cannot exist for even a second in the kinetic scenario.

Quote: "Even as a raindrop is falling, it will often collide with other raindrops and increase in size. Once the size of a raindrop gets too large, it will eventually break apart in the atmosphere back into smaller drops." If raindrops break their molecular bonds while falling at a slow speed in the air, how can defenseless little water molecules not break apart when smashing into each other at screeching speeds? If a raindrop landing on concrete (or something softer) breaks into little pieces at a relatively slow speed, isn't that a true breaking of the molecular bonds? Yes.

To put this another way, Avogadro and kineticism go hand in hand. Disprove one, and the other is disproved. The kineticists needed kineticism, and that's why they chose Avogadro, like two hands of a criminal over your eyes attempting to steal your faith in God.

When gases react, their atoms merge, duh. Molecule formation is atomic merger, duh. What do you predict is the result of two atoms merging to produce less than two atom's worth of volume? If, for example, two atoms merge 100-percent (I think this is impossible) so that the molecule takes up as much space as one atom did, what will be the difference between the repulsion force between the molecules and the repulsion force between the atoms prior to merger? If repulsion force between atomic particles is proportional to their sizes, there will be no difference. Call this John's hypothesis: repulsion force between atoms depends largely (though not necessarily fully) on their sizes. Twice the size gets twice the repulsion at any given temperature, resulting in twice the gas pressure.

Someone writes: "The deviation of the real gases from the ideal behaviour tends to increase at higher pressures and lower temperatures." Translation: equal volumes of different gases mixed (reacted) together do not produce equal volumes of the exhaust. The merger of atoms into molecules during the reaction assures that the exhaust is lower in volume than what was started with. The depth of atomic mergers is what determines how much less the volume of exhaust will be. The deeper the mergers, the lower the inter-repulsion between molecules, and consequently the smaller the resulting volume of gas (explains why three volumes mixed ends up as two volumes, for example).

The true water molecule is one H atom with eight O atoms sunk into it. We can find how deeply the O atoms are sunk into each H atom, actually. Before going on, let me remind that all atoms weigh the same, wherefore, as oxygen gas weighs 16 times as much as hydrogen gas, there are 16 times as many O atoms in the same volume of gas as there is one H atom in its gas. Therefore, each molecule is an HO8, and once they all mix, the density of HO8 is exactly the density as the H atoms had prior to merger.

Let me stress this. With 16 O atoms filling the same volume in its gas as one H atom takes up in its gas, we import 8 of the 16 to each H atom in the first hydrogen-gas volume, and then import 8 more O atoms to the second volume of hydrogen gas, wherefore all the H atoms stay put, not moving but keeping the same density even after the 8 O atoms are added to them. It means that the HO8 molecules are repelling each other by exactly as much as the H atoms repel each other, for the pressure of the resulting water gas is identical to the pressure that was in each hydrogen gas prior to merger.

How can this be? As we expect the HO2 molecule to be much larger than each H atom, how can it have the same repulsion force as a lone H atom? As much as I don't want to go here: it seems that every one of eight O atoms are fully submerged into an H atom so that the water molecule is the same size as a lone H atom. Avogadro would be happy here, but this fully-submerged situation cannot be for all gases, hardly. This is possible in my atomic model because the H atom can be shown to be the largest of all. We can't have eight fully-submerged atoms unless the H atom is very large by comparison.

As one H atom per 16 O atoms provides the same gas pressure in either gas, the H atom has what looks like 16 times the repulsion force. As the oxygen gas should have 16 times as many atoms in contact with the container walls, each O atom must be applying 1/16th the repulsion force against the container walls as compared to each H atom.

One way to explain 16 times more force where size (i.e. cross-section area) is proportional to repulsion force: the H atom would need to have 16 times the cross-section area, in which case H atoms are four times the diameter of O atoms. However, this scenario is valid only where H atoms are exactly as far apart as the O atoms, and where they have 16 times more INNATE repulsion force. Innate repulsion force decreases as distance between particles increases, and we know already that the O atoms are 16 times more dense in the STP gas...not at all meaning they are 16 times further apart.

Instead, it can be demonstrated / calculated that O atoms are 2.67 times as close when 16 times more dense. In order to get gas atoms 16 times more dense, the gas volume needs to be cut by 16 times, and it is exactly then that the atoms are 2.67 times closer together. It's known that when a gas is cut by 16 times its volume, there is 16 times more gas pressure, and therefore the atoms inter-repel by 16 times more force.

That is, when any atoms are 2.67 times nearer to each other, they inter-repel with 16 times more force, and since O atoms at STP are 2.67 times closer together than H atoms at STP, they get to repel against the container walls 16 times more than their 1/16th the innate repulsion force of H atoms, meaning that O atoms exert the same pressure on the container walls, as H atoms do, in that situation. "STP" means "same temperature and PRESSURE." Perfect.

Regardless of how large the H atom is as compared to the O atom, I just showed why O atoms, 2.67 times closer to one another than the distance between H atoms, should exert 16 times their innate force. The sizes of atoms are irrelevant to this fact, and yet we should be able to use these numbers to discover their relative sizes. The premise is that O atoms have 16th the innate repulsion force of H atoms, but being so much closer to each other so as to increase their repulsion force by 16 times, they then repel with equivalent force to that of the H atoms 2.67 times further apart.

This type of thing is hard on my brain. By other argumentation, I figured that the H atom could be about 2.5 times larger than an O atom, but I can't recall the details. In that picture, I allowed the O atom to be sunk only half its depth into an H atom. I was proposing that the proton of any atom cannot be sunk below the outer layer of a larger atom into which its sunk.

In making water, eight O atoms are given over to each H atom in its volume without changing the distance between H atoms...but this is true only where exactly two hydrogen volumes merge with exactly one oxygen volume to produce exactly two volumes of water. Any changes to the sizes of these volumes changes the final look of the water molecule, as to how deep its O atoms are sunk, and also as to how much they inter-repel. I can't comment further until I know the exact volumes.

I should probably demonstrate how I arrived to the 2.67 figure above. In order to get gas atoms twice as close, they have got to be brought twice as close in all three dimensions. We can call the first dimension, top-to-bottom. When a volume of gas is cut in half top-to-bottom, gas atoms come twice as close only from top-to-bottom. When we cut the volume of the same gas in half for a second time, from the east-to-west dimension, the atoms come twice as close east-to-west. When we cut the gas volume in half again, to 1/8th its initial volume, from north-to-south, the gas atoms come twice as close north-to-south. There are no more dimensions, and so after reducing the gas volume by eight times, the atoms are brought twice as close in all directions, or twice as close, period.

At this point, a cutting of the gas volume by eight times increases the gas pressure by eight times, for which reason we can conclude the obvious: the atoms repel by eight times the force, exactly the prediction of electromagnetism for when two magnets are brought twice as close. Before getting a little into that, let's finish the point: each of the three cuts in gas volume decreased the distance between atoms by .67 times (.67 x 3 = 2 times), and so by cutting the volume of the gas in half one more time, to 1/16th the initial volume, the distance between atoms is cut by .67 x 4 = 2.67 times. Therefore, cutting the distance between atoms by 2.67 times gets 16 times the inter-repulsion.

However, as we are dealing with .67 of 2 times, this should not be confused as .67 closer to each other, for the latter means 67-percent closer. Instead, as .67 is a ratio of 2, it's to be understood as .333 closer together. That is, a cutting of gas volume by three times makes the atoms come closer together by .333 x 3 = 100-percent, or twice as close.

When they say that electromagnetism and gravity are both four times stronger with a cutting of distance of two times, I assume it involves one magnet pulling a nail (not a magnet), for example, or one giant gravitational body pulling small objects (contain no gravity or attraction to speak of). I therefore suggest, due to gases gaining eight times the pressure per cutting of gas atoms to half their distance, that two magnets attracting or repelling each other do so by eight times per cutting in half of their distance.

This brings to mind the possibility that cosmological bodies attract with eight times the force when their distance is half as much. This, if correct, wacks cosmologists into gross error when dealing with planetary orbits. Poor sops. They really have no clue about planetary masses because they have the wrong view of gravity. They have traditionally defined gravity force as a fundamental aspect of planetary mass, the sops. Perhaps, now that holes are being plugged into their cosmological "facts," there is a race to re-define gravity as some sort of time-space insanity. Thanks a lot, you sops. You should have adopted negatively-charged gravity, if you wanted to be blessed and honored.

We can even glean that the relative weights of gases reveals instantly the differences of the innate repulsion forces of the atoms. Oxygen atoms have 1/16th the innate force of H atoms while oxygen gas weighs 1/16th that of hydrogen gas. Why shouldn't this system apply to argon gas, for example? It's assigned an atomic weight of almost 40, yet it's weight at STP is 1.78 grams, only 20 times heavier than hydrogen gas (.089 grams). Why did they assign an atomic weight of 40?

As argon gas weighs 20 times more H gas, and if, according to Avogadro, its atoms are the same distance apart as H atoms are in its gas, shouldn't the goofs have assigned argon atoms 20 times the weight of hydrogen atoms? Yes. Yet they give it 18 protons and 22 neutrons for a total weight of 40? Is this just a spilled-milk goof, or more like a big puke job? Well, they say, hydrogen gas has diatomic atoms, and so they are forced to assign argon a 40 because that's 20 times the weight of a diatomic hydrogen gas. But if hydrogen gas has no diatomic atoms, then their 40 is two times to big. They can get away with it because, if all you own is a cookstove, a fridge and a spatula, how will you prove that the 40 is wrong?

It's all goofery because all atoms weigh the same. The point I want to make is that, with argon gas weighing 20 times more than hydrogen, we might expect that argon atoms have an innate repulsion force of 1/20th that of H atoms, and 16/20ths that of O atoms. Just so you know how it works, for anyone wanting to play with it. The more gases weigh at STP, the closer their atoms, the smaller their atoms. The closer the atoms, the more they inter-repel. The smaller the atoms, the less they inter-repel. You can figure out how close argon atoms, as compared to the nearness of H atoms, by reducing a gas volume by 20 times. How much closer will the atoms be at that point as compared to before the gas was reduced in volume?

But, warning: play with atomic mechanics becomes serious headaches before long, and beware addiction, for the goofs of the past all became like drunken physicists.

Free electrons are like a metal spring between gas atoms, pushing them away from one another. You might say that increasing free electrons (temperature) adds them on the right and left sides of atoms, and on their top and bottom sides both, so that there is no net-repulsion in any direction. You might say that the spring on the left side of an atom is counterbalanced by the spring on its right side.

But there are no electrons on the left side of atoms in contact with the left side of the container, and no electrons on the right side of atoms in contact with the right side of the container, wherefore all the electrons between the two walls, or between all the walls, push atoms against the walls to produce pressure. The thicker the free electrons in the sea of space between atoms, the harder this pressure is.

This "metal spring" between every two atoms in all directions can be considered as part of the inter-repulsion of gas atoms even though it's not technically inter-repulsion from the atoms. Instead, it's inter-repulsion from the free electrons, yet it works in the same way as if atoms were causing the inter-repulsion, and for the same reason: having free electrons surrounding atoms.

There's two scenarios for how free electrons can cause gas atoms to inter-repel. Scenario one: gravity makes all gas atoms positively charged, while added free electrons in their midst, squeezing in upon them, make all atoms less positively charged with increasing heat, and the atoms never reach a neutral charge at ordinary temperatures. In this scenario, air atoms, for example, repel positive-against-positive. The problem I've had with this scenario is that high heat should make atoms repel less continually until they become neutral in charge.

Scenario two: due to free electrons, all atoms become neutral in charge at some low temperature while all/most materials are yet solids or liquids, and then climb steadily with negative-against-negative charge with increasing heat. I chose this option years ago, but there is always a nagging nag to go to the other option. I might know better which to chose if I knew whether doubling the temperature makes gases repel with LESS or MORE force than double the force.

It's not true what some say, that doubling the temperature makes gas pressure double too. It's not quite correct. The first scenario above predicts that atoms can double in temperature but have less than double the pressure due to a steady decrease in atom-to-atom repulsion with added heat. The electron-to-electron repulsion never decreases with increasing heat, and so the truth may be that almost all of the gas pressure, in all gases, is due to the electron-to-electron repulsion, the metal-spring scenario. This is something I haven't considered much before, but has been the nagging nag.

In the first scenario, atoms become neutral in charge at some high temperature, and yet they can still repel each other due to free electrons in their midst. If this is the correct view, then, yes, atom-to-atom repulsion seems to be a small part of gas pressure. This won't give evolutionists any reason to smile, however, because cosmic heat has always been the presence of free electrons between atoms, and so there's no way for atoms to come together in a primal universe to form stars. Again, this is why the stupids rejected inter-repelling gas atoms, but also why they didn't address the cosmic electrons that they knew, since 1960, to be spilling out of all stars. DISHONEST BEASTS.

They didn't address whether free electrons between protons cause protons to push away from one another, and their primal universe was THICK-THICK-THICK in free electrons, not only because they say it was extremely hot, but because there were not yet any protons that had captured electrons. This is why they opted not to view electrons as heat, for surely they discussed the effect of free electrons between protons, and someone piped up and said: they'll cause protons to sail away from one another.

Then, some goofball (I'm inventing this to make a speedy point) who wanted cosmic evolution more than the truth of the matter piped up; "why don't we adopt a different type of heat besides heat particles throughout the cosmos, defined as the big-bang motion inherent in every particle." And so the beasts gravitated toward the kinetic-heat theory of Daniel Bernoulli (contemporary with Erasmus Darwin), until it became the established "fact."

To disprove the kinetic theory, all that's needed is to compress a gas, noting that, when the gas is compressed to half its volume, the temperature does not double, not nearly. Yet the goofs view gas pressure and heat as identical, the collisions of atoms against the container walls. They say that gas pressure is doubled by compressing a gas to half its volume because there are twice as many atoms striking the walls at any one time, and yet this is also their definition of heat. That is, a doubling of heat requires twice as many atoms in the system all pounding on a substance, and increasing the speed of its atoms in turn. yet, doubling the density of atoms in a container does NOT nearly double the heat transfer to the container walls.

I on the other hand have a way to explain why cutting the volume of a gas in half does not double the temperature: doubling the density of free electrons in a gas increases their repulsion forces, wherefore they force themselves to enter the sphere of electron capture on outer layers of all gas atoms, but also the outer layers of all atoms of the container walls. For as long as electrons are captured by protonic attraction, they are not heat particles.

That is, when they are captured by protonic attraction, electrons cannot add to the inter-repulsion "spring" in the midst of gas atoms, because they are not in the midst of gas atoms any longer. Instead, they increase the atom-to-atom repulsion, for this is defined (by me) as an increase of free electrons foisted into the electron atmospheres of atoms. yet this is a minor player in overall gas-pressure force. It's known that cutting the volume of a gas does produce a higher temperature, but not much.

Every once in a while, I'll put on a video from Charles Stanley, and just lie on the couch for a 45-minute break, listening. He's got good adherence to the prime teachings of the New Testament. He's right, that when we read the Bible instead of listening to it, it goes deeper into the memory banks, and can stay with us for decades, and even eternity, I suppose. The word of God entering the soul is "brightness" somehow, like the opposite of dead, cold steel, unless we feel convicted, but even that's a good thing, because people who don't feel convicted are the brazen God haters, etc. The women really like him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJL5VxGxwo

News

It appears that the Schwabite of France is stepping down, so super. Schwab himself is wanting to fall on his sword, but I won't be happier until the "far right" (this is the slander phrase used by the far-czar left) winners take the COVID criminals to court on criminal charges. The anti-Schwabite premier of Alberta was a huge disappointment when not taking the vaccine scammers to court, showing that she doesn't want to risk her popularity, or rock the boat, to do justice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xcdfASnse4

In the 4th minute of this Bigtree video, Fauci is caught talking (some years ago) like a tyrant who honors, embraces and incites forced vaccinations. We've not heard this from Fauci before:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/UCaBNZu9OA21

By June 7, the WHO treaty was not yet passed (extremely good news) due to thumbs-down upon it, but the globotyrants are still trying to get it passed with amendments. The cat is out of the bag, WHO has disclosed its iron will:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KjmZOK9FR4FV

On Monday early this week, Fauci told congressman Morgan Griffith that his NIH didn't fund any virus' that could possibly become COVID-19. But when the congressman asked Fauci whether China may have worked the COVID-19 virus behind his back, if indeed Fauci didn't agree with China to do so, Fauci deflected for a long time and never answered the question. The congressman didn't stop Fauci from defecting, I wonder why.

In other words, Fauci's team could have made a deal with China: we'll give you American money to play with SARS COVID, but on paper, with our signatures, we're giving you money only to do these other viruses. Regardless, those other viruses were gain-of-function work too, and what in tarnation is the American government doing facilitating China's growing understanding of lethal viruses??? That looks to me like treason against all real and potential enemies of China, including the United States.

Fauci's acting like someone who gives China raw nuclear material but then isn't guilty if China decides to make a nuclear bomb to bomb the United States with it. He absolves himself of all responsibility for what China may have done with American virus technology. Plus, this entire congressional affair is a perfect set-up for starting another plandemic to be blamed on some other bio-weapons lab, to make it appear like a credible, lethal virus when it may once again be more of a scam-bug.

I've got to stress this: the globalist vaccine pushers know they can't get away with pushing another plandemic anytime soon by claiming a natural virus is going around so bad that we've once again got to grudgingly accept another emergency for to roll up our sleeves. They know that the only way to get away with it a second time is to claim that a virus escaped a lab somewhere. And perhaps this is why the first plandemic claimed escape from a wet-meat market in Wuhan, with a further plan down the road to blame another lab in order to set up a second plandemic.

The accusations against Fauci help to make it credible that there was indeed a severe pandemic. Do you think that maybe the planners of the next plandemic, the American military included, are throwing Fauci and Morens under the bus to send the message that, yes, there really was a deadly virus spreading globally? Even the FBI came out to UNEXPECTEDLY admit that, yes, the COVID virus likely escaped from the Wuhan lab. So, yes, it does appear that they are working to roll another steaming, viral steamroller over us.

The evidence eventually became overwhelming that the common flu was the "pandemic," which did not reach pandemic levels, besides. Whatever escaped from Wuhan did not go far, if indeed it was terribly lethal. The common flu can bring even a healthy individual, like myself 25 years ago, near to death. Not next to death, but close. By God's grace, the body usually gets the upper hand over the virus after a few days of illness.

I think the American congress, and even Rand Paul, are helping to set up the next plandemic by drilling into the heads of anti-vaxxers that there really was a virus worse than the common flu. As David Knight repeats: Rand Paul never attacks Fauci for vaccine crimes, and David even claims that Paul's wife bought stock in the plandemic killer drug, Remdesivir. Things might not be as angelic as they seem with Rand Paul.

Fauci and Trump blame vaccine refusers for hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths while neither mention vaccines deaths or show sympathy for those who've been permanently maimed by them. All is not as it seems while we are in an eye of a hurricane, and so I suggest we use this time to stock up on safe foods as best we know how. The world body is a lunatic in the making that will soon go berserk. Or so it seems.

If there was any glory to bask in at this time, Klaus Schwab would not have stepped down from the top-dog position at the WEF. Wef-wef, bow-wow, he's got only dry bones for dinner this year. All of his nations are betraying him. There's not even any licking the pot, just a licking of his wounds. He's ended the political career of a lot of people the past couple of years with more to come, though it's their fault too because they were all sniffing each others' behinds, because that's what dogs do unashamed no matter if anyone's watching. We're waiting to see what wolf replaces him as leader of the pack. Hopefully, he'll pick the next leader because a loser is apt to pick another loser, ask Obama and Trump about that.

Trump's already revealed that he's stacking his next government with RINOs because he's announced that Nikki Haley will have a spot in his government. I'm beginning to think that everything about Trump is a reality show, all staged, all scripted, and he's got the leading role. It's the only thing that makes sense. I at times think the cabal may be trying to frame him as the biggest hero ever where he's going to escape all deep-state persecution. We'll see. The purpose would be to hijack the minds of his voters into some ambush from the deep-state. My hope is that he's really going to jail for the rest of his life.

That won't happen if he's been a deep-state actor. But if he is, then count on slews of "Christian" or "patriot" internet owners having the same task of deliberately hijacking minds to some planned pitfall. Slow mental conditioning for a few years, building the trust of the viewer, followed by the pitfall / betrayal / ambush that leads to sudden shock and inability to save oneself. I suggest you stay away from Alex Jones. Stew Peters is now supporting Trump's re-election, a red flag. Both video owners appear to be inciting viewers to fight a civil war.

I'm at the point where, should a civil war begin, I might decide that it's worth the risk. But not if the enemy is wanting a civil war due to being well-prepared for dealing with it in short order. That's an ambush. If it's a civil war where the deep state is taken by surprise, going fast from state to state, it would perhaps be worth the risk, because the gangstercrats are not relenting, and are plotting more destruction unless the people submit. I can't tell whether Stew Peters is sincere in what he says, but he's definitely the chief civil-war inciter. The people don't need to be well organized if they have high numbers who simply march to the homes of gangster politicians. The war could be over before it's a war. But this can't happen in one state alone or the military and police will easily handle it. It would be better to vote the gangsters out, if they allow fair elections.

Here's the perfect message that Fauci should be telling the world if indeed he was a good doctor (Fauci is a few short years from Torment, but still refuses to repent):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/pxBKqyXidu2y/

The corruption in canadian politics, exposed much this year and last, is far more problematic than trudeau and the Liberal party that ignores and covers for the corruption, most of which has not yet even surfaced to Conservative knowledge. The bigger problem is that the RCMP is doing nothing about it, and not speaking out against it, as would be expected if it sincerely was on-side with the public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXp8qcV0130

New liberal cover-ups, evasion and deflecting, as bad as it gets, now treason; this has unbelievable attitudes from trudeau's protectors who shoot back at the Conservatives whose only sin is wanting to know the details of the scandal(s). Covering for these crimes is so important to Liberals that, even though they've lost half of their voters thus far, they're showing unconcerned attitudes that will not win those voters back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDeEj7eDjiw

The scandal above is going to put the RCMP in the headlights, to see how long it goes before making arrests. There is no choice but to make arrests because this is treason, the ganging together of members (plural) of parliament with a "hostile" nation. The nice thing for those who want to see trudeau ground to a pulp is that a liberal revealed this scandal, perhaps because he's of a Liberal faction trying to oust trudeau sooner rather than at the next slated election (fall of 2025).

I do declare that the RCMP is led by a criminal cabal. I'm not so stupid as to be duped by its inaction. Doing nothing about crime is facilitating crime. The RCMP is swamped in supporting Liberal-party crime, period. It's a disgusting situation to have two side-by-side nations, once operating on Christian values, now run by gangsters who scratch each others' backs. And this includes Britain so that we have a three-nation evil axis, face it.

More Liberal corruption snowballing this week. This one concerns a revelation from the Environment minister that the trudeau government gave away climate-change money as unmonitored gifts to all sorts of companies, totally expected as climate-change money laundering. This scandal won't go away easily because trudeau has continuously hammered the Conservatives for opposing his climate-change agenda, which is obviously his chief concern because it's always at the front of his rambling mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8PDEau7js

The hypocrisy of Liberals and environmentalists is that, throughout trudeau's "leadership," the people have been told to shut off light bulbs when not in use, and forced to buy low-wattage bulbs at three or four times to cost for saving electricity. We've been punished with higher electrical costs for using laundry machines, for example, by day rather than by evening, and yet trudeau's ilk wants everyone to buy an electric car, NOW, which can use hundreds of times more electricity than a clothes dryer. It screams that there is no electricity crisis, but that Liberals want everyone to worry / fear in order to justify taking our money to fix that which doesn't need fixing. This is truly government gansterism, but when the RCMP (federal police) sees opportunity to jail guilty Liberals, nothing, not a peep.

In one case, a parliamentarian allegedly provided confidential government information to “a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.”

...Asked why the politicians haven’t faced repercussions for their alleged actions, NSICOP Chair David McGuinty called it a “fantastic question.”

“We don’t know what is going on inside the RCMP in terms of its work in this regard,” McGuinty said in an interview with Global, (Global News).

NSICOP is the government organization that revealed this crime. The Liberal organization revealed the assumed-Liberal crime, though it might actually be from a Conservative too, we shall see.

canadian anti-Christs, by making their agendas appear to be popular, have learned that canadians can be easily duped, and so we find that they continue to give appearances that electric cars are still popular. They would be doing the same with mRNA vaccines except that almost everyone is now rejecting boosters. Our worst enemies are easily-duped fools, those who took on abortion against us and made it the popular thing to support, willfully blind to its slaughterhouse nature. This is what frightens me.

There are times when I arrive to a gas station where I've got to wait for three or four minutes for someone else to fill their car and drive off. Imagine how long we'd need to wait if everyone had an electric car that takes 45 minutes to fill. We would not need to wait half of 45 minutes, on average, to fill our electric car, because, when we arrive to a filling station, there's going to be an average more than 45 / 10 = 4.5 cars ahead of us, because it only takes 10 minutes at most to fill up a gas car.

Do you think Elon Musk didn't think of this? Yes, he realized it, but in full evil, concerned for making more money where he needs no more money, he chose to run the biggest electric-car company in the world, without giving a solid warning of what the world would be like when everyone is fully on electric cars.

Imagine that you need gas at 6 pm, and you've got to wait 4.5 x 45 minutes before it's your turn to wait 45 minutes for your car? You might choose to stay in a motel for the night, especially if you need a fill at 10 pm. But the wait will be worse than 5.5 x 45 minutes because that's only if there are as many filling stations as there are now gas stations, and that's never going to happen easily because there's far less profit in selling electricity than selling gasoline.

The only solution will be to raise electricity prices through the roof once everyone has gone electric. That's called, betrayal, and Musk wants to see it. He wants to see governments throwing money at filling-station owners to make it as profitable for them as gas stations now are. He's not concerned enough if driverless cars kill people; he's willing to risk it for more $$$ and fame. He knows that EVs are a lunatic agenda where there isn't the means to produce the electricity needed in the next ten years.

The youtuber, MGUY Australia, is so new that he's not yet being censored by youtube. He's on a roar tarnishing EVs in everywhich way he can. youtube is giving me all of his videos rather than hiding most of them. The top 15 suggestions at youtube's right margin, as I speak, have 11 of his videos showing, now that I've watched a few others from him.

Electric vehicles are being hammered by an ever-growing number of video owners just when the world's liberals are nursing their ragged nerves with the prospect that these cars might flop altogether. Yay. Here's the spiel on EVs, and this man has several other EV videos lately, like he's on a crusade against liberals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iBVdSnP0zo

Unless the fire hazards of EVs are eliminated, EV sales will continue to plummet because EVs are not going to be welcome on ships, or in underground parking lots, or in packed parking lots outdoors. They are more dangerous for the community than terrorist bombings because there are no terrorist bombings, generally, like there are EV fires. And, the thing is, every EV owner could be setting his own property on fire, like asking a two-bit terrorist to consider bombing his own garage with a dozen kegs of gasoline.

Scotland is trying to forbid older and bigger cars from driving into major cities, at the cost of stiff fines per violation. This is a violation of the people, a heavy-handed fist in the name of climate-change tyranny. How long can such politicians stay in power who introduce such schemes? Perhaps one of the goals is to compel people into buying newer cars because they may all have spy equipment on board, that records all conversations on board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meBvahu-bsw

After half the governors in America got together to promise something done against about illegal immigration, nothing in the news has appeared as to what they are all doing. There's crickets even from Texas. Was it all just a political stunt?

Here's NASA entertaining its cult with pictures from mars taken on the earth, trying to convince its cult members that mars had oceanic waters at one time. Any geologist can see that these scenes are on earth. The comments section has no unbelievers because they have learned long ago not to click NASA videos; only the cult flocks to them now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXxgEd8sV1g

The problem is, the car companies which agreed to sell nothing but EVs in roughly a decade from now are going to beg governments for hand-outs to make it profitable to build EVs. If governments are to comply only to increase inflation all the more, it's going to make liberal governments even more despised than they are now, in which case it's not a total loss. Then, after governments subsidize car companies, they need to force people to buy that which they don't want to buy. How's that for Liberals toppling themselves, way to go. Once toppled, there can be some easing of the pains.

Scotland hospital caught murdering patients with poisons. The comments sections in videos like this are more enlightening than the video, never a lack of murder and near-murder stories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0JeA_oljU

Dr. John Campbell celebrates new reports from Britain and the Netherlands on excess deaths possibly having COVID vaccines as the causes. Clarification: he's not celebrating the deaths, but the fact that someone's reporting them. However, the problem with this speaker is that he quotes government reports without questioning the numbers, at least in his videos. In this case, the Netherlands report may be a trick, to leak some news on excess deaths, to trick the many who were once pro-vaxxers, who have become gravely concerned about the terrible plight of family / friends / co-workers immediately / soon after vaccinations. In my opinion, this report may have been leaked to minimize the damage by reporting only 3.1 million excess deaths over three years in 47 countries, or about 22,000 annually per country.

The first clue that it's a trick is that it includes the year of 2020, before the vaccine roll-out, and so this makes it seem that people dying in 2021 and 2022 could have been COVID deaths, for the report has over 1 million deaths for 2020...and not many more than that number for 2021. People were mass-murdered in 2020 on a false premise, and we can know with a high degree of certainty that almost nobody died in 2021, and afterward, more than people usually die of the flu. And we now have reason to ask whether diabolical virus makers had been secretly introducing increasingly-dangerous flu viruses for decades.

While 22,000 average excess deaths per year per country is a big number, I think it's a small fraction of the reality, for after an insurance company reported a 40-percent increase in excess deaths, for 2021, we heard no more similar reports, suggesting that governments, vaccine companies, or both, employed tactics to shut-up the other insurance companies. Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMYZg8_22y8

The West has been reporting excess deaths in the range of 10-15 percent, which appears greatly minimized (by falsification), yet Mr. Campbell gives those numbers without questioning them.

Figures for Canada, with a population of around 40 million, are 284,000 deaths for 2019, and 307,000 in 2020, suggesting the murder of about 20,000 via COVID tyranny. Then, for 2021, when it can be more-safely argued that almost nobody should have died of COVID more than people die normally of a flu, there were 311,000 deaths, suggesting some 27,000 murdered by vaccines. The figure continues to climb to 335,000 for 2022, now at about 50,000 murdered by vaccines. The number maintained high, at 330,000 for 2023...and of course this government, known to be utterly corrupt, could be lying with these figures if the numbers of murders are known (by the government) to be significantly higher than these numbers reveal.

This video, sharing some documents finally given up by canada on their vaccine testing prior to vaccine unleashing, might be a great video, but the speaker speaks so fast I can't follow well. She doesn't give me a second to think about what she's saying, it's sad how so many video speakers are racing through their presentations.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fhZNvOu-l7E/

Fauci under heavy fire at congress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5EUCbAMqno

If you can't understand the Scottish accent, just read the comments at this video, and you'll get the criminal picture which the British government, and other Western nations, committed and covered up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIQgSJvnxaQ

Do you think it was a coincidence that this child fell over in a collapse, while standing, four feet from oopsy trudeau:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/o50eRUJizAVR

In case you want to see more flagrant Liberal corruption in canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SV1Bf1WIE4