There were plenty of heraldic pointers in the last update to the "burn bags" found in the FBI's Hoover building. My heraldic investigations eventually brought me to the Baghs:

MontaCUTE's are interesting for sharing the black border with Furnace's (Lancashire with Seats), interesting because the burn bags were destined for the furnace. Furnace's have a giant and "seated" black dog, the color of the very same seated dog in the Back/BAGH Crest. Coincidence?...The "Cedes" variation of Seats is expected in the motto of Steers who are in turn in the "steer" of German Bachs/Backs. English Backs are first known in Somerset with MontaCUTE's.

You can click Baghs now, which loads them on another tab in order to load other surnames, to better follow the heraldic links.

As you can see, the Baghs took us to Bachs and Backs. This week, this reminded me of the last scene in the Obama dream, a dream that was dealt with again in the last update. In the 1st update of February, 2017, the week when the dream took place, I mentioned the BACK of a man in the last scene of the Obama dream:

I do not recall the conversation at the end of the dream where there was some sort of a rift between Obama and an employee of his. The very end [last scene] was my seeing the BACK of this employee. It's hard to explain how I knew the back to be important, but it was the meaning of that scene. His head was turned as far back [behind his shoulder] as it could be in viewing Obama, while on his skate board, rebuking him for something.

Obama was upset with this employee, for which reason I figured he was something like a snitch on Obama's crime, such that it upset Obama after I saw him on a SKATEboard, which I took to mean that Trump would let him "skate," i.e. not go to jail. The dream took place a couple of weeks after Trump became the president for the first time, but nobody yet knew at that time that Trump would fully chicken out on cleaning swamp.

I'm suggesting that the last scene of the dream is a pointer to the burn bags. Thus far, these bags have implicated Hillary Clinton as the instigator of the Russia-collusion hoax. Months later, by the first week in January (2017), Obama had decided that he would help Hillary out by taking Trump out of the White House that she might sit in it instead. No doubt, Obama would want to become a defacto president for a third term, if he could get Trump out and Hillary in.

I think I may now understand why the employee was looking over his shoulder, for Parrs, first known in Lancashire with Furnace's, share the same black border with them, and have a "woman" in Crest with "head and shoulders." Heads/Heeds are first known in Norfolk with SHOULDhams and Bags, though this heraldic set would be better if Shouldhams could be shown as Bag kin. I can come close where Bags (Norfolk with Cockers/Cockets) share the Shield of Cocks, the latter first known in Somerset with black-border Montacute's and Borders/BOARDers. Obama was on his skateBOARD as the scene with man looking over his shoulder began.

Plus, the last update showed that my more-recent dream with CROW seeking to land on my stove BURNer represents Kash Patel releasing some of the data in the "burn bags." Crows, first found in Norfolk with Bags, Cockers/Cockets, Fountains and Case's, share the Crow rooster in colors reversed. It's also the rooster of Kiss'/Cush's who share the Coat, with "fountains," of CASH's/Cass'. Kash's/Caseys have crow heads.

So, it now appears that after Obama danced in the dream, so happily, then went up and down a ramp on his skateboard, so happily, in the next scene, God's going to put a little dismay into his soul with the burn bags. However, I wonder who the employee was in the Obama dream. I didn't know for sure that he was Obama's employee, but as he was in the BACK yard of the billiard hall, and because Obama was upset with him, I figured he was an employee.

I didn't mention the back yard in the 1st update of February, 20127, but I did in the next update:

After the double men went up a ramp or arch on skateboards, there was some disagreement between Obama and an employee of his, and the employee, with his back turned toward Obama, was scolded by Obama. I had the sense that his back was the purpose of this part of the dream. This is where it ended, with the back of this employee showing vividly in my mind. We were outdoors at the time, and I assume it was the BACK yard of the billiard hall. I therefore suggested that the Back surname(s) apply, but as I didn't come across the Down BUCK until the update [the week earlier] was nearly due on the Internet, I didn't get around to finding that German Backs/Bachs use the same wing design as German Bucks.

Downs (Sussex with Boards) were to topic because Downhams (Norfolk with Skate's and Bucks) are listed with Dunhams, the surname of Obama's mother.

I saw two Obama's on the skateboard, like when one sees double vision. At first I thought that this was a picture of he and his partner, but on second thought, both men were identical, and so I suggested it's a pointer to the Twin / Twine bloodline. The point here is that the skateboard was going up and down a small ramp while Ramps/Romps, first known in Cumberland with Brun-like Burns, Burness' and Browns/Bruns, show only brown lions, the symbol in the Brown/Brun Crest. Therefore, even Obama's skateboard can point to the burn bags.

When the employee looked backward over his shoulder, he looked beHIND. While Parrs mention "HEAD and shoulder," they have two of the Parry fesse while Parry's have the Hind Coat in colors reversed. Perrys, first known in Hampshire with Twine/TWEENs, use a "hind" while Hinds have a "fesse beTWEEN three silver lozenges." As Twins/Tweens use estOILes, it suggests that heraldic "BEtween" is part-code for Bee's because they are first known in Oxfordshire with Oileys. The latter show nothing but double-blue bends, the colors of the nothing-shown but double-blue fesses of the Parr Shield. ESToiles suggest that Oileys had merged with Este's who in turn almost have the HEAD/Heed Coat.

Obama's employee looked BEhind his shoulder. However, I don't see how Bee's could apply to the burn bags, if indeed the employee's back points to them. Bee's almost have the Coat of Eure's, first known in Dumbartonshire with Lakeys while Lake's are first known in the same place as Bee's and Oileys. Leg-using Leaks share the blue bend with Oileys, in the colors of the Parry / Parr fesse. It could indicate that Obama's employee, or former government employee, or buddy in some way, will leak data not helpful to Obama's woes at this time.

It would be cowardly and shameful for congress not to summon Obama to answer key questions such as to force him to incriminate himself. Obama is the father of "woke," of the deliberate, piece-by-piece destruction of the United States.

There Are No Photons

Do you have the smarts to realize that straight-shooting photon particles could never go through a 1/8" inch pane of glass without crashing into countless atoms? Do you have the smarts enough to realize that, unless photons go STRAIGHT through glass, the dog house you see through the glass window would look like mud? And so we'd like to know how the evolutionist goofs magically explain how photons get through glass. I asked google, "what happens when photons collide with protons?" I asked this even though light particles can never strike protons, because all atoms are covered in a thick shell of countless electrons, like the earth covered in its atmosphere. However, the goofs assign only few electrons per atom, and they claim that photons can therefore easily strike protons. google AI gave this response:

When photons collide with protons, the photon can be scattered, deflected, or absorbed by the proton, transferring energy and momentum. At high energies, photons can also interact with protons to produce new particles...

The goofs have so many problems with their faulty atomic model that they at times need to invent new particles, and the photon energy ghost is one way they accomplish that fantasy. Do you have smarts enough to know that a light particle cannot form a new particle just because it strikes an atom?

The point is, the response above has the expected deflections of photons from protons during collisions, but it also adds absorption into the proton, as if it were not a particle at all, but just its motion energy alone. However, a photon cannot have motion energy if it has zero mass, and the goofs assign it zero mass because they absolutely need that impossibility to keep it alive as a "fact" of atomic physics. The photon is a magician that does all sorts of tricks when needed.

By admitting that photons deflect off of protons, they admit by implication that they can't penetrate glass without making the doghouse look like a foggy mud. But when they claim that the photon gets absorbed into the proton (they get prove this), we can start to get the impression that it has to do with explaining how photons can go straight through glass, or straight through the solar wind, without deflecting chaotically all over the place, proton collision after proton collision.

It's got to be true that the motion energy of true light waves get absorbed by atoms, and that after passing through the captured electron atmosphere of atoms, the waves exit the atom and begin to transfer though the next atom in a straight line. This has got to be true because there's no other way to explain light penetrating solid glass with wall-to-wall atoms. There's no other way to explain how sunlight gets through the solar wind or the earth atmosphere, because if light were a straight-shooting particle, it could never get through without countless collisions.

True light waves transferring through solar-wind electrons, and then through the electron atmospheres of air atoms, are not at all the same thing as inexplicable flying energy that is the photon, which flies though nothingness, not requiring the solar-wind medium to move along. By "inexplicable," I mean that one cannot explain how energy can exist without mass. What kind of energy is it? In all cases of energy where there is no demand for the mind to go lunatic, it's motion energy. But if the photon has no mass, it neither has motion energy. Why then, do the lunatics front this fantasy photon when there's ample electrons in the sun that can cause true waves of motion energy through solar-wind electrons that continuously sail past the earth?

There's no such thing as naked protons, but the goofs claim they work with them all the time. They think they are shining light on bare protons. They think they can make bare protons by removing the one electron from H atoms, what a bunch of retards. How retarded does one need to be to think that a relatively giant proton can capture only one, teensy-weeny electron? But the photon, they say, is even weeny-teensier by far than the electrons. Okay, so what do we think will take place when this utterly small photon strikes the mountainside that is the proton? Will it go through it?

How will the photon get past the many mountains in a pane of glass without scattering all over the place and ruining your view through the window? If it doesn't have any mass, neither does it have power to penetrate the protons, for if it has zero mass, it also has zero motion energy when it strikes the proton. Besides, if photons went clear through protons, the sheer numbers would disintegrate protons faster than you can shake a bottle of Windex.

Okay, so some of the more-sane goofballs will admit that the photon has a little mass, as if to appease those with more science sanity. But the question remains: how do photons get past protons of all sorts that make up transparent materials? They can't. Is there an alternative theory on light propagation through transparent materials. Yes, the one I mentioned above, with 100-percent sanity.

I asked google what happens to photons when striking protons, and the answer seems to invent a means by which photons can get though glass. But it also makes a law-breaking statement, claiming that the massless photons carry kinetic (motion) energy sufficient to "excite" a proton, same as a zillion bees crashing per second into a mountain causing an earthquake:

When a photon is absorbed by a particle with an electric charge, such as a proton, the photon's energy is transferred to the particle, causing it to become excited or change its state. The photon's energy can be transformed [magical word] into kinetic or INTERNAL energy, and the proton can then be set into oscillation or change its orbital or spin state. In some cases, the proton may re-emit a photon of the same frequency, which constitutes a scattering process.

In simpler words, a photon becomes motion energy INSIDE the proton, and, IN SOME CASES, a proton may spit out the photon such that it carries on its merry way as a light particle. The response above says that this is light scattering, and while that doesn't work to explain straight-moving light through glass, we can start to glean how the goofs could tweak the situation for a proton of transparent materials such that it always spits out incoming photons on the opposite side from which they enter. Hence, straight-moving light.

Sure, it works in theory, just like Mary Poppins flies with her umbrella, but can her umbrella really hold her up? Can a proton really absorb the photons and then spit it out again in a straight line? Isn't that exactly the same thing as a photon piercing straight through the proton? Well, no, not exactly, because the goofs can invent a proton spin so that photons enter only the protonic surface, and then go round like on a merry-go-round until the proton spits them it out at the opposite side from which they entered. Ya-but, isn't this too much make-believe trash?

If that's not exactly how the goofs have decided to publicize their explanation of glass transparency, it's got to be close. Somehow, they have got to figure out a swallow-able or quasi-logical means of turning a photon collision into a photon continuation in a straight line on the opposite side of the proton. It's as simple as that. That is, the impossibility is as simple to explain as that.

But if the proton is covered in a sea or atmosphere of hovering electrons, then a true wave could easily pass around the atom from wave entry to the opposite side of the atom, then carry on through the electrons of the next atoms in the line. As all atoms in glass are covered in electrons, there is an electron path right through the glass. The only question to answer is why opaque materials have electrons paths that weaken or spoil the waves. There's options. Clue: there's lots of transparent oxygen atoms in glass. There's transparent hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water.

The goofs have got their photon rigged such that it can grant energy to the proton yet not lose speed after bouncing off of it. Too, bad, law breakers, that can't work. When any object strikes another and gives some of its motion energy to it, it loses speed on the bounce. If you have your photon rigged such that it never loses speed, then there is no such thing as a photon. But of course the goofs know this. And they do know the solution, because it's very easy for expert physicists to figure.

The solution is a true wave, for it's known that a sound wave, when it bounces off of atoms (say a wall), looses energy but maintains its same speed. By losing energy, the sound becomes weaker, less loud, yet the quieter, reflected wave yet moves at the same speed. Ditto for light waves. They strike a wall, lose some energy (less brightness), yet bounce off at the same speed as they arrived to the wall. When light waves bounce off a wall as color, versus sheer reflection (e.g. type as per off of a mirror), they probably don't lose as much percentage of energy as compared to sound because the latter penetrates deeper into the wall atoms.

The closer the waves remain to the outer surface, the more energy, I think, the wave will bounce off with. When light reflects off of polished silver, it apparently doesn't go deep into the silver atoms. I suspect that polished metals allow high reflective qualities due to (most) metals having a very small atom i.e. shallow electron atmospheres such that they are harder (more toward a brick wall) when struck due to the closer distance between outer electrons (atomic surface) and proton.

But the atomic model of the goofs assigns metal with the most electrons, and moreover they say that metal atoms are amongst the largest, the very opposite of the reality on both counts. Therefore, they shoot themselves in the foot because it's less likely for photons to reflect/deflect off of a mirror at the angle that photons strike the silver of a mirror. The only explanation for that type of deflection is the photon striking the proton while missing the electrons, because they claim, or have no choice but to claim, that photons which strike electrons reflect as colored light i.e. in all directions.

These goofs have no choice by to see photons captured on electrons for long periods because, when you flip on a light switch, lo, light comes out of the atoms of the bulb. Where could these photons have come from? The goof would either need to invent a means to create new photons from the electrical power through the wire, or would need to claim they piggy-back on the electrons during the whole time that the electricity isn't running. Forget it, there are no photons, but when electrons flow in an electrical wire, electrons emit from the bulb and thus cause light waves through the aether in the room's air.

The goofs have no excuse for foisting a lie on the world, because they had light switches at the time of this photon concoction. They therefore badly wanted the photon, meaning they badly wanted to reject the aether. They must have had a secret motive(s).

Mechanics of Gas Pressure in a Container

Google sent me for a loop.

I had reason that, since gravity is said to attract a nail by four times more force when the nail is twice as close to gravity, that two magnets would attract by eight times the force when twice as close. That's because gravity versus nail involves only one magnet, gravity, but of we have two magnets, I expect twice the force, that being eights versus four times stronger.

But then I asked google how much more two magnets would attract or repel when twice as close, and it said by four times. I then had a crisis on my hands, because I had solved the reason for contained gases causing eight times the pressure when the atoms are twice as close (in a sealed container). I reasoned that, since atoms are magnetic -- they repel each other to form gas pressure -- they should repel by eight times the force when compressed to eight times less volume, because that amount of compression forces gas atoms twice as close.

However, google AI now confesses that magnets can attract eight times as much when twice as close, though it may not share this information at all times, which is what we could expect of the goofs who feed AI its knowledge. You realize that google puts certain knowledge off limits to AI. For example, my science is placed off limits; AI would never even know my science exists. And so the rulers of AI cherry pick which knowledge their robots can access and share. AI now confesses:

Yes, under certain conditions, the attraction force between two magnets increases by four times when their distance is halved, but this is a simplified view. For point poles, the force follows an inverse square law (force proportional to 1/d^2), meaning halving the distance multiplies the force by four. However, real magnets are dipoles, and their far-field interaction follows an inverse cube law (force proportional to 1/d^3). This means that as magnets get closer (in the "near-field" or if they are not point-like), the force can increase anywhere from four to eight times.

The Rule: For true magnetic dipoles at a large distance from each other, the field falls off as 1/d^3.

The Result: Halving the distance would increase the force by 2^3, or eight times.

I'm not sure what it's talking about when differentiating between a point-pole magnet and a dipole magnet. The latter is just a normal, true magnet. I don't know of any other kind of magnet. I assume that by point-pole, it's referring to a nail, for example, near a magnet. The magnet turns the nail temporarily into a magnet. The nail is expected (by me) to be attracted by four times the force, when twice as close to a magnet, because the nail is not itself a magnet.

Therefore google previously lied to me when previously telling that two magnets twice as close repel or attract with four times the force. Why would it do that? One possibility is that the goofs do not want the public to know that gas atoms are magnets, for they repel eight times stronger when twice as close.

In a gas, atoms are all at the same distance from one another, at all times, unless the gas is disturbed. It's the nature of magnetic particles to take up equal distances from each other when they are all under inter-repulsion to each other. At the risk of loosing the reader, the quote below (my previous words) tells how we can discover that atoms are twice as close (all direction) when eight times more dense:

When a piston cuts the volume of the gas in half by moving down into the container, it can be viewed as moving the atoms twice as close only in the up-down direction. The atoms don't really move twice as close only in the up-down direction, but for the sake of doing the calculation, we can view it that way. We then rightly understand that the atoms are not yet twice as close in the east-west and north-south directions.

We need to cut the gas in half, after the first cut, two more times, one in the east-west, and one in the north-south, directions before the atoms are ALL twice as close in all directions. Thus, after cutting the gas in half twice, the volume of the gas is reduced to four times the original volume, when there is four times the gas pressure and four times the atomic density, and after cutting the gas in half three times, the volume of the gas is reduced to eight times the original volume, when there is eight times the gas pressure and eight times more atoms per unit volume.

Therefore, the repulsion force between gas atoms is proportional to their density. If we make the gas 100 times more dense, the atoms repel 100 times more strongly, producing 100 times more gas pressure.

As compressing the gas by eight times brings atoms twice as close, the best I could do in the past was to assume that compressing it by two times brings atoms 1.33 times as close, and compressing it by four times brings them 1.67 times as close. But, google AI says it's not so crisp as making three increments of .33, and I think the reason is that the first cut in half has a larger volume to cut than the second and third cuts.

You can skip the math in this indented paragraph, if you wish, to get back to the flow of the discussion:

I tasked AI on this, but it gave a wrong answer to the question, "When balls are spaced at equal distances of 4 inches in 3-d space, and the space is cut in half, how far apart will they become center to center?" It gave the answer of 2 inches, which is wrong. That's the answer only for a two-dimensional line. But when I re-phrased the question using "hovering, and with "volume" instead of "space," as, "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 4 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume is halved?" I think it gave the correct answer as: "The new center-to-center distance between the balls will be approximately 3.1748 inches."

When I used my 1.333, I would get 4 inches / 1.333 = 3.0 inches. Part of AI's response is 1 / 1.2599 = .7937, for which it then does 4 x . .7937 to get 3.1748 inches. In other words, it's probably best to record the use of 4 x .7937 instead of remembering my 4 / 1.33 if you need better accuracy.

I had best record here AI's response to, "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 4 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume is reduced four times?" The response is: "The new center-to-center distance between the balls will be approximately 2.52 inches." Therefore, it's doing 4 x .63, same answer as 4 / 1.585 instead of my 4 / 1.67.

Therefore, you might want to record that cutting a gas volume in half one time uses the figure of, 1.26 (1.2599) times, to find the new atomic distances, while cutting a space in half twice gets uses about 1.585, while cutting a gas in half three times gets the atoms 2.0 distance closer to each other. I think we can trust this math because, when asking, "When balls are hovering at equal distances in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume is reduced eight times", the response is "The new center-to-center distance will be half of the original distance." It's clear, that cutting a gas in half three times gets the atoms twice as close, and vice versa, increasing a gas volume by twice as much three times gets atoms twice as far apart. Just to confirm for you that we are to use 1.2599 and 1.585 when going the other way, DOUBLING gas volume one or two times, AI gave 5.0396 inches apart when starting from 4 inches, after the gas volume is doubled once. It verifies the use of 1.2599 (1.26) because 4 x 1.2599 = 5.03965. So, when cutting the volume in half one time, use 1 / 1.26, and when doubling the volume once, use 1 x 1.26.

I asked google, "do 8 times the particles come twice as close," but the response is a kinetic weasel: "No, eight times the particles does not automatically mean they come twice as close;..." It rudely did not understand the question because it's biased for the kinetic theory in which atoms are always changing distances from each other. It could have kindly said, "Yes, if the particles are stationary at equal distances." So, AI is brainwashed to see kineticism as FACT.

I therefore asked, "are atoms twice as close when gas volume is cut by 8 times?" It again tried to weasel out of the answer: "No, atoms are not twice as close; their average separation decreases by a factor of two when the volume is cut by eight times...if you decrease the volume by 8 times, you decrease the linear dimensions by the cube root of 8, which is 2." In other words, yes, cutting the volume by eight gets the atoms two times closer providing the kinetic theory is not in view. It even admits, "their AVERAGE SEPARATION decreases by a factor of two when the volume is cut by eight times."

I therefore asked, "if balls hover at equa-distance, are they eight times more dense if brought twice as close?" The AI response: "Yes, if you bring balls that are initially a certain distance apart to be twice as close, their density (in terms of volume occupied) becomes eight times greater because the volume decreases by a factor of eight (a reduction of half [the distance] in all three dimensions)." Cutting a gas in half three times is to reduce its volume by eight times, and vice-versa, doubling it three times gets eight times the volume.

In my last update, I dealt with argon gas versus neon gas, where argon is assigned twice the "atomic weight," which really means that a liter of argon gas at STP has twice as many atoms as compared to a liter of neon gas at STP. The goofs wrongly assume that both liters have the same number of atoms, a very stupid theory, the logic of which cannot be found anywhere in the earth, yet every physicist is brainwashed into accepting it. These science animals claim with straight faces that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms, as if bent on feeding us a false reality for some secret motive, for anyone can plainly understand how ludicrous it is that all gases at the same pressure should have the same number of atoms.

It is exactly by that erroneous theory that they derive their various atomic weights, meaning that their atomic weights are wildly incorrect. In reality, the negative force of gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same, which is how we can know that argon gas at STP has twice the atoms as neon at STP, because argon gas weighs twice as much when both gases are at STP. It's that simple. It means that gas weight is proportional to the number of atoms regardless of the type of gas/atom.

Therefore, as per the 1.2599 number in the indented paragraph above, for gases having twice the atoms (when volume remains steady), I can report that argon atoms are 1.26 times closer to each other than neon atoms when both create the same pressure. We now ask why argon atoms need to be 1.26 times closer to produce the same repulsion force as neon atoms, and the only answer I have, in accordance with my atomic model, is that argon atoms are smaller. Indeed, as the goofs have things backward, the higher their atomic-weight figure assigned to a gas atom, the smaller that atom is.

I didn't realize until the week after this one that neon gas has a weight of .9 g/l, 10 times that of hydrogen, meaning that the goofs wrongly assigned neon an atomic weight of 20, because, even though their atomic-weight figures are wrong, they would have assigned it as 10 had they not believed, wrongly, that hydrogen gas consists of an H2 molecule (instead of a single H atom) such that the neon atom is thought to weigh 10 times more than that molecule, and thus 20 atomic-weight units.

Similarly, they assigned argon an atomic weight of 40 even though it weighs only 19.78 times as much as hydrogen. They would have assigned argon an atomic weight of 20 if they thought that H gas is made of a single H atom.

First, let's try to answer why smaller atoms repel each other less than larger atoms. It's clear that, the larger the atom, the fewer there are in a gas at STP, and consequently the larger the atom, the more repulsion force it has. For, if a gas having larger and fewer atoms create the same pressure as smaller and more-numerous atoms, the larger atoms have more repulsion force each.

Heat in the midst of atoms contributes to gas pressure above an beyond the innate repulsion of the atoms. Free electrons (heat) between gas atoms push atoms apart, thus causing them to push against the container walls with more force than by atomic-repulsion alone. However, as all gases in this discussion are at the same temperature, we can ignore the push-apart effect of heat, and focus on the innate inter-repulsion of atoms alone.

Unless something else enters the picture of my atomic model, I, at this time, take the position that all gas atoms send out the very same level of electric charge to each other, regardless of atom type. That is, all gas atoms are forced by gravity to possess and radiate, from their atomic peripheries, a net-positive charge equal to the gravity force. For this discussion, it doesn't matter what the specific gravity force is, the point is that all gas atoms radiate the same level of force regardless of their size. It is no small prize for me to have arrived at this understanding. But unless physicists adopt it, the human race may be enslaved to the kinetic theory for another 100 years or more.

Therefore, an atom having twice the area in its cross section is expected to send out twice the repulsion force, for though the peripheries of both atoms sends out equal force, the larger atoms, with larger peripheries, send out MORE of the equal force. It's akin to 100 balls thrown at a wall at the same speed as compared to 50 balls thrown at the same speed. Thus, though with the same "speed" of positive force acting between larger atoms, they throw more balls (or spray more water) at each other, and thus they repel each other apart more.

Larger atoms have more positive stuff acting between them in proportion to the areas of their cross sections. Not atomic volume, not atomic cross section, but rather the area of the cross section.

A cross section is a two-dimensional slice in the atom. For spherical atoms, the cross section is exactly the atomic diameter. However, a sphere with twice the diameter has four times the area in its cross section, meaning that an atom with twice the diameter is expected to have four times the repulsion force. It's fortunately a neat-little package, not proportional, but the next best thing. As the argon atom has half the repulsion as compared to the neon atom, we can do the math to figure out how much larger the neon atom is (lets assume both are spherical). It's as easy as finding what half the cross-sectional area is.

A one-inch sphere has a cross-sectional area of: .5 x .5 x 3.14 (pi) = .785 square inches. A two-inch sphere has a cross-sectional area of: 1 x 1 x 3.14 = 3.14 square inches. There's four times the cross-sectional area (.785 x 4 = 3.14) in a two-inch sphere. To figure the relative sizes of argon versus neon, we want a cross-sectional area of half of 1.57, or .785 square inches for argon. The diameter of a sphere having a cross-sectional area of 1.57 inches is 1.4 inches, wherefore we're making the neon atom represented by a 1.4-inch sphere (you can use atomic units if you're a physicist), and argon by a 1-inch sphere.

As hydrogen gas weighs 10 times less than neon gas, my system tells that the neon atom has 10 times less repulsion force, meaning it has a cross-sectional AREA of 10 times less. Where the neon atom is a 1.4-inch sphere with a cross-section area of 1.57 square inches, the hydrogen atom, needing 10 times the cross-sectional area of the neon atom, should be sized as per 1.57 x 10 = 15.7 square inches, and so we'll make it 4.5 inches in diameter because that gives it 15.9 square inches.

As hydrogen gas weighs 16 times less than oxygen gas, my system tells that the O atom has a cross-sectional area of 16 times less, or 15.7 square inches / 16 = .98 square inches, meaning that the O atom, to scale, is a sphere having a diameter of 1.12 inches, exactly four times smaller in diameter than an H atom. The math is: .56 (half of 1.12) x .56 x 3.14 = .98).

As I've explained, a water molecule is not an H2O. I will bet my house it's not because the creation of "H20" is a direct result of the faulty atomic-weight figures of the utter goofballs who, like idiots following idiots, can't see how impossible Avogadro's "law" is. His law says that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms. The true definition of Avogadro's law is: IMPOSSIBLE.

When I call them idiots, I don't mean to say that they made some mistakes, like I do often on these topics. What is meant is that they have had a century to see and discuss the errant predictions and false conclusions of kineticism, but still they persist, like idiots stuck on error.

In reality, with oxygen gas having 16 times as many atoms as hydrogen gas, the water molecule works out to an O8H molecule, eight oxygen atoms sunk (to some unknown degree) into one hydrogen atom. This proves true where steam gas is known to weigh nine times more than hydrogen gas. As all atoms weigh the same, an O8H molecule (nine atoms in all) weighs nine times more than a hydrogen atom.

Is it logical that a 4.5-inch sphere is impregnated with eight O atoms each of 1.12-inch diameter? Why can't a ninth or tenth fit into the 4.5-inch sphere? Why is it that when hydrogen gas burns in oxygen, only eight O atoms merge with one H atom? I'd say the solution is in the repulsion force of the sunk O atoms; they prevent a ninth from coming on board because it can't squeeze in between the merged O atoms, even though there's room for eight more, because they repel it away.

As there's room to fit eight more O atoms because the first eight are slightly more than 1.12 inches apart, when saddled on a 4.5-inch sphere, it explains why hydrogen peroxide can be made by force, which is known to consist of a water molecule but with twice the oxygen atoms. Thus, hydrogen peroxide is O16H.

The second batch of eight oxygen atoms leak slowly from hydrogen peroxide, likely because they are under significant repulsion from the first eight O atoms (all 16 are sunk into the H atom, I assume), yet attracted by, the one H atom. Online: "Hydrogen peroxide can turn into water very quickly, from seconds to hours, depending on whether it is exposed to catalysts like metal, heat, or UV light. Without these factors, decomposition can take weeks or longer,..." With a lid on a bottle, it'll remain hydrogen peroxide for a long time, because the trapped gas above the liquid helps to keep the extra O atoms merged into the H atom.

After 16 O atoms are sunk into a 4.5-inch H atom, there isn't room for a 17th. The surface area of a 4.5-inch sphere is 63.l6 square inches, while the surface area of a 1.12-inch sphere is 3.93 square inches. When we multiply the latter by 16, we get exactly 63 square inches. It tends to show that the O atoms are back-to-back, essentially touching, in hydrogen peroxide. That amounts to a lot of repulsion force between them, for repulsion force increases with less distance between magnets. It tends to reveal that the O atoms must be sunk fairly deeply into the H atom to prevent instant repulsion of the second batch of eight O atoms. The deeper they are sunk, the lass cross section they have toward each other, and thus the less repulsion force they emit at each other.

This back-to-back O-atom scenario tends to reveal why water has only eight O atoms, due to there being barely enough room for a ninth to squeeze between them, for when eight have been loaded, they repel each other, and thus sail away from each other while merged upon the H-atom, resulting in equal distances between each other, causing the distances between each other to barely allow another O atom to get in there with them. I therefore feel very confident on this sizing of H atoms versus O atoms: 4.5 units versus 1.12 units in diameter / cross section.

In the last update, I gave reasons for the solar origins of both argon and neon, as crippled H atoms pushed/bumped along through space by solar-wind electrons. Imagine how crippled the proton of an H atom would be when the normal H atom at 4.5-inches wide is reduced to 1.4 inch, or 1 inch in the case of argon. By "crippled," I mean that the proton loses power to attract electrons such that the size of crippled atoms becomes smaller.

If correct that argon and neon are crippled solar atoms, then, because all argon atoms are expected to be the same size, and ditto for neon atoms, the mechanisms in the sun which cripple them must be systematic, not chaotic, always crippling H atoms by the same amounts for argon, and always crippling H atoms by the same amounts to procure neon atoms. It suggests at least two different machineries for crippling protons.

Or, instead of suspecting two different mechanisms, the culprit may be high pressure versus lower pressure, where the higher pressure creates argon atoms. Perhaps protons are such that they fall apart by increments, either producing a neon atom at some pressure level, and then only producing argon at the next increment of its failure, with nothing (no atom size) produced in-between.

After neon, the 6th most-abundant gas in the earth's atmosphere is krypton, and like argon and neon, krypton is a noble gas, part of my suspecting them to be from the sun. As even argon is only a 1-inch sphere as compared to 4.5 for a healthy H atom, it must be nearly all proton, if indeed it has a hydrogen proton (largest proton of all atoms), with very few electrons into which other atoms may merge. Atomic merger is when the outer electrons of one atom to fit between and sink into the outer electrons of another atom, but where there is insufficient electron depth for merger to take place, that's a good explanation for a "noble" atom, defined as unable to merge with others.

Krypton atoms are assigned an atomic weight of 83, though krypton gas weighs 41.5 times that of H gas. As krypton is essentially absent in earth rocks, aside from some that seeps in from the air and rain, it looks like another solar-cripple atom. I predict it has roughly double the cross-sectional area of argon atoms. Where argon is a 1-inch sphere with cross-section area of .785 square inches, the krypton atom is expected to have a cross-sectional area of roughly half as much, or roughly .393 square inches, making it a sphere with about .7-inch diameter (.385 square inch).

When we appeal to experimentation, we can get some truths that google AI will never share:

In this section, we consider the properties of real gases and how and why they differ from the predictions of the ideal gas law. We also examine liquefaction, a key property of real gases that is not predicted by the kinetic molecular theory of gases.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/10%3A_Gases/10.09%3A_Real_Gases_-_Deviations_from_Ideal_Behavior

What's that? The kinetic theory of atoms can't explain liquid formation? That's right. Ever-colliding gas atoms won't allow liquid droplets to form, duh, unless they form in the minds of a law-breaking lunatics who gladly imagine that which cannot be true. They do this for the team? What team? The evolutionist rulers of the controlling establishment. Reducing a volume of gas will not slow kinetic atoms, but only brings them closer. If kinetic gas atoms won't form liquid atoms at standard pressure, they can't form liquid atoms when compressed deeply to low volumes, because nothing changes but the distance between ever-crashing atoms, and the crashes are said to be what keeps them from merging into liquid. But, the fact is, gases do form liquids when compressed to low volumes.

Metal gases have critical temperatures in the thousands of degrees C, when the atoms are super-fast according to the kinetic theory. How possibly could those super-fast atoms come together into liquids? The answer is easy: they don't speed about, they don't constantly collide. A new discovery is in wanting on the real mechanism of liquid formation in compressed gases.

Look at the chart in the article above, how gases deviate from the ideal gas law, yet google AI is programmed to teach gas behavior according to the ideal "law," which is an ideal scam intended to support the kinetic theory of atoms but having the "mere" complication of reality getting in the way.

The article adds: "...the two basic assumptions behind the ideal gas law — namely, that gas molecules have negligible volume and that intermolecular interactions are negligible — are no longer valid." That looks like a sledge hammer to the head of a physics lunatic, music to my ears. "Intermolecular interactions" would include their repulsion forces, but this author doesn't believe in that, because he's brainwashed to follow the crowd until he realizes it's wrong in certain respects. He might disagree with the crowd in one or two respects, but hold to the crowd in 100 other respects. He's a hopeful cripple.

The charts show that deviation from "ideal" is greater with increasing temperature, and this ought to be explained in that heat particles play a role in gas pressure. While the atoms can be assumed to be net-positive, thanks to gravity force raping them of electrons, increasing heat between atoms grants them at least the effect of adopting negative charge. Even if the atoms adopt zero negative charge such that they don't become less positive, the push-apart force of heat upon the atoms makes atoms behave as though they repel each other increasingly via steadily increasing electron numbers from steadily increasing temperatures.

But if the atoms DO adopt some negative charge as the heat particles crush in on atomic peripheries, then this puts even more screws to the ideal expectations. Increasing temperatures in a gas would then cause the inherent repulsion forces between atoms to become reduced increasingly, which acts to lessen gas-pressure expectations, yet the push-apart force from heat particles does the opposite by increasing gas pressure. It's then complicated to form a nice-pat gas law.

Moreover, there should be an expectation that, at some temperature point, gas atoms lose enough net-positivity to become neutral, afterwhich, with higher temperatures yet, the atoms repel each other with net-negative force. This is screws and more screws to a fantasial "ideal."

The problem with the article above: the writer wants to explain deviations from ideal (theoretical expectations) by the attraction forces that he wrongly thinks are set up (not existing otherwise) between atoms when they are very close to one another (i.e. the attraction forces as per the need of the kinetic theory of atoms to form liquids). He argues that, in attracting each other in high-pressure (high atomic density) gas, the atoms strike the container walls with less force, which he thinks explains why some gases don't act as expected by the ideal law that predicts a straight-line increase in pressure with temperature increase. That's not what goes on at all, he/she has it backward. Atoms repel each other more when closer together. He's a hopeful but still-hopeless cripple.

The writer is trying to explain why gases at high pressure and lower temperatures have a less-than-expected gas pressure. I think he's arguing in vain, however, on the bases that some gases at high pressure get higher then the expected pressure. Perhaps he's finding that gases made of molecules (not lone atoms) have less than expected pressure. My atomic model predicts that high-pressure gases, when made of molecules, force the atoms of molecules to merge deeper into each other, thus making the molecules smaller, and, as we saw above, the smaller the atom / molecule, the less they repel each other. Plus, in becoming smaller, they open up more space in the gas, naturally providing more distance between molecules. If you want hope for yourselves, goofers, do the logic: inter-repelling gas atoms / molecules.

The writer changes subject further down his page:

Liquefaction of gases is the condensation of gases into a liquid form, which is neither anticipated nor explained by the kinetic molecular theory of gases. Both the theory and the ideal gas law predict that gases compressed to very high pressures and cooled to very low temperatures should still behave like gases, albeit cold, dense ones. As gases are compressed and cooled, however, they invariably condense to form liquids, although very low temperatures are needed to liquefy light elements such as helium...[not true for metals].

Liquefaction can be viewed as an extreme deviation from ideal gas behavior. It occurs when the molecules of a gas are cooled to the point where they no longer possess sufficient kinetic energy to overcome intermolecular attractive forces.

Bonk. Wrong.

Everything he says in that quote is as per gases as viewed by the kinetic theory, and as such he is liable for making false statements. He assumes that gas atoms attract each other, but offers no proof aside from the implied "proof" that gas atoms become liquids atoms. Nor does he explain why ALL gas atoms should attract each other, as illogical as a cosmic-sized coincidence. But I can appeal to gravity force to explain neatly (nice-pat) as to why all gas atoms repel each other.

He, like his bonehead comrades, makes a blunder when suggesting that gas atoms liquefy only when at very low temperatures, when they slow down enough to abduct each other. Ya-but, water molecules liquefy at whopping air temperature. Water has a critical temperature in the hundreds of degrees C above zero.

Here's what's really going on when gases are compressed deeply such that their atoms are brought close. First, as gas atoms inter-repel, they naturally push some of their numbers into the atoms of the container walls. Thus, the gas atoms are merged somewhat into the atoms of the container walls. When cutting the gas volume enough, the atoms on the container walls will touch, and contact is all that's needed to begin atomic inter-attraction, as the proton of one atom attracts the captured electrons of another proton.

I don't know much about this topic from detailed experimental data on compressed gases, but it seems that the walls get liquid formation while the atoms hovering in the container's space keep apart throughout the liquid formation, during slow and continuous reduction of gas volume. Atomic mergers on the container walls opens up more space between the vast number of atoms between containers walls. As atoms merge on the walls, they become larger particles (droplets, technically) and therefore larger targets for more potential mergers. Eventually, the merged atoms fully cover the walls.

I suggest that, due to the gas becoming warmer during compression, heat particles escaping through the container walls push gas atoms against each other onto the container walls, forcing them to merge. This may reveal that liquid formation can begin even before atoms make contact with atoms on the walls.

In fact, to disprove kineticism in yet another way, provide a heat source in the container. Compress the gas to where it's almost capable of forming liquid droplets, then turn on the heat source and watch, I predict, more liquid formation whereas higher heat predicts, for kineticism, zero new liquid drops where no liquid drops have formed prior to turning on the heat source.

It's known that gas compression forms liquid on the walls of the container. How can the kinetic theory explain this, since it doesn't even have gas atoms attached to the wall due to their bouncing off of it? In my model, atoms are pushed against the walls, and they then grow as droplets with further compression. Kineticism predicts that water droplets should be forming throughout the container's space, thus falling to the container floor without first hitting the walls. My model predicts no water droplets forming in the space if compression is slow enough to allow liquid formation continuously on the walls, and thus to open up more space between walls fast enough that atoms in the space don't make contact.

In their view, cutting a gas to half volume causes twice the speedy gas atoms to collide with the container walls, thus applying twice the gas pressure upon them. Any atom in the container's space that collides with another atom cannot apply pressure on the walls. Only when atoms collide with the walls will they apply pressure.

Their theory doesn't work no matter the shape of the container holding the gas. If it's a box with six walls each having 100 square inches, the total wall area is 600 square inches prior to reduction of volume by a piston. When the piston, acting as the top wall, cuts the volume in half, only four walls get reduced to 50 square inches while the top and bottom sides remain at 100 square inches. Therefore, while the space was cut in half such as to force twice the atoms into it, there is not half the square inches of container walls, but rather 400 square inches. Thus, there are twice the atoms banging against 400 square inches versus the original 600, which does not predict twice the pressure on the walls, but only 1.5 times.

It's a no-brainer that, because atoms do not repel in the kinetic theory, all the atoms in the space add exactly zero pressure to the walls. Only the atoms striking the walls apply gas pressure. Sorry, goofballs, you lose, I win. You should have been more honest, but now you've gone and ruined your legacy, for it's only a matter of time before kineticism is replaced by repelling gas atoms.

They define heat as the motion energy of atoms, yet when there's twice as many atoms in a gas, the temperature does not nearly double. How do they explain that? Well, I've never thought before that google would try to answer the question, but it now does try, laughably. Note how the first sentence makes no sense at all, like when someone is caught with hand in a cookie jar, they have no good excuse:

Temperature does not automatically double when pressure doubles in a gas because pressure, volume, and temperature are related by the Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT), and for the pressure to double, something else must change to compensate [like what are you talking about?]. If the volume of the gas is held constant, then doubling the pressure would directly double the absolute (Kelvin) temperature [that's untrue, AI is lying!]. However, if you are applying a pressure change without specifying the conditions [what does specifying have to do with anything?], you might actually be halving the gas's volume, which would keep its temperature constant.

AH-HAHAHA, such a good laugh. The first sentence makes no sense to me, as explaining anything, sounding more like hocus-pocus or smoke and mirrors with "Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT)" thrown in to give you the impression the experts really know what they're talking about, so trust them. What does it mean to say, "something else must change to compensate"? How do those words help us to understand why temperature doesn't double, as expected in the kinetic theory?

The second sentence is a lie. It's claiming that, when you use an air pump to double the air pressure in a tank from one atmosphere to merely two, the K-scale temperature doubles, meaning that it would go from 20 degrees C to about 300 degrees C. There's no way the temperature goes up anywhere near that much, meaning that kineticism fails because it DOES predict twice the temperature at twice the pressure (= twice the air-atom density), because there's twice the atomic collisions going at twice the air-atom density. Reality is laughing at them.

Somebody programmed AI to say: "However, if you are applying a pressure change without specifying the conditions, you might actually be halving the gas's volume, which would keep its temperature constant." That's voodoo, killing kineticism. "Specifying the conditions"? What in tarnation does that mean? I asked google, "why doesn't temperature double in gas at twice the pressure?" It did not answer me.

For the same question, it gave this:

1. Constant Volume (Gay-Lussac's Law)

If you double the pressure while keeping the gas volume constant, the absolute temperature of the gas will also double.

In this scenario, the molecules are confined to the same space but are hitting the walls more frequently and with more force, which is a direct indicator of increased kinetic energy and thus higher temperature.

Therefore, their "law" predicts that temperature rise should be proportional to pressure rise, but AI doesn't "know" enough to say that this is untrue, because the goofs have wired it to follow kinetic-theory lines.

I conducted an experiment that showed a one-degree jump when cutting an air volume in half. There is no difference between cutting a volume of air in half versus pumping twice the air into the same volume, which explains why AI doesn't tell us what the difference is. In both situations, the air pressure doubles, and so the temperature should double for both situations, if kinetic atoms are the reality. The AI response is trying to convince us that there is a huge difference, that no heat rise is expected when doubling the pressure by cutting the gas volume in half.

The same AI response adds this:

2. Constant Temperature (Boyle's Law)

If you apply enough pressure to halve the gas's volume at a constant temperature, the pressure will double, but the temperature will remain the same [= big nothing burger].

In this case, the gas is compressed, which increases the frequency of collisions, but the energy of those collisions (temperature) doesn't change because you've only changed the space the molecules occupy.

What you see here is the strained and hopeless attempts of physicists to explain why more atoms colliding doesn't increase temperature when their very definition of heat rise is more atomic collisions. I've just asked google, "does something get hotter with more frequency of atomic collisions?" The response:

Yes, generally something gets hotter with a more frequent rate of atomic collisions, as collisions transfer energy and increase molecular motion, which is the definition of temperature. The relationship is cyclical: increased temperature leads to faster-moving molecules and more frequent, energetic collisions, which in turn increases the temperature

So, where you read above, "If you apply enough pressure to halve the gas's volume at a constant temperature, the pressure will double, but the temperature will remain the same," it's smoke and mirrors because, of course there's not going to be a temperature rise if you compress the gas while keeping the temperature constant. To accomplish this, one needs a slow compression, waiting for increased heat to come out of the gas, but, anyway, the heat does not anywhere near double when cutting the volume in half instantly.

The kineticists couldn't have condemned their theory any better, thank you AI for putting the screws to yourself, and to them.

In other words, the fools knew that kineticism doesn't work due to lack of temperature in compressed gases, but they so despised the alternative, because it ruins big-bag evolution of the cosmos, that they retained kineticism, thus lying to us for generations and counting. The only alternative is gas atoms inter-repelling, but that fact doesn't allow star formation...without a Creator to provide a way to keep H atoms together at close range in stars.

Finding Relative Distances Between Gas Atoms

In a sealed gas where the only change is the addition constantly-increased temperature, I'm now toying with this: additional heat reduces the net-positive charge of the atoms, resulting in less gas pressure except that any additional heat always adds more atom-to-atom "repulsion" than is removed by the reduction of the net-positivity.

In other words, there's going to be less increased pressure than expected from the addition of heat, because while the latter causes more atomic expansion in one way, it causes less atomic repulsion (= less expansion) in another way. The gas has innate / normal atomic repulsion not derived from heat particles in their midst, as well as heat particles that push atoms apart by physical force unrelated to the innate repulsion of atoms. That's not confusing.

In the past, I leaned toward gas atoms repelling due only to the heat particles imparting negative force to them. I was then toying with the possibility that gas atoms lose their net-positive charges at temperatures not far from absolute zero, due to the invasion of heat particles all around them. Then, at higher temperatures, the addition of more heat particles make the atoms progressively more net-negative, and innately so, with increasing temperatures. But as the addition of heat particles creates push-apart force that has the result of innate repulsion, it's possible for atoms at normal temperatures to be positively charged. Only if they are not is it required for heat particles to create innate negative charge.

One way or the other, gas atoms MUST POSSESS innate repulsion because they repel eight times more when brought twice as close, even without increased temperatures, and that's exactly how magnets work.

The theory that gas atoms are still net-positive at ordinary temperatures requires, I think, that they become less powerful to resist each other with the adoption of negative charge from heat particles in their midst, yet the addition of the outspreading (push-apart) forces of heat particles more than compensates for the loss of positive force, allowing gases to increase in pressure with increasing temperatures. I like this theory more because I can't see evidence of a transition between positively charged and negatively charged atoms at temperatures near absolute zero. I now expect that transition at high temperatures, and will keep eyes peeled for evidence of it.

With this new view: whenever I say that gas atoms "repel" each other, it's a generalization that includes the push-apart forces from heat particles. If "push-apart" doesn't sound professional enough, use "expansion force." "Push-apart" notifies you that electrons are pushing atoms apart. They push even liquid atoms apart, turning them into gas atoms when dense enough (i.e. with sufficient temperatures) to do so. The heat electrons counter atomic mergers when existing within the liquid's atomic spaces, which is why they EXPAND all materials in all three states.

Every material that turns to gas has its unique, so-called "critical temperature" point where the gas becomes a "unwilling" liquid under pressure. I can glean that, at one degree below critical temperature, the repulsion between gas atoms EQUALS the bond force between two or more of them in liquid form. At critical temperature and higher, the repulsion force becomes dominant such that the atoms cannot hold together as a liquid. It's that simple.

Once the temperature is cooled to a degree below the critical temperature, a gas can be pressurized to get liquid droplets to start forming. Why does it take much higher pressure to liquefy oxygen as opposed to hydrogen, when starting the compression at their respective critical temperatures? The only and logical answer I can give is that oxygen atoms are further apart from each other, than hydrogen atoms, but only as per atomic diameters. The H atoms are literally further apart than the O atoms, but the O atoms are more O-atom diameters apart than the H atoms are H-atom diameters apart.

We read from AI: "To liquefy hydrogen...you must first cool it below its critical temperature of -240 °C (-400 °F) and then subject it to its critical pressure of approximately 195 psi to become a supercritical fluid,..." "Supercritical" just means that it's an unwilling liquid at critical temperature or lower. As soon as the high-pressure gas is permitted to expand, liquid droplets instantly disintegrate (not the same as evaporation).

That pressure of 195 psi is only 13.2 atmospheres, meaning that a liter of H gas (at critical) needs to be reduced by a piston to a little less than 1/13th of a liter to get the gas atoms to start merging at -240 C. This tells me that hydrogen atoms are not many diameters apart prior to compression.

Once the atoms are brought twice as close, cutting the gas volume in half three more times gets them 4 times as close as their original distance, meaning that, for all three cuts, the new distances will be roughly (not exactly): 2.67 times closer, 3.33 times closer, and 4 times closer. I've got those figures apart by increments of .67, which is not quite correct, but close, and that method is easy to remember.

To my surprise, google AI gave an answer to my question: "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 4.5 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume is reduced 16 times?" The response is: 4.5 x the cubed root of 1/16 = 4.5 x .3969 = 1.79 inches, which seems right because my rough method gets: 4.5 / 2.67 = 1.69 inches.

Use an online cubed-root calculator to verify that AI is giving the right answers. I've verified.

I can therefore trust AI with asking how far particles will be when reduced to 13.2 times less volume (starting with atoms 4.5 inches apart). The answer, which involves the cubed root of 13.2, is: "The new center-to-center distance between the balls will be approximately 1.93 inches." The atoms will therefore be 4.5 / 1.93 = 2.33 times closer in that compression process [correction in case needed; should be 1.90 and 2.36 respectively; google AI makes TONS of mistakes on these sorts of questions, sometimes weird].

At first, I thought that this 2.33 figure instantly found the H-atom diameter as 2.33 inches, when the H atom is a 4.5-inch sphere. Then, thinking it to be too simplistic, I challenged the idea, and got very confused when trying to walk through the steps of H-gas compression, starting at 0 C, by two different methods.

The first order of business, to start getting a handle on the situation, is to ask google: "how many atmospheres of pressure are needed at 0 C to provide 1 atmosphere of pressure when temperature is reduced to -240 C?" Even though I can't fully trust google because it probably follows the ideal gas law on such questions, the response is 8.24 atmospheres. In this scenario, the atomic spacing in the container doesn't change while pressure goes down; only the force level of atomic repulsion changes. The volume stays the same, and thus the atoms keep the same spacing.

The alternative is to allow a gas at STP to cool in the open, not in a container. When a gas cools such that it has 8.2 times less pressure, it contracts by 8.2 times, meaning that the atoms move twice as close as compared to their spacing at STP. But, they retain much of the 1 atmosphere of pressure (at -240) because they are twice as close and would yet inter-repel a significant amount for that reason. The problem is, it won't be 8 times the repulsion because repulsion force diminishes with decreased heat. Although this alternative method seems best for obtaining the truest atomic diameters, it's the hardest for finding the right numbers for the math, especially for people who take to the kinetic theory of atoms where there is no inter-repulsion of atoms.

That number, 8.24 atmospheres, reveals the ideal-gas-law picture when starting the gas at 1 atmosphere at 0 C, then cooling to -240. The gas is then SAID to be (but is it really?) 8 times lower in pressure than 1 atmosphere, requiring a compression of 8.2 times to get it back up to 1 atmosphere. The 8.24 figure is based on the kinetic-gas principle where half the temperature on the K scale gets half the gas pressure. That cannot be correct because gases are not made of kinetic atoms.

I asked google: "what would be the gas pressure when starting at 1 atm and 0 C, then cooling to -240 C?" The answer is .121 atmosphere, which is 1 / 8.24. See, the answer is not from actual experimental results, but simply from built-in, ideal-gas math. Evolutionists have plagued the human race with this sort of replace-reality-with-our-theories plague for a long time.

When I ask google for the density of hydrogen in 10-degree increments at sub-zero temperatures, it gives them to me according to the ideal law, which is very suspicious, as though google doesn't want the world to know the actual densities. If I ask for professional charts on hydrogen densities, sorry, no luck. As gases cool, they shrink (if allowed to) and become more dense i.e. atoms get closer. Online hydrogen-density calculators and charts are geared as per the ideal law. We're being gypped.

Okay, so we have established that the H gas needs to first be compressed by 8.2 times at -240, but an additional 13.2 atmospheres of compression is needed to get the gas to start liquefying. Does this mean that atoms at STP need to be brought 8.2 + 13.2 = 21.4 times closer to liquefy H gas at -240 C. It looks correct.

I feel sure that, for the way forward, we need to understand the situation at -240 C and one atmosphere, in order to understand the situation when reducing the volume from that point by an additional 13.2 atmospheres, which gets the liquefaction point.

I'll use 4.5 inches apart for H atoms, but one can use any number because we are after factors. In their container, they are therefore 4.5 inches apart also at -240 and 1/8th atmosphere, after we allow the gas to cool. At this situation, we need to bring the atoms 2 times closer to get them up to 1 atmosphere, wherefore they will be twice as close as they were at STP. The math is: 4.5 / 2 = 2.25 inches apart at -240 and 1 atmosphere.

We then bring them 2.33 times closer (math shown above) when compressing further by 13.2 atmospheres. The math here: .225 / 2.33 = .97 inch apart. We then want to know the totality of closeness, and for that we do: 4.5 / .97 = 4.64 times (same as 2.67 below). We don't do 2.33 + 2 = 4.97 times, but 2.33 x 2 = 4.67 times. So, this method of calculation tells that H atoms at STP are 4.64 diameters apart at STP.

If I did things wrong to the last paragraph, it's good so that you don't make the same mistake should you tackle this problem with other atoms.

I'm reading that H gas is first cooled, and then pressurized, but for the task at hand, it doesn't matter how in practice hydrogen is liquefied. The only task I have here is finding the atomic diameters of atoms at STP, to be found on the premise that atoms come to initially touch at liquefaction point. When atoms are in contact, they are one diameter apart center-to-center.

I asked google: "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 4.5 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume is reduced 21.4 times?" The response: "The new center-to-center distance between the balls will be approximately 1.62 inches." I explained above why 21.4 atmospheres may be justified.

With that, I did 4.5 / 1.62 = a factor of 2.8 times closer. No matter how large the balls are used for the question, the answer will be that atoms are 2.8 times closer...which is taken to mean: 2.8 times closer when they are one diameter apart. Doesn't that mean that they are 2.8 diameters apart at STP? Yes, assuming that the 2.8 figure has been correctly obtained. But this doesn't jibe with the 4.67 diameters apart, found by a method above. This problem gave me headaches for two days and counting as I write here.

On the one hand, I did a one-step process by compressing 21.4 all at once, and on the other hand there was a two-step process, finding the new spacing after 8 atmospheres of compression, then finding the new spacing again after an additional 13.2 decrease in volume (forced decrease by a piston). Did I do something wrong in the two-step method? Why do I have a blind spot finding the problem here?

Another way to do this is to compress STP gas to 21.4 atmospheres, then cool it to -240, at which time its at 13.2 atmospheres and thus automatically at the liquefaction point. In this picture, the atoms begin at, 0 C, 2.8 times closer than they would be at STP, then end up one diameter apart at -240. Therefore, it looks correct to find the atomic diameter by simply finding how much closer H atoms are when compressing a gas 21.4 times.

However, the 21.4 is based on the ideal law. If someone could tell us how many atmospheres of pressure are truly needed to reach critical-liquefaction for any material, then we could have the correct diameter for any gas atom. This quest is no small potatoes, and its hot potatoes for the kinetic quacks if it all tends to prove that gas atoms repel.

What did I do wrong with the two-step method? I took a gas at STP, cooled it such that the spacing of atoms remain the same while the gas pressure goes down 8 times. I then pressed it 8 times to get atoms twice as close, then pressed it further by 13. 2 atmospheres such that the atoms go 2.33 times yet closer. How much closer will atoms be from start to finish? I thought they would be 2.33 x 2 = 4.67 times closer, but I should have known better.

When one compresses a gas by 13.2 times, atoms come 2.33 times closer, but compressing it further to 21.4 is not much further than the 13.2 point. If you can imagine a container 13 inches tall compressed 13 times to a one-inch depth remaining, there's not much distance left to go for when its 1/21th of 13 inches. Going just a half-inch more gets the pressure to twice 13, and going another quarter-inch yet gets the pressure to 52 atmospheres. The atoms therefore do not go, from 13.2 to 21.4, twice as close as they already are after compressing by 13.2 times. For the math, we therefore do not add or multiply the 2 times and/by the 2.33 times. We just go from 2.33 times, to 2.8, full stop, for both steps.

Let's move on to oxygen gas. AI says: "To liquefy oxygen from a gaseous state at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), the temperature must first be lowered below its boiling point, and then a pressure of approximately 726 psi (50.1 bar) is required at its critical temperature,..." That pressure is equal to 726 / 14.7 = 49.4 atmospheres. The center-to-center distances between atoms is therefore reduced by the cubed root of 1/49, or by .27.

I've done the math for you; we can either do, original distance x .27, or original distance / 3.7, the answer will be the same regardless what the original distance is. I'll use the 3.7 going forward.

I'll make the O-atom balls 3 inches apart to distinguish the math from the H-atom math. I asked: "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 3 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume decreases by 49.4 times?" AI gives .819 inches, a factor of 3 / .819 = 3.66. That's almost the 3.7 above, and the difference is probably due to my using 49 versus 49.4 atmospheres. I'll use 3.7 going forward.

We now have the reduction in O-atom spacing by 3.7 diameters when going from 1 atmosphere at -118.6 C (O's critical temperature) to liquefaction point, but we do not yet have the reduction in O-atom spacing from 0 C to -118.6.

I asked: 'how many atmospheres of pressure are needed at 0 C to provide 1 atmosphere of pressure at -118.6 C?" The response, said to be according to the Charles law, is 1.767 atmospheres. That's compressing the original STP gas by 1.77 times so that it's at 1 atmosphere at 118.6. We need only compress it further by 49 times. But we don't want the 1.77 in the math. Instead, we first want to know how much a gas will go down in pressure from STP to -118.6 C, and then we want to know how much closer atoms will come once we compensate by pressing the gas back up to 1 atmosphere.

We need to multiple 1.77 atmospheres by .566 to get it to 1. We ask google: "how much does a gas gain in pressure when the gas is .566 times its volume?" It answers, 1.77 times. But for the diameter task, we don't want to know how high the pressure is when the gas is compressed, because we are not compressing the gas at all, just letting it cool to 1 atmosphere when starting at 1.77 atmospheres. We want to know: "if balls are 3 inches apart center to center in three dimensions, how far apart would they be if the gas volume shrinks to .566 its size?" The response is 2.37 inches. That's 3 inches / 2.37 = 1.28 times closer.

The 1.28 times is the counterpart of the 8 times that we had for the H-atom operation, which added 8.2 to 13.2. We therefore add 1.28 to 49.4 = 51.18, and then ask google: "When balls are hovering at equal distances of 3 inches in 3 dimensions, how far apart will they become center to center when the volume decreases by 51.18 times?" It reports an answer of .81 inch. We then do: 3 inches / .81 = 3.7. The latter number hasn't changed (but by a few decimal places) from when we did the operation with 49.4 atmospheres.

"Charles's Law states that for a fixed amount of gas at constant pressure, volume is directly proportional to absolute [K] temperature." Not perfectly, but I don't know how off it is because the goons and their army of stooges just peddle it on us as if it's the good-enough reality.

We'll use O atoms that start at 3.7 inches apart at STP. When we compress them to 1.77 times the volume (almost half the volume, keep in mind), they get 1.28 times closer, making them 3.7 / 1.28 = 2.89 inches apart. They are therefore 2.89 inches apart at -118.6 because the gas volume doesn't change when merely cooling it. By compressing the gas, almost at half volume at that stage, fully to 51.18 times, the atoms become 1 diameter apart.

So, with O atoms sized at 1.12 inches in diameter, and found to be 3.7 diameters apart at STP, they are 4.14 inches apart. H atoms were found above to be 2.8 diameters apart at STP, which gets them 12.6 inches apart (4.5 inches x 2.8). The scale size we use for the atom doesn't matter, for if we entertain an H atom to be 3 inches wide, the math is then: 3 x 2.8 = 8.4 inches apart such that they are still 2.8 diameters apart. 2.8 diameters is for any size unit, i.e. even the true width of the H atom.

I asked google, "if balls are 4.14 inches apart center to center, in three dimensions, how far apart would they be if the volume of space is reduced 49.4 times?" The response is: "The new distance will be approximately 1.128 inches apart center-to-center." That's perfect for when two O atoms, each 1.2 inches in diameter, are in contact, because they then have 1.2 inches center-to-center.

Does it feel right that O atoms 4.14 inches apart would work out to be 16 times more numerous than H atoms 12.6 inches apart? I've asked: "if balls are 12.6 inches apart in three dimensions, how far apart would they be if 16 times more numerous in the same volume of space?" Google AI gets regularly screwed up on this question. It's only correct when it does: 12.6 / 2.52 = 5.0 inches. That doesn't make me happy because it's not close enough to 4.14 for me to get out the champagne, not even the cigar. Instead, it prompts for aspirin.

In case I lost you: when H atoms at STP are made 16 times more numerous at equa-distance, they are the same distance apart, center-to-center, as O atoms are in their own STP gas. Therefore, when the H atoms at 12.6 inches apart are made 5.0 inches apart by making them 16 times more numerous, 5.0 inches is how far apart O atoms are in their gas. But all those headaches I went through dealing with liquefaction only got me 4.14. Why is me woe?

I don't think the "small" discrepancy lies in the inaccuracy of the ideal gas law, for if the reality gets H atoms more like 10.5 inches apart while O atoms barely change to about 4.0 inches, it'll work because 10.5 / 2.52 = 3.97 inches. However, the only way to get the 10.5 inches if by totally obliterating the extra 8 atmospheres on top of the 13.2. Using 13.2 alone, the atomic diameter is found at 2.33 inches, and when we multiply that by 4.5 inches, we get 10.5. The only way to make this work is if I could see a bona fide reason not to include the extra 8 atmospheres of compression.

For my record, and in case you want to know how easy it is to discover the above result, first find the cubed root of 16, which is 2.52. Then divide the 12.6 distance by 2.52 = 5.0 inches.

I suppose it's possible that, when we are told that hydrogen needs 13.2 atmospheres and critical temperature, the 13.2 is done at STP with nothing left to do but cool the gas. That would eliminate the extra 8. Similarly, when we are told that oxygen needs 49 atmospheres and critical temperature, the 49 might be pressed at STP. That would make the finding of atomic diameters much easier, very speedy. It would also cost me a bottle of champagne.

Hydrogen gas will become a normal liquid with only 1 atmosphere of pressure at -253 C, its boiling point, only 13 C below its critical temperature. It tells us how close the atoms are aside from the 13.2 atmospheres of pressure applied at -240. At boiling point, there is insufficient atomic repulsion to overcome gravity force. The atoms are pulled down and forced to merge. If they are fully in gas form at -252, I suggest they are virtually in contact at that time.

This small, 13-degree spread between critical and boiling suggests that one does not compress the gas 13.2 atmospheres after -240 is achieved, when the atoms would be nearly in contact at that temperature even at 1 atmosphere. The 13-degree spread argues for compressing the gas 13.2 times starting at a higher temperature, perhaps at 0 C. Somebody get me a cigar.

As the goofs have the H atom as the smallest of all, we'd like to ask google's brainwashed robot for the average distance between H atoms at STP: "At STP, individual hydrogen atoms would be extremely far apart, with an average separation of roughly 10 diameters, or about 2.2 nanometers. This means the average distance is about 22 times the diameter of a single hydrogen atom, which is approximately 0.1 nm." Another question I posed, "how many diameters apart, on average, are hydrogen atoms at stp," reveals that its the fantasial "diatomic" hydrogen atom, their H2 molecule, that are 10 diameters apart, meaning that when we view H2 molecules as what they really are, single H atoms, they would be 22 diameters apart. You can see that, by creating a diatomic atom, the goofs don't look as bad as when they have H atoms 22 diameters apart.

But even at 10, they are looking dismal. If the atoms were 10 diameters apart, they would not nearly be in contact when H gas is compressed by 1/13 its volume.

Now you know why kineticists claim that zooming gas atoms bond when at a distances from each other, because they cannot be nearly touching when starting out 10 diameters apart at STP.

They have the H atom way too small. It produces more heat / explosion energy than any other combustible material, not because it's the smallest atom with only one electron. BIG STUPID. Heat and explosive force is from the captured electrons on protons, and H has the most electrons because it's the largest atom, having the most-powerful proton. The goons want you to think that explosive force is from proton and neutron clusters at atomic cores, neither of which can exist. All atom types have one proton only.

I could find how far apart gas atoms are at STP better if only google would answer a question such as: "how much must H gas at STP be compressed to form pure liquid?" But google refuses to answer the question, maybe because the kineticists know that someone like me can discredit (demolish) kineticism if only we knew. The response is: "The critical temperature of hydrogen is approximately 33.2 K. This is the highest temperature at which hydrogen can be liquefied, regardless of pressure. If a gas is above its critical temperature, it cannot be turned into a liquid." That's a lie. It's programmed to lie and deny us the answer.

In the same way I worked back from liquefaction to critical to find the distance apart of atoms in atomic diameters, so I can work back (to find atomic diameters) from liquefaction to STP if only google would tell me how much pressure is needed to liquefy starting with a gas at STP. I had to figure things out myself, above, based on ideal gas laws.

Next topic. There is nothing that can keep a gas at standard temperature from becoming a liquid if it's compressed enough, even if its compressed as high as the boiling point of water. google AI is lying to us when routinely claiming or implying that a gas needs first to be at its low, critical temperature. One simply pushes gas atoms into contact, then pushes them a little more. The atoms have no choice but to form a solid liquid so long as the piston remains upon it. Why does google program AI to deny this with what seems like a mission to impose (brainwash)?

When the gas is initially at liquefaction but relatively hot, it can easily be compressed a little more, forcing atoms to merge a little, but they do not behave as a normal liquid because, at warm temperatures, the atoms yet repel each other more than any inter-attraction that has set in. The deeper they merge, the more attraction sets in, the more the material veers toward liquid. During the forced mergers, the material is at first a thick gas with very little space between atoms. Depending on atomic shapes, there is still some quantity of space between atoms when they first begin to merge.

Below critical temperature, the merged atoms attract more than they repel, and so they are expected to liquefy (merge) upon contact, especially as per the gas atoms merged into the atoms of the container wall, for when atoms merge, they lose exactly half of the captured electrons in the merged regions. Thus, gas atoms merged into wall atoms have less negative charge (= greater net-positivity) by which to repel gas atoms in the open space beside the walls. That tends to explain why liquid begins to form on the container walls rather than in the open space.

Gas atoms on the walls either repel spatial gas atoms less, or in some cases may actually attract them with some net-positive, protonic force, especially at extreme-low temperatures, in which case attraction from a distance, i.e. prior to contact, is possible. It's also possible that the wall atoms (not the gas atoms on the walls) have some attraction at a distance to the spatial (in-space) gas atoms.

Here's to show how you can do the math apart from google after you've when found how much to compress a gas to liquefaction. If for example 32 atmospheres total are needed to liquefy from STP, we want the math's step one to be: unknown atomic diameter x cubed root of 1/32. The reason we can substitute "atomic diameter" in the math with "atom-to-atom distance" is because the original center-to-center distance at liquefaction is one diameter. For step one, use "1" for the diameter, and find the cubed root of 1/32, which you can do by plugging .031 (result of 1 / 32) into a cubed-root calculator.

The cubed root is .314, but the latter is not yet the numbers of unknown diameters apart. We need step two, which is 1 / .314 = 3.18 diameters apart. We can turn both operations into one with:

1 / (1 x cubed root 32)
= atomic diameters center to center at critical-liquefaction point and 1 atmosphere of pressure.

The operation above un-does the compression of 32 atmospheres, bringing it up to one atmosphere, and finding that the atoms are now 3.18 diameters apart at STP.

Trailing Considerations

As neon gas is 10 times heavier than H gas while O gas is 16 times heavier than H gas, there's 10 / 16 = .625 times the neon atoms at STP as compared to O gas. Using my 4.14 inches apart for O atoms, one can then ask google, "if balls are 4.14 inches apart in three dimensions, how far apart would they be if .625 times as numerous in the same volume of space?". The response is 6.62 inches apart. Checking, the answer is supposed to be obtained by: 4.14 x the cubed root of 1/.625, which is 4.14 x 1.6 = 6.62 inches. The answer checks out.

As the difference in numbers of atoms was found above to be .625, I take that to mean that the O atom has .625 the repulsion force of the Ne atom, and therefore I expect the O atom to have .625 the cross-sectional area, which is the case where Ne atoms are 2 inches in diameter versus 1.12 for O atoms.

As you may have gleaned, the atomic-weight figures of the goofs is not proportional to the gravity weights of atoms, but to their crowding density, a thing they are oblivious to. Once we have the crowding of neon atoms (center-to-center), we can find the crowding for argon, having twice the atomic density of neon. Argon has atoms 3.63 inches apart because the cubed root of 48 is 3.63 while argon gas needs 48 atmospheres to liquefy at its critical temperature.

Having the relative sizes of argon and neon doesn't add much to proving my atomic model because those gases don't merge with any other atoms. But they offer something for the goofs to chew about, if they think this discussion is worthy of their time for some investigation. I showed why the relative sizes of H and O atoms are excellent for proving that the water molecule is an O8H, but having the correct sizes of neon and argon atoms relative to the sizes of other gas atoms doesn't allow for that type of discussion.

The ammonia molecule is called an NH3 because one volume of hydrogen gas mixes with three equal volumes of nitrogen gas to make ammonia. The atomic model of the goofs was so problematic for explaining such chemically-reactive products that they invented diatomic hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen atoms as the norm. Thus, in each of the four volumes that makes ammonia, diatomic H and N atoms are the basis.

Instead of one diatomic N atom merging with 3 diatomic H atoms to produce one equal volume of ammonia, they say that the reaction first separates both diatomic atoms into their individual atoms such that three lone N atoms merge with three lone H atom to produce two volumes of ammonia. Therefore, because two volumes of ammonia are made, the only way the goofers can explain it is by attaching two atoms per one atom i.e. > the invention of diatomic gas atoms.

In reality, as N gas weighs 14 times more than H gas, there are 14 times as many N atoms per equal volume of gas at STP. The atomic weight of ammonia gas is assigned as 17 because they think the ammonia molecule is made of one N and 3 H, and because they assign the N atom an atomic weight of 14 while H atoms are assigned an atomic weight of 1. This is how they roll, but we then discover that ammonia gas at STP weighs (.76 grams per liter) only 8.44 the weight of H gas (.09 grams per liter) at STP. It's a big problem for the goofs because whatever is assigned an atomic weight of 17 must weigh 17 times as much as hydrogen gas. In short, their diatomic invention doesn't explain the formation of ammonia in keeping to their atomic model.

The reality is that ammonia gas weighs 8.44 times more than H gas, meaning that there are 8.44 times as many atoms per liter of ammonia gas. That 8.44 times more atoms are in the form of molecules. At first glance, it might appear that 7 of the 14 N atoms in one volume of N gas merges with 1.5 H atoms to form one volume of ammonia gas, and the remaining 7 N atoms merge with the remaining 1.5 of the available H atoms to form the second volume of ammonia gas. But this picture tends to make the ammonia molecule impossible because H atoms cannot break down to a half atom. We can't have a N7H1.5 molecule.

Instead, the reality must be that the first half of the nitrogen volume sees each set of 14 atoms merging with three H atoms such that half of the N volume and half of all three H volumes mixes to form one volume of some fraction of an N14H3 molecule, and the remaining half volumes produce the second ammonia volume likewise having some fraction of an N14H3 molecule. For example, that fraction can be a an N5H molecule because three of them add up to the near-same atoms as one N14H3 molecule.

In this picture, a little more than one N volume of gas is needed to form ammonia, but that's doable because the goofs always keep secrets such as not telling us that its not exactly one volume of N gas that's needed to procure ammonia, because unless the volumes are exactly the same, it wreaks their atomic model. Where are you going to get the data telling EXACTLY how many volumes of N mix with EXACTLY how many volumes of H? The wicked goofs are very protective of their bag-bang-supporting atomic model. They are willing to keep such secrets.

Does it make sense that five N atoms are sunk into each H atom to make ammonia? Yes, because the nitrogen atom is slightly larger than the O atom, the latter being 1.12 inches in diameter versus 4.5 for the H atom. I showed how, when eight O atoms are sunk into one H atom (to make a water molecule), there is barely no room left for one O atom to squeeze into the gaps between the eight. Therefore, with N atoms being slightly larger (because it has an atomic weight less than O atoms), we can understand why only five of them get to be sunk into an H atom.

The number of atoms capable of sinking into an H atom has not to do with available space only, but by how much the sunk atoms repel away other atoms not yet sunk. My expectation is that, when five N atoms are sunk in equa-distance all around the H atom, they repel away both would-be-sunk contenders of N and O atoms.

Gas atoms won't merge with each other unless forced into contact. "compression is a critical part of the ammonia production process (the Haber-Bosch process), where hydrogen and nitrogen are compressed to high pressures and then reacted [merger process] to form ammonia." I'm reading that at least 100 atmospheres of pressure is needed, as well as high heat, meaning that both N and H atoms are brought beyond contact into significant mergers. I'm suggesting that, once the pressure is released, only five N atoms remain sunk into each H atom.

It's known that water gas weighs, per equal volume at STP, nine times more than H gas, and so note that ammonia weighs 8.44 times that of H gas under the same conditions. The weights are similar. Water is an O8H molecule having nine atoms, and the suggested N5H molecule has only six atoms, meaning that, if both molecules had the same spacing, at STP, the ammonia gas would weigh only 6/9th of steam (because all atoms weigh the same). But 8.44 is more than 8/9ths the weight of steam, meaning that ammonia molecules have slightly-less spacing i.e. they are more densely crowded, center-to-center.

As that outcome cannot be explained by superior gravity force on the ammonia atoms, since they weigh less than water molecules, the only reasonable conclusion is that ammonia molecules repel each other more weakly than water molecules, which tends to reveal that the ammonia molecule is smaller (has a small cross-sectional area) due to having more-deeply merged N atoms (into the H atom) as compared to the depth of O-atom merger into the H atom.

So, instead of 14 N atoms reacting with every 3 H atoms, I predict it's 15 versus 3, meaning that, instead of one volume of N gas needed with three volumes of H, 1.07 volumes of N gas is used because the extra .07 (1/14th volume) allows 15 N atoms to react with every 3 H atoms. It allows N5H molecules.

The problem with my predicting the look of CO and CO2 molecules is that I see no way to verify the establishment's assignment of an atomic weight of 12 for the carbon atom, for there is no natural carbon gas. I'm reading that carbon gas can be made by electrolysis of CO2, but I'm not confident that they handle this rare material honestly when it comes to assigning its atomic weight.

The goofs are so unreliable that they assign the carbon atom 6 protons and 6 neutrons, for a total weight of 12. If you are not a goof, then you know that carbon atoms have zero neutrons and only one proton. How can we trust these bozos with anything?

I now strongly suggest that the carbon atom has no 12-related relationship with H atoms. The weight of CO2 gas is said to be 1.96 grams per liter, which is 21.78 times (not a round number at all) the weight of H gas, yet the establishment assigns CO2 an atomic weight of 44 because they view the CO2 molecule as one carbon atom, at a weight of 12, merged with two O atoms each having 16 units of weight. How does that make any sense at all? How can they have a molecular weight of 44, which is supposed to mean that it weighs 44 times the weight of H gas at STP.

That's right, for the bozos roll with Avogadro's "law" wherein all gases have the same number of atoms or molecules at STP. Therefore, they claim that CO2 has the same number of molecules as hydrogen has atoms, and thus, on the one hand, they are forced to view each CO2 molecule as weighing 21.78 times that of a hydrogen atom, simply because the CO2 weight 21.78 times that of H gas. If both gases have the same number of particles, the CO2 must weigh 21.78 times as much.

BUT, on the other hand, they created an atomic-weight system where the CO2 molecule weighs 44 times that of hydrogen. How is this not a bozo clown show?

The reality is that CO2 gas has 21.78 times as many atoms as H gas has. But that's the reality only if CO2 really does weigh 1.96 grams per liter, for I'm reading that this weight is derived from molar mass in the first place, and I am so repulsed by the confusion in chemical moles that I never want to learn how to handle them whenever I bump into them in gas discussions. I don't even know the purpose or benefits of moles.

I'm reading from google AI: "To form carbon dioxide (CO2), one volume of carbon gas [no such thing] reacts with one volume of oxygen gas to produce one volume of carbon dioxide gas." Others would report that one volume of each makes CO, and that CO2 needs an extra volume of oxygen. But how can anyone prove it either way since we don't have a carbon gas to test with? It's possible that both CO and CO2 were so problematic to the budding atomic model that the goofs conspired to create a best-case scenario when assigning the carbon atom a weight of 12. Perhaps CO is in reality made with a half volume of C and one volume of O.

Let's investigate one volume of carbon gas thought to weigh 12 times that of hydrogen gas. It supposedly mixes with one volume of oxygen, weighing 16 times that of hydrogen gas, to supposedly make for one volume of CO2 or CO. One of the other of the latter two should therefore weigh 12 + 16 = 28 times that of hydrogen, if their atomic model is correctly formed, yet in actuality CO2 weighs only 21.78 times that of hydrogen, and CO (1.25 grams per liter) weighs 13.89 times that of H gas. How could the world of sleepy heads allow these sadistic clowns to brainwash them into this fault-laden system? Does nobody check up on the clowns?

Okay, so they have a liter of CO weighing 13.89 times that of H gas, meaning that, according to the very system that produces atomic weights, they are to assign the CO molecule a weight of 13.89 more than H atoms. But, as you can see that it's not a round number, they can't then claim that both C and O atoms are mere multiples of an H atom. For example, the O atom is, in their demented minds, has 8 electrons around 8 protons, which is 8 congregated H atoms in their demented view, but with a couple of neutrons thrown in to make the math work a little better where the math laughs very hard at them.

Instead of giving the CO molecule an atomic weight of 13.89, they assign it a weight of 28, because that's 12 + 16. BUT STUPIDS, CO weighs only 13.89 times that of H gas, where do you get off claiming twice as much? In the same way, CO2 reportedly weighs 21.78 times, but the clowns assign its atomic weight roughly twice as much at 44 times the weight of H gas.

Now you know why they invented diatomic H and O atoms, because this can justify claiming twice as much atomic weight as is the reality for both CO and CO2. They can therefore say that H gas has an atomic weight of 2, not 1, and that CO and CO2 weigh respectively 14 and 22 times that of H gas, thus fixing the problem in one vagabond swoop that intends to rob us of the atomic realities.

When mixing one volume of C gas with one volume of oxygen gas, where the latter is viewed as a diatomic O2 atom, it must makes CO2, and so we expect them to claim that one volume of each makes CO2, not CO. I don't know what the reality is because there is so much mere theory verses reality, in education forums, from these jugglers. If one and one volume makes CO2, they are forced to claim that CO is formed with one volume of C gas per a half-volume of oxygen, because they view the latter as O2.

One goofer band-aid here or there makes for a wound in their body of science sooner or later, and so for them the task has been fix after fix after fix, each requiring a false notion or full-blown law to keep us deceived, that they might keep their big-bang-toting atomic model ever in our faces.

In my model, CO has 13.89 times as many atoms as H gas has. No adjustments are needed. We don't need to fret about that not being a round number. It is what it is. My CO molecule is not a cluster of 28 H atoms, as they see it, with a large pack of neutrons thrown in that do nothing but howl at the moon in honor of a lunatic scheme. Did you know that neutral particles cannot cluster? How can neutrons be anything but a lunatic's fix? Only a lunatic genuinely thinks that neutral particles are locked / glued into the core of an atom. With what are they glued? Do they have hooks or barbs? How did they get there, in every atom, if the proton can't attract them? This picture is howling mad for any law-keeper wanting to follow physics logic. Abandon it, throw the bums out.

What do CO molecules really look like when weighing almost 14 times H gas? It's highly doubtful that they are molecules of 14 atoms each, but 7 atoms each at twice the number seems viable. I suppose they could even be CO molecules (two atoms per molecule) but extremely numerous by comparison. I could know better if someone could prove to me that there is in fact a real carbon gas that weighs 12 times more than H gas. For now, I just don't know.

I trust google AI with the following after asking, "how much liquid hydrogen is made, in cc, from one liter of h gas at STP?": "From 1 liter of hydrogen gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), you would get approximately 0.00118 liters (or 1.18 cc) of liquid hydrogen at a volume ratio of roughly 1:848,..." Therefore, assuming that we are being fed correct data, if one compresses an STP liter of hydrogen without cooling it, the piston must compress to 1/848th the original volume before the gas is fully liquid, where deeper merger is virtually impossible. But it seems to me that, even at 1/100th the initial volume, the material can be construed as liquid, but with the feature of allowing more atomic merger yet.

I don't know whether I can trust the above with its 1.18 cc of liquid hydrogen because, when asking google how much liquid a liter of STP oxygen makes, it had two answers, one well less than 1 cc, and the other, 1.25 cc, which is almost identical with the 1.18. How can an STP liter of oxygen, weighing 16 times as much as an STP liter of hydrogen, make virtually the same weight in liquid as a liter of hydrogen does? Makes no sense.

The more I call them goofballs, the more I think I need to be harsher. What do we call people who deliberately confuse us to mask their duplicity or malice? Demonoids in the flesh. google, a confusion machine. AI, the fast but unreliable "god." Fast and brain-loose. Fast and ruinous. Fast and brainwashed. Is it worth it? Not if you don't know enough to see its errors. AI, the ruin of the youth.

Are AI's programmers deliberately putting the screws to the public on certain matters key to evolutionist warfare against Christianity? Many of their false theories are sacred doctrines, sacred only because they heavily serve evolution.

Thanks to atomic repulsion, we are able to know how far apart wee-wee-wee atoms are, but only because it's got to be true that atoms are kissing, edge-to-edge, when first liquefying under pressure. The kineticists don't have this luxury. Atom-to-atom contact can only be predicted if atoms repel each other, and their make-contact points can be found when someone slowly pushes them together to check when liquid formation begins.

With inter-repelling atoms, we can't say, as do the nutcrackers, that all gas atoms attract each other into a bond at significant distances from each other. There's no logic for that. Any significant distance existing between atoms sees them repelling apart. The only logical way for them to start attracting is when, and because, they make contact. Like dew on a leaf top, forced into contact by gravity.

I've heard it said that water forms in clouds only when water has a piece of dust to form on. That makes sense to me where water molecules repel each other, but where the dust atoms attract them. Or, wind forces water molecules onto the piece of dust such that they merge there. Or, upward flowing electrons, giving lift to water molecules, force them onto the underside of the piece of dust, which is the reverse of dew formation on a leaf top.

Dew can't form on the leaf if rising heat particles give water molecules and droplets more lift than gravity pulls them. The definition of dew point is primary based on temperature. It needs to be cool enough in the air to form dew, meaning that the upward lift from rising heat particles needs to be reduced enough. Dew can also form on the tops of the pieces of dust in the air.

The goofs won't get real. They know that hydrogen atoms rise to the top of earth's atmosphere, and that gases heavier than air fall to the floor or ground, yet they refuse to acknowledge, or even seek, a reason. They know that no such thing happens in a sealed container. I asked google, "will H and O gas mix evenly or unevenly in a sealed container?" The response:

Hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O₂) gases will mix evenly in a sealed container due to molecular diffusion, a process where gas molecules randomly move and spread out until they fill the entire volume and become uniformly distributed. This happens because gases have weak intermolecular forces [= no repulsion, just weak attraction] and their molecules are in constant, random motion, causing them to intermingle and spread throughout any available space.

Ya-but, as freed H atoms rise IMMEDIATELY in free air, the kineticist is forbidden to use that fine-sounding explanation for why H atoms don't rise to a container's ceiling. H atoms in free air do not slowly rise, as if colliding in all directions with air atoms such that the H atoms take forever to bang each other into the sky. Rather, they zoom straight up. That's because gravity repels free electrons straight up, and gives lift to H atoms due to their great size. It's the largest of all atoms, explaining why it gets the most lift.

In a sealed container, the upward flow of free electrons is hampered, explaining why H atoms in a sealed container do not all move to the top of the container. Instead, in repelling each other in a trapped situation, they spread out evenly throughout the container. Into the trash bin goes the kineticist's theory that H atoms are the lightest, that they rise in air due to the buoyancy principle. TRASH. There is no buoyancy principle with individual atoms. THEY LIED KNOWINGLY to their stooges many decades ago, and then let them loose against us. They are making lots of money on youtube videos pushing the same falsifications.

H atoms are the Big Boy. Some say that H atoms are the smallest because they can get though filters that other atoms can't. But maybe hydrogen protons are like pancakes or cigars, which would tend to make the whole atom the same shape.

AI says that if we started with 100 atmospheres at 0 C, pressure at -240 will be a whopping 12.1 atmospheres (about 5 times more pressure than in your car tires). This temperature is only 33 C degrees above absolute zero, and so one can see that, if liquefaction didn't get in the way at temperatures lower than -240, there would be much pressure left even at absolute zero, yet the kineticist finks insist on teaching that there is zero gas pressure at absolute zero...because there's no atomic motion at that temperature, in their nutcracker view. In that case, can we even trust them that absolute zero is at -273 C? Or did they just invent that based on mere theory? How much gas trash have they fed us as reality?

I don't think we can ever find the true distance, in mileage, between any gas atoms. Certainly, the goofs have made of mess of things with wrong premises for claiming atomic distances. I know they're wrong because they have the H atom as the smallest when in fact it's the largest. If they can't even get the relative sizes of atoms correctly pegged, how can they know how far apart they are? They are experts in math, experts in jargon, but dishonest goofs (literally) in practice. They win first prize by fraud.

The volume of the O atom versus the H atom, at the relative sizes I've pegged for them above, make the H atom almost 65 times more voluminous. But the push-apart force of heat particles acts not on atomic volume, but on the area of the cross section. Besides, the push-apart force is not all there is, for atoms also repel each other.

Where the O atom is 1.12 inches spherical versus 4.5 inches for the H atom, the O atom has a diameter, and therefore a cross section, of .25 times that of the H atom, a factor of 4. I'm asking whether this means that the H atom gets only 4 times the repulsion from heat-particle push, with the remainder of its 16-times superior repulsion coming from its innate repulsion force. The H atom must have 16 times the repulsion force because it creates the same gas pressure with 16 times fewer atoms planted on container walls. See the logic?

It doesn't matter how large the volume of gas is, the gas pressure will be the same when the atomic density is the same, meaning that we do not need to be concerned with the whole batch of push-force from all free electrons in the gas, but only the push-apart force from free electrons in contact with the container walls. That is, whatever the specific force level is throughout the gas, it will be the same upon one atom, and each atom, in contact with the container walls.

To match this repulsive situation, the goofs have H atoms much lighter than O atoms, but therefore assign H atoms far more speed in order to create the same pressure as slower-but-larger O atoms do. They invented any specific speeds whatsoever for all the atoms because the public couldn't prove that atoms don't have speed. But, now, things are changing, if only some hopeful goofs would begin to pipe up.

google AI says: "Above the critical temperature, a gas cannot be liquefied, no matter how much pressure is applied." That's misleading. A normal liquid cannot be formed above critical point, but one can compress a gas to the point of forcing all atoms in a container to merge as actual liquid. They say it's not a true liquid, but yes it is. I know I'm correct because, as even AI says, "Yes, you can squeeze a gas into a solid state by applying immense pressure...," meaning that it must first liquefy before the solid state is arrived to.

AI is going to make a colossal mess of science because the bastards without a Father in heaven have regarded their nonsense theories as facts, and yet they don't often tell their audience that they speak their theories for facts. Imagine how often online speak on gases follows the ideal gas "law" without authors / speakers notifying their audience. The same goes on in all sorts of science topics.

The video below shows that AI is programmed by "default" to push the evolutionist's view of dinosaurs, but when one asks it for a deeper analysis, it admits that dinosaurs lived with humans. Evolutionists justify AI lying to people due to "common expectations," which is to say that just because most scientists are evolutionists, both AI and the truth needs to be bent their way, even though the evolutionists don't allow Creationists into science-department leadership positions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3AfRRjFJp4

Also, the atheists are now attacking the resurrection shroud of Jesus with peanuts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ct2iDm5Fk

Tucker Carlson has done a show on the resurrection cloth of Jesus. One would think that Tucker, with tens of millions or more, would refrain from doing commercials when presenting the shroud, but, nope. Like so many others, the speaker has a pre-occupation, without the proper attitude even, of gore-ifying the Crucifixion, a thing the Gospels don't do. The proper attitude would be on-brink-of-tears for Jesus, not matter-of-factly reporter style. My hope is that it wasn't as painful as this speaker insists it was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKMQY49py4w

Jesus earned the privilege of saving billions of people, one at a time, so priceless, so gratifying, so unspeakable. Long-term, contemptible atheists are wicked lunatics, but that's another reason that God chose to have His Son murdered, I think, that God may have the right to severely punish them on Surprise Day. For while Jesus did so much to have them forgiven and rehabilitated by the Spirit, yet they despise Him their whole-lives long.

NEWS

In consideration of Bill Barr's obvious anti-Trump stance during Trump's first term, the following video from this week, where we see Barr accused of sedition against Trump, comes across believable, especially if James O'Keefe has done his homework to substantiate these accusations from a whistle-blower. Mary Barr, Bill's daughter, can be as seen as part of the communications with the whistle-blower (before she was a whistle-blower):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J69bfVVedHM

The ending of the Part-2 video above makes it look like there will be a Part 3.

The Highwire reported this week that John Kennedy ended mRNA contracts to the tune a $.5B because, as he announced, it does more harm that good. I'm surprised that he did this knowing that Trump would feel offended, but good for Kennedy, because Trump is not very bright. Trump's success at this time is because he's finally doing what his voters want done, not because Trump is bright. He likes to think he's responsible for his current success, but the reality is, he ran on doing what his base wanted, and so the base deserves the credit, though he NEVER credits the voters. He's a credit thief.

"Anthony Bernal is an American political aide. He served as a senior advisor to First Lady of the United States Jill Biden from 2020 to 2025." He's now suspect in running the White House under Biden, probably with lots of input from Biden's wife, and then who knows who else was in her circle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPXvM4rUJMM

If you like Creationist v evolution debates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISUynYz93zY

---

NEXT UPDATE Next Monday

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3EjmxJYHvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efl7EpwmYUs

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---