The video below has one of the biggest disinformationists on youtube. He spreads all the science quackeries going, all to tickle ears. There's a lot of money in youtube science shows. In this video, I'm going to go against the astronomical quacks who interpret lunar craters in a way that serves their kill-God, big-bang fairy tale of cosmic creation. This speaker hasn't got the integrity, the courage, and maybe not even the intelligence, to spot the problem with the asteroid method of crater formation. But he pushes it, either because he has the intelligence of a baboon, or, if is truly intelligent, because his money-making youtube channel goes down the drain if he starts to buck too much against the going science.

The reason I'm offering this video is for his many views of the lunar landscape. I suggest you mute the video so that you spare yourself his disinformation. In short, he thinks both the dark lunar "seas" and the craters are formed by asteroid impacts. There are so many craters on the moon that evolutionists are giddy. They have taken the bait of God, it seems, and gone for the fool's trap. They use the many craters to argue that the moon is clearly much older than 6,000 years, and Christians not yet wise to the follies of modern science will be deceived. They are clearly wrong, and you can prove it to yourself if you value truth more than you do keeping to the going science. I have no problem bucking against the baboons, and in fact I enjoy calling them names. They deserve every one.

If the large craters, say all of them over 10 miles wide (that's a small one), were created by space-rock impacts, where are the oval-shaped craters for asteroids landing at a 45-degree angle? Where are the long ditches carved out when space mountains hit the lunar ground almost parallel to it?

Science should be asking on your behalf, if they were honest and good: over all the billions of years, there had to be at least one large asteroid landing at near-parallel to the ground, at least one that skipped on the ground and created a long streak, or signs of a bounce or two. Such formations are not to be seen.

DUH, DO YOU THINK THIS QUESTION HAS NEVER SURFACED IN EVOLUTIONIST CIRCLES? OF COURSE IT HAS, BUT THIS QUESTION IS NOT TO BE ASKED, BECAUSE IT MAKES BABOONS OF ASTRONOMERS. Having said that, look at how round all the craters are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf5HiS1sQA

Asteroids circle the sun along the same path, generally, as the earth. Yet the north pole of the moon has circular craters too, not to be expected with asteroids on the same path as the moon around the sun. The north and south poles should be littered with near-parallel-to-the-ground strikes. There are many such strikes, but asteroids are small such that their strikes cannot be seen from the distances that we see the moon in NASA photos.

There's only one other alternative, which is why I know I'm correct with crater formation: from internal heat. It's of course not a new idea, but the apes decided they wanted to own the craters for their big-bang push, and so they argued away that possibility. Achem, why couldn't internal heat have caused the craters? It's so obviously the true mechanism.

The interior heats up, and the molten material works to the surface, and gets spouted out on top of the ground, higher and higher. In the meantime, it spreads out. Naturally, on flat ground, CIRCULAR pools of molten material form, because it flows equally in all directions from the spout. The spout will always be at the center of the molten pool when it's on flattish ground.

After the lunar interior stopped spouting lava, the outer edges of each pool ceased to be overflown with hot material, and so the edges froze to hard rock. The molten material within the edges decreased in elevation as lava drained back into the interior. Thus, the outer edges became high "rims." That's it, explanation finished.

As the lunar "seas" are of dark material, the dark material is either closer to the ground on the earth-facing half, or deeper in the entire moon while only the earth-facing half got the bulk of the deeper heat for volcanic activity.

The mystery is why the moon suffered such crater scarring in the past with none taking place now. Just as all the geologic strata on earth formed in one event over a year of time or less, so the lunar craters are expected to have formed at one hot event, perhaps at the time that God created the moon. It is more likely that all the craters formed at one event, maybe two or three, than for each crater to be one hot event each.

Here's a photo of the "dark" side of the moon, with hundreds of larger craters, not one oval in shape, not once cigar-like skid mark:
https://www.thoughtco.com/dark-side-of-the-moon-3072606

Where we see craters within craters, it doesn't necessarily mean more than one heating event was needed to form them. During the same heating event, any crater's lava could drain into a void from a neighboring tunnel(s) beside the one spouting the lava. As lava spouts, voids form, and we can imagine more than one hot tunnel to a surface-spout forming from a developing void. The voids are filled with gases under high pressure from heat, and when the gas finds a way out at the surface, the pressure in the void subsides such that the void becomes a place for lava to drain from other tunnels yet spewing at the surface.

Therefore, a pool at the surface can drain to some degree, and soon after, during the same heating event, another spout can form within the same pool i.e. creating a crater within a crater. One event, but craters within craters. It is a dreamy assumption by evolutionists to conclude that a crater within a crater formed millions of years after the first crater. The God killers at work, worse than morons.

In each of those craters you see, molten material was as high at its rim, no lower, no higher. Otherwise, the rims couldn't get as high as you see them. The crater you now see was filled to the brim with lava. When the lunar interior cooled, the lava drained back down. It's a no-brainer.

But this world is filled with wall-to-wall quacks, shame on them, pretending to be our professors when in reality they were anti-Creator zealots who made stooges for themselves with the express purpose of over-throwing Christianity in political bodies. They used science as a weapon, and therefore they distorted the conclusions of science to make their weapons while pretending they were not at war, pretending only to be seeking the sheer realities for the benefit of mankind.

The buffoons want you to think that a space rock plowed into the lunar surface, raising material all around it so as to form a rim. Ya-but, what if an asteroid was long and thin, would it still form a perfectly round rim? Duh, no. But if lava came out of a volcanic spout at ground level, we could expect lava to flow in all directions equally away from the spout, and therefore we would predict round -- not oval, not triangular, not kidney-shaped, not cigar-shaped -- rims.

Why do we think that the side of the moon always facing earth got the dark "seas" almost exclusively? What was on God's mind with that? Just decoration? Or what? If the moon spun a mile faster or slower, per month, on its axis, the man's "face" would be fully on the opposite side of the moon every 850-900 years.

Thanks to my correct understanding of planetary and solar gravity, I can explain correctly why the same side of the moon always faces us. The first inclination is to think that there's something on the man-face side that get's attracted to earth more than the other lunar half.

I have discovered the mechanism of gravity as heat, and heat is to be defined as the existence of free electrons, nothing more complicated. Gravity force is the negative charge of large body of free-from-atom electrons. So long as electrons are captured on atoms, they are not heat. In order for electrons to become heat, they need to enter the atomic spaces of materials, but they can't do so as long as they are captured by atoms. Heat is to be defined as wandering electrons.

The way it works is that the negative charge of interior, planetary heat "radiates" or blows across all atoms, and thus it repels some captured electrons from all atoms, turning EVERY atom net-positive in charge. As negative attracts positive, ALL atoms thus get attracted to gravity.

So, the dark "seas" on the moon serve as evidence that this half of the lunar sphere holds more potential for heat, for if there is deeper heat on this half, it can bring up deeper material which can be assumed darker material. The other lunar half, having little of the dark material, can be construed as having shallower heat, and thus less heat on the whole. And if there's more heat on the earth-facing half, it's going to be attracted to earth's atoms more than the other half, because the heat material, the free-from-atoms electrons, is the gravity force. It's just that simple.

But you probably have the inclination to believe the vast scientific community over wee-wee me, which serves to show you the power of brainwashing by the majority. The same bug affecting you at this moment is deeply infecting the common astronomer, for he has an interest in keeping to the majority view a lot more than a bus driver on a plumber. That's not to say that the majority is always wrong, of course.

It's not necessary for any moon or asteroid to have interior heat, for even if they have no gravity, earth or solar gravity can yet keep the satellites in orbit.

If indeed the same side of the moon is facing earth due to greater attraction to one half than the other, then the moon is not technically spinning (on an axis). It's spinning, but only because the earth gravity causes the spin by holding one face fast to itself. It's sounds contradictory, but the holding it fast to itself causes a "spin" due to the moon's orbital path.

The mental infection can be magnified by that fact that there are moon experts who look at every nook and cranny of that ball, and yet they refuse to come to the correct conclusions concerning the formation of the craters that even a moon novice like myself, with only an average IQ, can spot. This is the peer-pressure plague that's only made catastrophic by an additional big-bang bug, if they have that too.

The evolutionists have the nasty need to explain how a moon so vast in size, and so spherical, got into orbit around earth, for its material make-up is not like the earth's i.e. especially the lack of oceans. They like to say that all moons developed from gaseous off-shoots of the planets they revolve around, but this notion fails with the earth's moon.

Planets could not have been gases orbiting the sun for millions of years, what's wrong with you if you have cratered to that concept? Are you infected with stupidity too? What do you know about gases? Anything? The most-fundamental thing about gases is that they spread out, faster and harder the hotter they are. How, then, could they have remained on the same orbital track for millions of years?

How could the earth have been molten for millions more years while not losing every hydrogen atom into outer space such that the formation of a little pond of water would have been impossible after the planet solidified? If you can't even use common sense against the bastards without a Father in Heaven, you are one sick puppy. When are Christians going to show proper disdain for these snakes?

What happens to hydrogen atoms in a molten ball of rock? Does it stay within it? Or does it rise to the surface and spew out into space? What happens to hydrogen gas in the current, "freezing" air? It rises faster than any other gaseous material. There is no hydrogen layer at the top of our atmosphere, because any hydrogen that makes up there escapes into space. Heat rising from the earth, and in the air, pushes it away, because gravity repels free electrons into space, and the electrons push gas atoms away unless earth gravity is able to keep the atoms close. When high enough, I imagine that even air atoms get lost into space.

If no hydrogen layer remains at the top of the atmosphere now, imagine how fast and hard it would have risen away from an all-molten planet with a seething-hot space above it? But there would have been no hydrogen left by the time the planet cooled to molten stage. What's wrong with the "scientists" that they devise such impossible models? We are the problem. Those who came before us allowed them to get away with such fantasies. The rulers did not put them in their graves, but attached them to our school books like poison for our brains.

The goofs would have us believe that the early sun forced rock gases up until they became clouds orbiting the sun (later became the planets). But if the sun can push rock atoms that far up, the hydrogen atoms would have been much further up, long before the rock gases got as far as the planets. Yet the sun is made almost wholly of hydrogen today. What keeps it down? Solar gravity. It's so hot in the sun --it's got so many free electrons -- that solar gravity is incredibly strong. It prevents the hydrogen atoms from repelling each other away into space.

At least, the sun has lost so few H atoms that the sun is still the same size now as thousands of years ago. How do we know? Eclipses. Nobody has written that the sun was once much larger than the moon, as seen from earth. Therefore, the sun retains its hydrogen atoms.

Knowing that inter-repelling hydrogen atoms would not allow a star to form in the first place, the quacks invented an atomic model where gas atoms do not repel each other. Concentrated cosmic gases would just spread thinner with each passing hour, with inter-repelling gas atoms, and moreover gases would not come together to form proto-stars in the first place. Anyone with an honest mind, unafraid to buck the system, can realize and accept that gas atoms electrically repel each other. This situation develops because all gas atoms are surrounded by negatively-charged electrons. The electrons repel each other, and thus push atoms away from each other.

The whole, both electrons and gas atoms mixed together, would simply expand and thin out continuously, unless gravity holds the atoms to the ground as much as possible. Only the electrons escape into space, constantly, but this is okie-dokie because the sun keeps pushing them into space, every minute of every day, until they reach our air. If they didn't escape into space every minute while entering every minute, we would have a dire problem, because they represent temperature.

The planet remains at a constant, average temperature because the heat quantity entering the air is exactly the heat quantity leaving into space. It's a self-fulfilling equilibrium, but God arranged for it to reach equilibrium at an average temperature conducive for life. The quacks have the problem of being unable to explain how heat constantly escapes, when using their erroneous kinetic theory of heat, unless they invent "dark matter." In their theory of heat, heat-spread requires the existence of atomic material, but as outer space has none, they need to invent some, and perhaps this is the true basis of the idea they float around, that all space has a mysterious "dark matter" that nobody can detect. Ya-right. QUACKS.

Heat escapes by night on the dark side of the planet, but enters on the sun side. There is no solar-wind on the night side of the planet, 50 miles up, and therefore there's no material up there for heat loss to be explained by their view of heat loss. They need air atoms up there to collide with particles that can in turn move out into space, never to return, otherwise the goofs cannot get heat loss. They need some particles to carry the heat energy away, never to return. And so they invent them, but they don't tell you why they invent them, lest they appear like self-interested, crafty snakes infected by big-bang buggers.

For good measure, they have invented many particles, but God is a genius such that the only particles needed to make all materials, and all needed processes, are electrons and protons. Electrons create atoms, light, heat, motion, and gravity. Nothing else is needed. Nothing else exists in the material world. Everything in creation falls into those five words.

But I'll refrain from being dogmatic, because it's possible for another material to exist that plays a role in something, for example, attraction and repulsion force. That's one animal I cannot explain on the mechanical level. Nobody has. Yet a mindless big-bag explosion created it, according to the clowns, such that it's fundamental to all materials. No materials could exist with attraction and repulsion from a distance.

We can imagine smaller-than-electron particles crashing into electrons constantly, causing electrons to push away from one another, but no colliding particles can explain attraction of particles to each other. Besides, the law is such that all constantly-colliding particles slow down and eventually come to a de-facto stop.

If you took a pool cue to one billiard ball with a second cue on the ball's apposite side, and if both cues struck the ball at the same instant and with the same force, the ball will not budge. It is a deception to argue that the energy of the pool cues is "destroyed" just because the ball does not move. In reality, the energy of one cue is canceled by the energy of the other cue. Cancellation of energy is not destruction of energy.

Both pairs of energy were used up to counter one another. Used energy is not destroyed energy. If you quietly push the ball from opposite sides with equal force, such that no sound energy exists to carry away any energy from the ball, the ball will not move. Yet energy was used up to keep the ball still. But the quacked-out magicians ask you to believe that, if kinetic atoms slow down at collision points, that's defined as the destruction of energy, which they say is impossible. TRICKSTERS. They trick you with words. Therefore, be vigilant against them, for they aim to rob you of your chance for eternal life with the Genius and His New Kingdom.

Let's imagine balls having no bounce capability. If you propel one ball directly toward an in-coming ball, each having the same force of motion and therefore the same velocity, both balls will both stop moving upon smacking each other. One ball's energy is used to stop the other. Energy was used up to cease motion. That's not destroyed energy. Therefore, the kinetic theory of atoms, and the kinetic theory of heat, which evolutionists worship, are impossible law-breakers. In those theories, atoms never lose what they call, "total velocity," no matter that they smack each other millions of times per second. What a bunch of idiots.

There is no need for the kinetic theory of atoms. There is no need for atoms of solids and gases to vibrate constantly (as they claim for them) just to explain why gas atoms spread out. They say that the vibrational energy of liquid atoms remains when they break free into gas atoms, and that this energy causes gas atoms to forever collide in a space without losing total velocity. The law-breakers explain the spreading-out of gases by these eternal collisions. But there is no need for collisions if gas atoms spread apart thanks to repulsive free electrons in their midst. Instead of moving toward each other in collisions, gas atoms move further apart.

The New-Shine Sun

I think God's priority was to make the moon circle exactly as large as the sun circle to show the equality between He and Jesus. The moon has been pierced by lava flows. Jesus was pierced for our sins. Just looks at the crater-scarred surface that mankind deserves. But, when Jesus returns, the moon will go blood red, meaning that it will become fully molten, and, afterward, when it hardens, it could shine some seven times brighter, because Isaiah says it will shine as bright as the current sun. The moon now reflects 1/7th of the sun's light.

Isaiah 30:26 says: "The moon will be as bright as the sun, and the sun will be seven times brighter..." That's not to say the post-Armageddon moon will light up the night as bright as the sun now lights up the day, for most of the sun's light that hits the moon (a sphere, not flat) does not reflect directly back to the earth as it would from a flat mirror. And sunlight reflected from merely the moon's surface in no way has quantities to match the light originating from the sun's surface and interior combined.

I've got the true light-formation mechanism, because I'm not devoted to the big bang. Let me tell you. Light is not from a photon. If you've thought to yourself that the science establishment has it all together, slap yourself. Snap out of it. They have built an atomic model as conducive as possible to the evolution of the cosmos by their big bang theory, and as such, they have atoms wrong all over the place. They also have heat and light wrongly defined at the atomic-mechanical levels. But I don't want to go into all of this all over again here.

What I'd like to explain is the difficulty in the Isaiah quote above. How can the sun be seven times brighter but not seven times hotter for earth? In their photon theory, they can't answer it. In their ball game, twice the light is twice the photons. Seven times the light is seven times the photons.

But I have a better light theory not needing the impossible photon. If you are not smart enough to realize that photons cannot penetrate straight through a 1/8" pane of glass, or 10 miles of air, slap yourself, snap out of it, and recognize that modern scientists are all a bunch of followers, all brainwashed rather than thinking for themselves. Whatever they are taught, that's what they believe, too afraid to buck the system. SHAME. Selling out their minds for fear or respect of goofballs.

The sun is known to pump out free electrons, and this is the "aether" that the evolutionist quacks decided as being non-existent in the time of Einstein. The aether was the light-wave medium, and when they did away with it, they replaced light waves with the photon. Even after the discovery of the solar wind in NASA's days, the quacks refused to view it as the light-wave medium. They even know that the solar wind is made of electrons streaming out of the sun. Laughable idiots, hard-core disinformationists, unwilling to correct themselves when the evidence for the aether is presented to them in living color.

If the solar wind is a light-wave medium, something needs to strike the medium to begin the wave. As electrons eject from the sun to form the medium, it's a no-brainer that the striker electrons begin the waves. To prove it, it's known that electrons stream out of a light-bulb filament. Each electron ejected from the filament creates one quanta of light, and sends one wave through the free electrons filling in the air of the room.

They come from the sun. They enter the air, but the quacks are so afraid of this theory that they guarded against it by claiming the impossibility of solar electrons to enter our atmosphere. They must have realized that a model of light through a wave medium could ruin the big bang. They needed the super-fast photon model of light to "prove" that stars billions of light years away are billions of years old. But the light wave model doesn't need particles moving at their so-called "speed of light." Nothing can move that fast, slap yourself if you've believed it. Musk wants to go faster, what a stupid man, like one who gives false hopes to those whose hopes are in futurism.

Hey Musk, once you achieve light speed for travelling to other stars, how will you put on the breaks?

I've been able to show why light in outer space is almost instant from star-to-star, slowing down to a mere 186,000 miles per second in our on-the-ground environment. This view means that light does not take billions of years to reach earth, but is almost instant. In short, just as electricity never slows down or gets totally absorbed at absolute-zero temperature due to the lack of restriction to its flow from heat in a wire, so there is nearly zero restriction to light flow in cold space. We can expect space to be absolute-zero at some point "near" our sun, not far past Pluto, for example. Contrary to the textbook claims of the deceivers, a vacuum has heat, and this is why light acts at only 186,000 mps in air or a vacuum.

Light waves can act instantly over distance no matter how fast or slow the light-wave-particles are moving, even when the ejected electrons that begin the wave are moving thousands of times slower than 186,000 mps. The way I explain this: the time taken to jab the moon with a stick that touches the lunar ground, if pushed by you on earth, is instant. Zero time elapses. You've caused the energy from your hand to reach the moon much faster than 186,000 mps.

The aether is full of "sticks" from the sun to the earth because the aether fills the space between the two bodies. If there is zero restriction in moving the electrons that make up the aether, then the energy of an electron ejecting from a solar atom would travel instantly through such aether electrons, for as far as they exist having zero restriction. They are not pulled by any gravity source, and they repel each other forward (in the direction of sunlight waves) such that their forward motion offers no restriction (or back-jab) to the waves passing through them.

However, the aether electrons between the sun and earth are under a little pressure from their colliding with the earth. This causes a little squeezing of the aether electrons between sun and earth, and thus it takes a little work for motion energy to travel through them. This work is restriction to flow, and thus slows light waves from instant to something else. On the other hand, the pressure that aether electrons are under between a distant star and earth is so small that starlight can reach earth almost instantly. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Don't expect those infected with big-bang buggerism to so much as contemplate this normal light-wave theory. Don't expect them to agree that gravity repels electrons, for the aether then becomes almost non-restrictive in outer space. Expect them to invent a light-wave-photon concept that nobody can understand but their stooges, who pretend to understand it because they're out to make a few bucks on youtube.

When an electron ejects into space, it pushes ahead electrons already in space. That's a normal light wave, an electron-to-electron push. Any kid can grasp this. A rock falls into water, and water molecules push water molecules forward away from the rock. The force of the light-wave push keeps going and going until it hits some atoms and enters their captured electrons, at which time each wave is bounced out of the atoms in all directions as colored and/or reflected light.

I'll explain later, below, how electrons can travel through the transparent material of the pupil about as well as they can travel through the air.

Light color does not exist. Colors of light are not travelling through the air. Colored light does not go through a glass prism. It's only when the light hits the eye that color forms. Outside of the eye, light is an electron-to-electron push (of motion energy) without color. Your genius God turns them into many colors by the way eye sensors receive the waves. There are two things going on when the light strikes into the eye: 1) the SPEED of the final electron at the eye sensor, that's the end of the electron-to-electron "stick"; 2) the DENSITY of electrons, i.e. numbers per unit time, that stick it to your eye sensors. These two things determine the colors and brightness of the light.

It gets too complicated for me to explain the entire gamut of colored light, especially as I'm not a color expert. I suggest that the speed of the electrons at the eye sensors is what determines the particular color, and that density of electrons determines the brightness. For example, if you increase the electrical power through a light-bulb filament, such that the electrons eject faster, they will cause electrons at the eye to strike faster and harder. It seems to me that the punch level of eye strikes are proportional to the speed of electrons ejecting from the filament. The harder the strike, the more the light goes toward white; the weaker, the more toward red.

To increase the speed or striking power of electrons in the filament, one increases the voltage of the electricity, because that causes electrons to fly faster in traffic across the filament such that they bump off the filament atoms faster too. To increase the brightness of the bulb without increasing the strike force, one keeps the voltage the same but turns up the amps, for that's defined as number of electrons passing per second through any part of the filament.

However, I don't see how one can turn the amps up to a light bulb but by turning up the volts. I don't see how one can keep the volts the same but increase the amps, when the source of the electricity, and the wire, are the same. The faster the electrons move thanks to higher volts, the more electrons pass per second. Am I right? The faster car-to-car traffic goes under a bridge, the more cars pass the bridge per minute. Yes, I'm right.

Thus, the volts and the amps should be proportional in any given electrical wire. Therefore, I can't experiment with a light bulb to see what happens to the light color if I keep the voltage the same but increase the amps, or vice-versa. I'm limited as to what I can report to you on this matter.

I've toyed with the possibility that, the more the electrons striking the eye at the same speed, the more the color stays the same but goes brighter. On the other hand, and I do think it's correct: the faster the electrons strike the eye, the more the color goes from invisible red to white.

Pass 24 volts through a light bulb (I did it) with filament that's rated for 120 volts, and it will glow only red-orange. Pass a little more voltage, and it turns yellow. Pass 120 volts, and it glows white, but never blue nor violet. Why not? It's teaching us something. Don't let the erroneous claims of the quacks dissuade you from your own conclusions when based on solid science. Why does the bulb go from red to yellow to white but not green, blue or violet?

The quacks suggest that white is a combination of all colors. They say that if you shine red, yellow and blue on a single spot upon a white surface, the color becomes white. If therefore white is stronger light than blue, why doesn't a light bulb go blue before it turns white? They are making a mistake somewhere. I've discovered how white light may have no green, no blue, no violet. It's their trick when they tell you that it does.

I had a 24-volt battery system hooked up to a 120-volt converter. If the battery power went straight to a bulb rated for 120 volts, it shone only reddish. But when the SAME amount of power (from the same battery bank) went through the converter to the same bulb, it shone white, as bulbs ordinarily shine. They say that the converter sacrifices five times the amps for turning the volts from 24 to 120. If correct, then a less-dense flow of electrons turns the metal filament from red to white, wherefore it's based on the faster electrons alone. Higher voltage sends th electrons faster.

The light waves are not slower; only the speed of ejecting electrons is slower, when the bulb light is red. Therefore, you might like to wonder why red paper has slower-jiggling electrons than yellow or white paper. None of the electrons in the paper atoms are ejecting clear away from the atoms, as they are from sun atoms or a hot filament. Yet, if the paper registers in the eye as white, shouldn't the force of the jiggles send outward waves of equal force to the waves from a white filament, or the white sun? How can that be?

The light from a small filament, landing on a piece of white paper the size of the filament, produces a million times (so to speak, no accuracy intended) less light than the filament, yet both are white. You can't light up the room with a piece of white paper the size of a bulb filament. There must be something else going on, and we can't say that the paper atoms emit a higher density of electron jiggles to make up for their slower jiggles, by far, than the ejections out of the filament. I claim that an outward jiggle of an atomic electron strikes the aether to produce one light wave.

I assume that if the power is turned up to 140 volts, the light will be a BRIGHTER, but still white. I don't know of any source of light producing green, blue or violet light from a naked object such as a filament. Colored lights from bulbs are sent through colored glass or colored gas, but that's not from a naked filament. We can call that painted light. Light passing through atoms to get a green light is on par with reflected light, not source light.

Gas flames burn with blue light, but flames are not objects. Still, the light is directly coming from atoms, not painted by the gas atoms. We then have the conundrum of cold oxygen creating a blue sky, without a flame, suggesting that a high DENSITY of light waves is what makes green, blue and violet light. For, there is so much air when we look into the sky that the combined light passing through the multitude of air atoms speaks of a high density of waves. However, as the light is from the sun, it also has high force, suggesting that higher density and higher force together make color in the blue zone. In that case, the sky is blue for nothing having to do with the nature of the oxygen atom. It could be that blue would be the color no matter what types of fully-transparent atoms the air may have consisted of. There's no way to test this idea because there's not a test tube big enough.

The blue color of gas flames is from the union of hydrogen with oxygen, a mix known to release more heat than any other combusted gases. More heat means more released / ejected electrons. So, yes, when electrons strike the eye in high density, there can be a color on the blue side of the color wheel. The boneheads assigned hydrogen atoms with the least number of electrons; how did the world let them get away with that rip?

An orange flame from burning wood, or the carbon in a gas, becomes blue with a higher density of waves from burning hydrogen. Propane produces a yellow flame when too many hydrogen atoms fail to burn for lack of oxygen. The flame does not go from yellow to green, or even yellow to white, when an increasing number of hydrogen atoms burn. There's either orange or blue in burning propane or wood. Why do you think the flame never goes green? If blue and yellow mixed is said to produce green, why doesn't the blue flame from a wood fire mix with the yellow from burning carbon, to produce a green flame? I may have the correct answer below.

Increase the force of wave strikes from orange color, and it becomes yellow, then white. But if one increases the density of white light by increasing the volts, I don't think it goes green or blue. I think white light is brighter/stronger than blue or violet, and you may have gotten that impression too. My new theory is that white light is not a color, but what the eye "sees" when light is invisible on the high-force side of the spectrum. When the light-wave force is too low from objects reflecting light, we see black "color," which may not be a color, but the absence of color. I'm suggesting that white is also the absence of color when the light waves are too strong to register in the eye.

We've been told that ultra-violet is the invisible color, not white. But have you ever noticed that light spreading out in a glass prism doesn't form white light? It progresses from yellow to green instead. I will agree that green, blue and violet are more-forceful waves than yellow, but, in this new theory, I'll also maintain that violet light is less forceful than white light, because we can see violet light, but, in this theory, we cannot see white light. Therefore, to put it another way, white light is somewhere in the "ultra-violet" range. It's called "ultra-violet" only because its beside the violet.

The ultra-violet prism light shining on a painted surface doesn't look white because, I assume, it's too weak. But if one took a sufficient number of prisms, shining each one's ultra-violet section onto one spot of a wall, that spot might start to turn white.

Keep in mind that prism light is only reflected light, much weaker than the incidence ray. Prism light is that which is forced into atoms before we can see it. I say the quacks have deceived you into thinking that the different colors of light, seen on a white wall, after passing through a glass prism, exists in the original white ray that strikes the prism. They tell us that the prism simply separates the colors. I beg to differ. Did it ever occur to you that the prism is what creates the colors, but that the colors don't exist in the glass either? Nor do they exist in the air between the prism and the white wall upon which the colors are allowed to reflect.

The violet that shines on a white wall, after passing through the prism, passes through the most glass, and the red that shines on a white wall passes through the least glass. It's always that way, never the other way around. Therefore, the amount of glass penetrated determines the color. This teaches me that, the more the electrons in the glass atoms are compressed (i.e. the electrons transferring light waves), the more they tend to create color toward violet after the waves exit the glass. Why?

By "compressed," I mean forced to come closer to each other due to the strain / resistance of getting though the atomic forest that is the sea of glass atoms. The closer electrons are to each other, the harder they repel each other. Therefore, when the electrons going through the most glass exit the glass, they repel each other harder into the electron aether in the air, and thus the aether electrons strike with more force onto a white wall, and thus the atoms in the white wall bounce them harder into the eyes. The fastest/hardest visible waves are the violet ones.

Can you glean that the "trains" of waves passing in the glass are going slower than in the air prior to glass entry? As the wave enters, it finds it harder to push an electron of the glass atom, and thus that forward motion of the electron slows a little, just as pushing a piano goes slower than pushing a chair. In slowing down, the electrons carrying the wave come closer together, just like a line of men each pushing a piano down a factory hallway where each man begins a minute apart. The men pushing chairs, each starting a minute apart, will put more distance between themselves than the piano pushers. This slow-down is important for explaining what it is exactly that changes light colors.

View the electrons of a color train through the glass train cars.

I suggest that the light experts have something nailed down correctly: slowed light through glass, when finally out, returns to it's original speed from before glass entry. Therefore, what's going to be the situation, if the violet train cars are the closest of all color trains? Again, they are going to repel each other the strongest, yet their density, the number of electron bumps per second, not only returns to the density prior to glass entry, but all the colors trains will have the same density of waves, because all came from the same white ray that struck the prism.

You need to grasp this. The inclination is to think that, due to the violet train cars being closer together, they will create more bumps per second once out of the glass. But this is why it's important to add to this picture the slow-down of the cars, slower progressively from the red to the violet trains. To make this easy to grasp, train cars twice as slow and twice as close will cause the same number of light-wave bumps when out of the glass, precisely because the ones twice as close are moving twice as slow out the glass.

THEREFORE, I DO DECLARE, the prism teaches us that color changes are either always, or can be, due to force levels ALONE, without increase of wave density. The same numbers of waves per second falling on a white-paint atom create different colors when their wave-force levels are not the same. Therefore, changes in wave force are expected to change colors ALWAYS, but the question then arises as to whether changes in wave density contribute to colors changes, or SOLELY to color brightness.

My inclination is to think that increased wave density increases electron commotion in an atom, and thus increases light-wave force. But this could be wrong if light waves are extremely local as opposed to spreading there energy far and wide across the atom's electrons. If there are 1,000 stones falling into a lake of water as opposed to 100 of equal size and weight, there's more commotion in total, but each rock will create the same wave, none bigger or smaller than the other. Perhaps this is how wave density affects atoms, by creating the same-level wave force per wave landing, but more waves.

Before going on, I'll need to say that atoms have no orbiting electrons. This is one of the nuttiest claims of all, get it out of you mind. Suffice it to say here that, in order for gas atoms to bond into liquid atoms, or in order for atoms to form molecules, they need to be covered all around in captured electrons (perhaps millions for all we can know) sufficiently deep that atoms can merge into each other...while the proton of one atom attracts the electrons another. View the exterior of an atom as a sea of electrons, therefore.

Perhaps each wave landing in the sea of electrons tends to come straight up in a blip rather than spreading far and wide as water waves do, for the electrons are under the stress of inter-repelling each other, unlike water molecules. Some percentage of each wave's motion energy is expected to get lost (absorbed) into this sea, and only some of it comes upward (away from the proton's surface) to form a reflected light wave. I suggest that the ones losing the least energy, with the strongest upward backlash, create white, and black for vice-versa.

So, where there are many waves incoming, they may create many blips, each blip roughly of the same wave force as all others, rather than what I once thought, that incoming waves cause outgoing waves with countless, random force levels, and that each type of atom creates its own, single color from countless blends of wave-forces, the color depending on how the commotion proceeds.

In order to see the prism on the white wall, the lights in the room are turned off so that the wall is not white at the time. White is used because we have the sense, possibly a deception, that white doesn't disturb or distort color formation. It may be a correct deduction if white is blank, no color at all.

Hydrogen burns as a flame without color. But when burning in propane and wood, hydrogen CAUSES the blue flame. Hydrogen does not make a blue flame, but causes it in combination with the yellow flame from the combusted carbon. Therefore, I think, the invisible hydrogen flame is the white "color" that science calls "ultra-violet, for midway between that and yellow is blue. In other words, the blue in a wood fire is a blend of yellow and ultra-violet. The yellow brings the invisible light down a notch in intensity, and blue is less intense than invisible.

If hydrogen is burning in a wood fire apart from a yellow flame, it's invisible, not white. The color of a white sun or white filament is not what we call invisible because, I'm assuming, its far more intense, both in density and force, than the flame. The hydrogen flame is transparent, but the sun is not. However, if we took several hydrogen flames and lined them up, looking down the line through all of them, they could form white in the same way that water is transparent but white when dense enough, as in clouds.

This is actually the best explanation I've ever had for why clouds are white. If fact, I've wondered about it several times, but could never come up with a reasonable explanation. I'm thinking that white is a blank "color" only for high-force waves from bulbs and sunlight, but not for white objects that reflect light. I'm thinking that cloud white is direct solar sun passing through mainly-transparent water. We can see clear (no white) through several feet of water in a marine aquarium, but that doesn't have direct sunlight as the light source entering the eyes, but sunlight first reflecting off the aquarium walls and floor.

I'm in the midst of wondering how white reflected colors form. My understanding is that mixing the three primary colors with colored light bulbs gets whitish, but mixing the three primaries in paints gets blackish. Mixing the three lights thus looks like plus-plus-plus force until the force goes invisible / colorless white. I'd suggest that shining three yellow bulbs to the same spot on a white wall gets a whitish result too, due to the increased intensity.

Perhaps three blue bulbs shining on the same spot can likewise get whitish, due only to the increased intensity, beyond the ability of the eye to see colors. If correct, it has fooled color specialists into thinking that mixing three primary-color lights specifically makes for white COLOR when the fact is more like mixing too much light of any colors makes for that white look.

My explanation for black colors in reflecting objects is that the atoms absorb so much light energy that too little gets back out to form a color, and so we see colorless black. The latter is too weak to form any color, and colorless white (from source light) is the invisible spectrum to the other extreme, I'm now thinking, as the hard force on the eye sensors cause the eye to see white as an effect of seeing nothing, yet looks like the white of reflected light. Why? Our inclination is to see black and white as opposites somehow? Why those two?

It is illogical that mixing the primary light-color of yellow to the darker blue and darker red should make white light, but that's what happens. We expect white to be nearer to, and brighter than, yellow than other colors, yet adding darker-than-yellow to yellow gets white??? How can that be? It makes no sense unless white light-source is an effect of seeing no color due to being beyond the eye's ability to register color.

It's possible that the "color" of prism light going into a white wall is the "color" coming out (it's not a color until it reaches the eyes), which is then comparable to your voice sent through an electrical wire of the phone company. It doesn't get all mixed up with the impulses of many other phone calls. Your impulses go across the electrons unscathed, unchanged.

One could comment further if having access to the colors formed by prism light when striking a colored wall, or a black wall. Is red still bright on a black wall? If not, then prism light mixes with the affect afforded by the black paint i.e. the paint absorbs prism light. If red remains as bright on a black wall as on a white wall, then whatever prism light goes in is what comes out exactly. I tend to think that prism red on a black paint will look very dark due to deep absorption.

What effect does a white wall have on the prism colors? Would the colors be something different if they could be reflected off of a non-colored paint? Or is white paint non-colored? I suggest that a black surface is, with certainty, as close as one can get to a non-colored surface, yet the problem with experimenting on a black surface is its inclination to deeply absorb light energy. White surfaces don't seem to have that problem.

As the rainbow in the sky is from direct sun passing only through highly-transparent water, and as the rainbow looks about identical to prism light on a white wall, I suggest that white walls have nearly no affect on the colors of light striking them...possibly because even white atomic surfaces are "invisible" light. I'm entertaining the idea.

I've never read that ultra-violet from a glass prism changes a red object to something else, or a blue object to something else. Maybe it does, I just don't know.

I've now got to tell you how light gets through transparent materials. There is really only one choice. It is absolutely false that solid materials are more than 99-percent space. The quacks are nuts. What they have done is to make the photon so incredibly small, and have assigned atoms the fewest number of electrons possible, in hopes of convincing themselves, and you, that photons can pass straight through glass, or straight through ten miles of air atoms. If they did not pass STRAIGHT through, the dog on the other side of the glass from you would look like a blur. So, they need to convince themselves that photons are not crashing and deflecting chaotically against protons and their captured electrons, en route through a glass pane or two feet of water.

Had they not tried to model the atom as needed for the evolution of the cosmos, they would have sacrificed the orbiting electron, a fantasy. They would have gone instead to the only model dictated by common sense: protons attract as many electrons as they can, in the thousands or more per proton, and are covered in stationary electrons...as the earth is covered in an atmosphere of gas. The electrons are stationary unless forced to move by an outside force, and they never orbit a proton.

The electron orbit was needed because the goofs wanted as few electrons as possible. They assigned the H atom just one electron, what a bunch of retards. There is no reason that a proton should not pull electrons to self until fully covered by many layers all around. No matter what material you look at, you see only electrons, so to speak, bombarding your eyes with light. You never can see a proton, they are completely covered. What kind of an idiot thinks that iron filings, pulled my a magnet, start to orbit the magnet? Your evolution-minded "scientists" are those idiots, can't you see?

As a light wave propagates through free electrons in the air or any space, so God could arrange some atoms to be transparent by allowing a light wave to pass fully and practically unobstructed across its captured electrons. The light wave strikes one side of an air atom, then passes through its captured electrons, but circling around the proton, then ejects out of the atom at the opposite side from where it entered, keeping the same line (i.e. a straight line)...to continue on its merry way through the air again, until it hits another air atom, and so on.

Let's position you at 6 o'clock, directly underneath an air atom's 6 o'clock position, that is. If a light wave is coming toward this atom from its 12-o'clock position, directly toward you, but strikes the atom at 2 o'clock, that wave is expected to circle the atom in all directions, exiting at the opposite side, at 8 o'clock. That would define scattered light. It started coming right toward you, but was then directed away from you.

However, when that wayward 8 o'clock wave strikes the next atom, it has a 50-percent chance of being bounced upward into the sky, out its 10 o'clock location, and a 50-percent chance of being bounced out the 6 o'clock location, directly toward you. Therefore, about one third of very wave that starts coming toward you will become scattered, and 2/3rds will get to you. Roughly speaking. I'm not going to lose sleep getting you a more-precise figure.

I suggest that each circles round the outer layers of the atom's electrons because the wave would lose forward force if striking the protonic surface. The electrons deep in the atom are tightly held to the proton while the ones on the outer edges (of the atom's electron atmosphere) are held to the proton with the least force. For whatever reason might be the reality, it's necessary for the wave to take a track around the outer edges of atoms.

That's my explanation as to how light waves through the air get through the transparent part of your eyes.

Now that you have a little understanding on how light waves work: can God make the sun seven times brighter but with roughly the same heat input as we have today? To answer this, we need to know what heat is. It's not kinetic energy as the quacks tell you it is. Heat is free electrons. They come from the sun. If they enter into the atomic spaces of anything, it get hotter. If thy exit from the atomic spaces of anything, it gets colder. Before anyone knew what electrons were, they called this heat material, "caloric." It was a simple and correct principle, but the would-be evolutionist dictators worked to get it trashed, and now they are the science dictators.

There's two ways for them to enter into the atomic spaces: 1) they repel each other in; 2) waves of light push them in. There's only one way for them to exit materials: they repel each other out. They always repel each other into regions having lower density i.e. defined as colder temperatures.

So, if God could shoot electrons from the sun at faster speeds but at the same numbers now coming out, it would increase the brightness, same as a filament receiving higher volts, but would not increase solar-heat output. With the same numbers of waves coming to earth, the sun would pump the same amount of heat into materials in spite of electrons entering deeper into struck materials from the more-forceful jabs of the waves. All light-stuck materials would be brighter too, and maybe change their hues.

And with the same number of solar-wind electrons arriving to earth, the same amount of heat would enter the air by that second method of solar-heat export. Same number of electrons per second shot out, but all shot at greater speeds. How could this be done? I can see a way now.

To shoot electrons from the sun more strongly, they need to be ripped off of atoms more deeply upon them. The electrons closest to the proton are held more tightly, closer to one another than electrons at the atom's outer edges. The electrons on the protonic surface could conceivably be in contact with each other in spite of their repelling each other, because the proton, the big boss, is much stronger than they.

The more tightly they are held, the more stored energy the electrons possess, where energy, in this case, is defined as how hard electrons repel each other, when suddenly in a free condition i.e. not held down to a proton. To release captured electrons explosively as in nuclear explosions, cripple or destroy the proton.

Releasing the deeper electrons gets brighter light than releasing the outer electrons. The deeper ones have more volts. Suppose that, throughout this history, God arranged for some solar atoms to lose exactly half their electrons in order to heat and light the earth. Then, after Armageddon, He pulls a trigger to make the same atoms release the other half. What's going to happen? Well, obviously, the first half of removed electrons will need to come off from the outer parts of the atoms, and the remaining half will be on the deepest part of the atoms. So, perhaps, God will make the sun seven times more bright by releasing the inner electrons for a thousand years.

What's going to happen to tree and plant leaves with a sun seven times brighter due only to increased light-wave force but not increased density of light waves? Are they going to turn blue or even violet? Weird isn't nice-sounding, but weird is change and change is sometimes nice. If I say that God wouldn't change earth colors in the Millennium, is this discussion hinting that increase of light-wave force only brightens colors, but does not change them to other colors altogether? The colors from the glass prism hints the opposite.

When more than one bulb shines on a green wall, it gets brighter green, not blue or violet, as opposed to one bulb shining. However, if we keep adding light, the wall becomes whitish too...suggesting that this white-from-brightness is from a high level of jiggling electrons upon the wall atoms. Do they jiggle with more outward FORCE ONLY, or does the green wall go whitish due to a higher density of jiggles? Or both? My inclination and yours is to conclude both, if the jiggling is stronger.

In my mind, at least, I can't conceive of stronger jiggling unless the jiggling is faster. And faster jiggles tend to mean more jiggles per second i.e. higher density. But, fortunately, this is wrong, and it's this error that has tripped me up for as long as I've tackled the mechanisms behind colors changes versus brightness changes. I've now come to realize that the scenario above, with multiple light bulbs, DOES NOT increase wave forces, when jiggling electrons, just because there are more light bulbs bombarding each atom.

If a higher density of jiggles turns things toward the white, what sort of jiggles make green versus blue versus red in the first place? That's what I'm after, for years and counting. I think the prism teaches that stronger waves alone change colors.

More commotion in atomic electrons gets brighter colors until, with added commotion, all colors go white, as though white is the maximum "color" due to the eye no longer registering a color. But until one nails down the nature of the commotion, things may not make sense.

Perhaps white is a bonafide color, but created when there's a high density of waves entering the eye, whether from a light source, or from a white object. As the prism doesn't make white visible light, I'm inclined to thinking that white is due to high-density waves regardless of wave force. So, from a light bulb, there's high density and high force waves, but from whitish candle flames, if there's enough candles in the room, the white wall is still white under low-force waves. With one candle alone, the white wall is grey; higher-density light makes it white.

The fundamental difference between black and white can now be low-force waves from black versus high-density waves from white. You can have high-force light (like the bulb in a lighthouse) shining on a white wall, but if the light source is far away from the wall, the wall will look grey. Thus, white needs high-density light (to look white). Using five lighthouses could make the distant wall white, but the wave forces of the lights have not increased. Shine enough light density on a black surface, and it will turn white.

Instead of multiple bulbs, one can use a single but powerful one to make the green wall go whitish. The more powerful the bulb, the higher the numbers of electrons emitting from the light source, and that means a higher density of waves entering each atom.

But lookie. Bringing a single bulb closer to a wall does not increase the force of the light waves, but does increase the density of waves. With light waves, the force is the same no matter how close to the wall, similar to a baseball thrown from the pitcher's mound having as much force when thrown as when crossing the plate (ignoring air friction). The force of the electron emitted at the filament will be the force entering the wall regardless of how close the bulb is to the wall.

But the density of light goes up with nearness to the wall, easily provable. All light is known to diminish with distance. As it spreads out with distance, it gets weaker per square inch of surface landed upon, not because the wave-force decreases, but because there's less waves falling. Two emitted electrons side-by-side, in virtual contact, upon a light filament, do not both shine on the same atom in the room, but one makes a train to one atom, and the other makes a train to a nearby atom, showing how light spreads out with distance. As the bulb sends light to every atom in the room, then the light of each emitting electron cannot go to the same atom. The electrons spread their light such that there will be increasing distance between trains (waves) with increasing distance from the bulb.

Only if the bulb is close enough to the wall could two side-by-side emitted electrons strike the same atom. The closer the light to the wall, the more waves strike each wall atom.

Therefore, my light-wave view of light seems to reveal that a higher density turns things into brighter colors only, suggesting that force-level creates the different colors only. I wish it were this cut-and-dry, because color changes by both density and force level complicates matters.

I tended to think that God wouldn't change green leaves to blue with more-forceful waves in the Millennium. Or would He? Will all flowers change colors too? Will red horses go orange? Will the sky go a little violet or lavender? Will violet flowers go whitish? Maybe. Will black cease to exist? Will black objects now show some color later, each showing a different color now hiding in invisibility? What colors will black tree trunks go? What colors will black soil go? Black birds? It could be glorious.

Let's take this back to several bulbs in the room, enough to turn a green wall white. Each bulb strikes the wall paint with the same, average, force-level waves, but there's more waves as compared to one bulb alone. Do the forces of the jiggles remain the same regardless of how many waves enter per second? I think that was Einstein's conclusion, in his photo-electric experiments. If I recall correctly, he determined that the wave force going into atoms is roughly the wave force coming out. However, that may have been with ultra-violet light into metals only; I wouldn't know for sure because I'm not up to speed on his experiments.

Metals are a different sort of animals as compared to other materials. They have few electrons, and are more like concrete walls, therefore. They reflect a lot of light in straight lines (as a mirror does) for being like concrete walls. Painted walls reflect in all directions, as the jiggles bump out in all direction, but straight-line reflection is a different animal, as if the light wave is hitting the protonic surface like a ball off a concrete wall. Atoms with few electrons have the bulk of their electrons more-tightly held, and as such they are more like concrete walls. I can prove that metal atoms are the smallest, contrary to how the quacks designed their atomic model, with metals being the largest and heaviest. Wrong, and wrong, but that's another story.

Red light (not a source light, however) shining on a green or blue wall goes black, a google offering claims, as if the red light changes the force level of the green/blue paint's jiggles, reducing them in force to the point that no/little color registered in the eye. Can incoming light waves do this, weaken the jiggles by countering them? I suppose. A water wave running into a water wave of equal force cancel each other out. No wave remains after the collision. One wave weakens the other regardless of their respective sizes.

However, and this was my conundrum, countless waves from telephone and internet users go through communication lines, as electrical waves, yet they don't cancel each other out. "Traveling waves are high-frequency electromagnetic pulses propagating in both directions on a transmission line..." "Both directions" means they collide but never cancel each other. Tiss quite the mystery.

But, where was my head with that conundrum? I now realize that it's possible and expected for moving electrons to cancel each other's motion, in the sea of electrons upon the atom. These motions are not light waves, but jiggles. See the difference? The jiggles cause the waves, but the jiggles are like waves on water. So, if red light enters a green wall such that its jiggle-causing goes against the jiggles caused by the white light that makes the wall green, cancellation of some jiggling could turn the green to black by cancelling some of the jiggling. It was determined above that black is due to low-force light waves.

I now have some good and reasonable evidence that colored light, when originating from colored pigments i.e. atoms, can alter the entire jiggle attitude on atoms, and change the color of the atoms thereby. It's the mechanism that I was after, not the fact that colored light can change the color of objects. It would be interesting to know how pure red light (not from pigments in glass/plastic) changes a green or blue wall.

Pure white light is shone through pigments mixed into glass or plastic, meaning that the resulting red light is itself reflected light, off of red-reflecting atoms. Still, some or most of the white light may be getting past the pigment unchanged, which complicates the explanation for the resulting color on the wall. If a true red light, for example, from a 120-volt bulb fed 24 or 48 volts, is shone on green or blue, the result might not be blackish, but a color toward the violet. Whenever you research this science, watch out for what they mean by "colored light," whether pure or pigment reflected.

I do not respect or accept the mechanics for light effects, without question, from the quacks not smart enough to recognize that light is an ordinary wave. If they can't get their light wave hammered down properly, they will explain changes in colors erroneously at some points. Then again, those who study color formation might simply ignore the light wave-particle duality of the quacks.

Here's how the quacks have everyone thinking who deals with colors: "Well, if the color of the light was PURE yellow and the green object was PURE green then the object would absorb all of the yellow light - and it would look black." That's nonsense. Yellow light entering atoms does not get fully absorbed. It's an erroneous way to explain color changes because they don't have a proper light-wave model to learn by. It makes no sense that, if yellow light enters a green surface, it goes black just because all the yellow is funneled into the interior atoms such that none bounces out as light. In that case, the green should stay green, duh.

Someone else: "When yellow light is incident on a surface, no electrons are emitted while green light can emit." If this is true and proven by experimentation, then it tends to signal the expected, that green objects jiggle harder than yellow. The jiggling ought to get progressively stronger toward the violet. It's known from Einstein that ultra-violet ejects electrons from metal atoms. It's how solar panels become positively charged such that they allow the flow of a little electricity.

The only difference in light formation between jiggling atoms and ejected ones is the force level, I assume. If the electrons are jiggled enough (by incoming light) to leave the atom altogether, it's because they jiggle more forcefully.

Question: why didn't Einstein realize, or why did he reject it if he did realize it, that the ejecting electrons are the start of a light wave? Why did he co-invent the photon instead of keeping to the wave? Because, he was the one who co-murdered the aether. Mr. Einstein, dunce. The light quanta was right under your nose as the ejecting electron. You wasted half you life or more chasing the tail of the error dragon. It's not a wonder you developed electric hair. You got burnt by the dragon, to a crisp.

Blue, closer to violet than green, should fling out more electrons than green: "Solar panels appear blue because of the type of silicon (polycrystalline) utilized in a certain set of solar panels. The blue tint is primarily owing to an anti-reflective coating, which improves the solar panels' absorption capacity and efficiency." That is, the dark blue absorbs lots of light, yet it's own jiggling potential may increases the jiggling in the silicon (electrical conductor). One can't use any electron-jiggling substance for solar panels, because it needs to conduct some electricity while emitting electrons.

Of course, the solar panel can't go on emitting electrons unless it simultaneously reloads. While sunshine shines on them, the atoms remain net-positively charged, because some of its electrons are bounced up above the atoms, but the quacks, because they don't understand the atom's electrons properly, have denied this knowledge to the solar-panel companies.

Plus, the quacks have an exceptionally hard time of it when explaining how orbiting electrons suddenly start flowing down the electrical wire. Where do more electrons come from that replace the orbiting electrons, and who in their right minds thinks that hanging-around electrons are apt to enter orbits? There's no doubt about it, hanging-around, free electrons are everywhere, but the quacks don't want you to know it. They are in the air, everywhere, from the sun. When the sun stops shining on the solar panels, all the silica atoms INSTANTLY reload with hanging-around electrons. Where else do you think the atoms could get them for to reload, duh?

Does a green, blue or violet material fling all of its jigging electrons out of the atom, or just some of them? It depends on what bombards the atoms. If sunlight is a mix of soft, medium and hard light waves, then the jiggles out to be a mix too. I say this now that I'm ready to take on the blip view of wave splashdown. A strong wave splashes down and creates a single, strong blip that comes back out as a reflected wave. A soft wave, a soft blip, and a single blip too. But I'm not going to be dogmatic; it's possible that one wave can bounce more than one upward (or outward) electron.

The full or accumulated force of the atom's jiggles/ejections is what determines the particular color. I suppose that the AVERAGE force of all jiggles/ejections can be considered the color maker. Green has a higher average than yellow. "Infra-red" has the lowest. An example of infra-red is the electrons (heat) flowing out of your skin. Heat and electrons are one, and infra-red cameras prove it to the quacks, but they still refuse to give up their game of dragon.

There are infra-red thermometers now, in stores everywhere, screaming to the quacks that temperature is exactly proportional to electron emission from objects...except for the faulty temperature scale, which throws the proportionality out a little in cold and hot ranges. In the old days, scientists did not get the temperature scale devised perfectly due to inconsistencies in expansion rates of thermometer fluids at various temperature ranges.

I have no idea how large a proton is in comparison to the electron, and certainly will not trust their size comparisons. Here's how utterly unreasoning the quacks are: they think every atom has the same-sized proton. That is, every proton in existence is identical, they say, and all atoms but one have clusters of protons at their core even though they repel each other. A more asinine atomic model there has never been, especially as they assign atoms with one proton per one electron. In fact, we never hear of other atomic models probably to keep us from realizing how ludicrous their model is.

In reality, every different substance has a different proton, just one per atom, and every different type is capable of attracting its own number of electrons. No two atoms have the same number of electrons. I imagine that electrons need to be, at maximum, the size of a pea in comparison to a cantaloupe, but the bitties could be much smaller, like dust even. They hover over the protonic surfaces (protons aren't necessarily round), otherwise atoms could not bond. They hover because they are trapped by protonic attraction yet repel each other...eight times more strongly with a cutting in half of their distance from one another.

Now you can have a better idea as to how they jiggle. The largest atoms allow light waves to penetrate more easily because electrons hover at greater distances from each other near the peripheries of atoms, and largest atoms can be predicted to have the deepest, loosest-held electrons. Also predictable without fear of error, the more-distant electrons are under less stress from their inter-repulsion (than close electrons), and can be moved more easily, therefore, by light waves. Predictable: the light-wave energy either goes in and travels side-to-side (or end-to-end) of the atom, across its outer electrons (this is for transparent materials), or gets mainly absorbed deep in the electron sea (or "atmosphere," a better term), or bounces partially or almost-wholly out roughly where it enters. These different options, and everything in between, provide a wide variety to color besides the array of colors from the fact that all protons are different, each have a different level of positive force, and therefore all atomic surfaces (outer edges), come with different captured-electron densities.

Sizing Atoms

I imagine that, the weaker the proton, the more like hitting concrete it is to light waves, explaining why metals have unique colors of their own, often highly reflective when polished.

The means to discovering the relative sizes of atoms isn't clear-cut by some methods. To find the real relative sizes, one must utilize the first required step in truth: all atoms weigh the same. Galileo inadvertently discovered this at Pisa, when he found that gravity pulls all objects with the same level of force. As weight is nothing but gravity pull, it means that all atoms weigh the same, for all objects are made of atoms, and gravity pulls each atom separately, assuring that a bowling ball is pulled by gravity with the same force level as a tennis ball. How else can this be explained if not for all atoms weighing the same?

Each atom, regardless of how many there are in any object, is falling to gravity separately. That's why all objects fall to gravity at the same acceleration. The quacks, who won't wrap their heads around this curiosity with their atomic model blocking their view, always say that all objects fall to gravity with the same acceleration, avoiding an alternative way of telling it: gravity pulls all objects with the same gravity-force level. They avoid telling you the latter because it's like a bullet to their atomic model.

If all atoms have different weights, how can gravity pull all atomic material with the same force level? Gravity attracting each atom separately with the same force level is EXACTLY DEFINED as: all atoms weigh the same.

When a magnet pulls something faster, it's because it pulls it with more force. If a magnet pulled 100 objects at the same speed, you would say that the magnet pulls them ALL with the same force. Therefore, what is the problem with a global cabal of quacks who all refuse, or are frightened to say: ALL ATOMS WEIGH THE SAME?

The great thing is, all 100-plus atoms weighing the same is such a wild "coincidence" that, if there's found even one possible way to explain it, it's probably the truth. I've found it. When will the celebration begin? When will the king prepare a decorated white horse for me for a ride down main street? I'm waiting.

The problem is, the king thinks electrons can never stick to a proton in an ordinary way, at rest. He thinks all electrons are outfitted with gas motors that never run out of gas, able to fly at Mach-1,000,000,000 and never slow down. He thinks electrons in the vicinity of a proton can help going round and round, and that the phenomenal speed doesn't cause them to spiral out of orbit. The king and his wisemen are fools.

The great thing is, the discovery of how all atoms weigh the same also discovers the true nature of gravity. In fact, it was my theory, that gravity repels electrons, that caused me to realize that gravity must be a pool of free electrons in the earth, and once that made sense due to my other theory that electrons define heat, because the interior of earth has lots of heat, I put it to a challenge to figure out how a negative gravity force could arrange for all atoms to weigh the same.

In the first place, the reason that it occurred to me that gravity repels heat is that heat always rises, and once that idea spawned, I theorized that heat must be free electrons in the air. Next: gravity must be the negative charge of earth-interior electrons. Now that I've given you just about the whole bag of Newton's apples, go ahead, ponder it yourself as to how gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same. I'll walk you through.

What's the first thing you think of when pondering a negatively-charged gravity force sweeping across an atom? Clue: no orbiting electrons allowed.

There you envision a big, negative wind blowing by a wee-wee atom. What's going to happen? Come on, say it. What's going to happen? What's an atom look like? Not with orbiting electrons. Need more time?

It's covered in electrons like the earth's covered in air, like a magnet covered all around in hovering iron filings. The hovering electrons furthest from the proton are held to the proton the weakest. Got it yet? Come on, think harder.

Outer electrons are held on weakly, not merely due to the greater distance from the proton, but because the outer layers have the most fellow electrons beneath them repelling them outward. If there was no gravity in the picture, the very outer layer would be barely hanging on because it would receive about as much negative-outward push as positive-inward pull. It must be that way, without gravity in the picture.

If there is more positive force than negative, at the height above the proton surface that is the outer layer, the proton could and would attract, and capture, more electrons. It will of course load only until it can no longer attract any others due to there being as much negative outward force as inward positive force. It would become net-neutral at the surface. This is assured, not conjectural. It doesn't matter what the shape, what the look of atoms, they would load only until there is net-zero positive and net-zero negative force at its outer layer.

I've given you just about the full bag of Newton's apples. There's just one more apple needed. You can stop reading to not find out what that apple is, if you want to first find it yourself. To figure what this last apple looks like, you ask self: what will gravity do to the atom, if it sweeps across the atom with a force of, um, let's give it the force level of "g." It could be 'x' or 'y', but let's intrude into Newtonian error and take the name they used for gravity force, 'g'. What's going to happen to the outer electrons in limbo as g-force sweeps by like a gale-force wind?

Pick any atom, it doesn't matter, because the same conclusion will happen to all atoms. I'm not asking you to guess how many numbers of electrons will blow away. I'm asking you to guess what amount of positive force will pop up at the new outer layer once gravity has blown those away that it can blow away. Can gravity blow them all away? If not, which are blown away, do you think? HERE IT IS, ready or not: gravity will blow ALL away that are hanging on with less than g-force positive force.

What do you see after the outer layers have been blown away? You see gravity trying to sweep away the remaining layers stuck to the proton with g-force or greater attraction. Gravity cannot sweep them away. The atom has survived the storm. What level of electromagnetic force will there remain at the outer edge of ALL atoms now? 'G'. There will be radiating exactly g-force of net-protonic force from every atom.

The full protonic force will be at the outer edge, but the remaining electrons on the proton will counteract some of it so as to reduce the total positive force to exactly 'g.' What could this mean? What could it mean that all atoms, no matter how close or far from the gravity source, have a force radiating from their perimeters equal to the force of gravity? No matter that the force of gravity changes with distance from the gravity source, all atoms, wherever they may be, are yet left with g-force positive force.

Attraction force is what defines / causes weight. And negatively-charged gravity will attract all atoms with g-force if g-force is coming out of every atom, meaning: all atoms weigh the same. This fact must and will shake the establishment to its mortal death. When Jesus rules, their atomic model will no longer stand, but God will get the glory for His atomic inventions. Whose going to have the courage to begin the crusade against the house of cards?

Now we're ready for the apple sauce. For this dessert, we need to keep in mind that gravity repels all free electrons in the air, and as such there is a steady stream of them going bye-bye into space. As electrons rise with a small force through the air, they bump relatively-giant atoms on their undersides, and give them some lift. Therefore, as all atoms weigh the same, the biggest atom will get the most lift because it gets the most upward bumps.

Therefore, as hydrogen rises the highest in a mixed bunch of all gases, hydrogen atoms are the largest, exactly butt-backward to how the quacks see this atom. Think of the shame when the realities are finally spread out under the lights. By fighting back, the quacks will only give themselves some time before kneeling.

So, if you want to know the relative sizes of single atoms, you turn every elemental substance (not molecular substances) to gases, and take note of the layers they form when in a confined container such as a long and transparent pipe. The layers at the top represent the largest atoms, and the layers at the bottom the smallest. The metal gases will be at the bottom because they have the smallest atoms, aside perhaps from mercury and a few others.

Yes, it's true, metals have tiny sizes. You've been duped into thinking that most metal atoms are the heaviest due to most metals being the heaviest materials per cubic inch. The reality is that metals have the most atoms per cubic inch, precisely because they are the smallest, and thus, because all atoms weigh the same, the solid materials with the smallest atoms will weigh more per cubic inch.

However, we can't always discover the relative sizes of elemental atoms by simply weighing a cubic inch of each element. Instead, one needs to do the gas method above, to be sure, and only then check out whether the densities of solid matches. If the densities are not in the same sequence from smallest to largest atom obtained in the gas method, then the cause is the depth of mergers that the solid atoms are under.

Solids are made of atoms merged into each other, and some mergers can be deeper than others. Merger packs more atoms per cubic inch as compared to back-to-back atoms, and deeper mergers can make for higher density than shallower mergers. Some merged regions in a solid can be viewed as being more than twice as heavy than unmerged regions because, in some places, more than two atoms share a merged region. Complicated.

I can't see any other factor, aside from mergers, to explain why the densities of solids / liquids, from heaviest to lightest, do not follow the sequence from lowest to highest gas in a vertical tube.

In short, the solid / liquid that weighs more per cubic inch has the most atoms, but it doesn't necessarily find their relative sizes unless one knows how deeply merged they are. Obtaining precision by the density route won't be easy. Some good news is that the gas method to finding relative sizes gives clues as to how deep mergers are for every elemental liquid.

As gases do not consist of atomic mergers, it's straight forward to find relative sizes using gases, but in order to have the confidence to so finding, one must believe that gas atoms are suspended, and given lift by, free electrons in space. Every space including a vacuum. Atoms with the largest cross sections get the greatest lift when confined in a container.

Anyone having access to data showing how the layers of various gases will stratify, in a confined container, can test this theory of mine. If anyone thinks they are smart while thinking that the lightest atoms will rise to the top of the tube, think again, because buoyancy does not apply to single or unmerged atoms (i.e. gas atoms). Buoyancy applies when atoms are confined in a container such as a balloon, but does not apply to a single atom. There is nothing to make a single atom rise to the top of a tube but upward-rising free electrons.

Put a small metal-gas atom at the top of a tube where hydrogen has positioned itself, and it will sink because the density of free electrons in the container can't hold it up. Gravity will pull it down. There needs to be enormous heat density to give lift to a metal gas atom. It's actually a fool's claim to say that metal atoms are heavier than hydrogen atoms, because a mole of metal should then fall to gravity much faster than a mole of hydrogen. What could be wrong with the quacks that they can't admit to this? What power are they under? Let me tell you: conformity to the science gods, exactly why I call them "quacks." And you should too, as well as other such fitting names.

It would be nice if the melting or boiling points of all elements revealed the depth of their atomic mergers, but this is not strictly the case. In order to know whether melting or boiling points can help to size atoms, it's best to get the correct definition of those points on the atomic level. We've got to go into the solid and liquid to spy on what's taking place, respecting the God who made them.

When heat, as free electrons, rise in a liquid, they simply lift the top-most liquid atoms into the air, if there's enough heat in the liquid. The more heat in the liquid, the closer the free electrons are to each other, and consequently they push upward with more force while travelling faster to boot. They literally erode the liquid atoms into the air, like a wind sweeping through. Everyone knows that heat rises in liquids, but few know what that heat is: a physical substance all its own that can push other substances.

Therefore, the elemental liquids having the lowest EVAPORATION POINTS either have the largest atoms, or the least-bonded atoms, or both. And that's the problem: TWO REASONS means we can't use evaporation points to find relative atom sizes. Plus, evaporation point is not boiling point. Water, for example, evaporates below room temperature, way before boiling point.

This is very unfortunate, that it's the evaporation points which define the moment when upward heat flow finally gets the upper hand over atomic bond force. Where does one get a chart showing the evaporation points of the elements? Asking google doesn't seem to be helping. I did find this on gold: "It has a melting point of 1,064°C, a density of 19.3 g/cc, and...its ideal evaporation temperature being around 1,400°C." That's not the boiling point for gold, which is 2,826 C. I assume that every element has an evaporation point not equal to its boiling point. If you can get a chart of evaporation points for all elements, or even most of them, you will have solid gold in your hands for understanding atomic make-up.

Some good news is, I know what boiling point is, but at present, I can't use boiling points for sizing atoms. However, substances with high boiling points restrict the passage of heat through them more than other substances. Every "why" is an opportunity to discover an atomic reality. Why do you think wee metal atoms have the highest boiling points? Because, every inch of upward path through the liquid weighs more, and consequently, more heat force is needed to open up passageways to the surface. The boil bubbles are filled with heat particles opening passageways to the surface.

Therefore, we can get a simplification of relative atomic sizes from boiling points, but only a simplification, because atom-merger depth plays a role too in opposing rising heat.

If two substances have the same evaporation point, the one with smaller atom will have the least atom-to-atom bond force, and thus should be less-deeply merged. More-deeply merged atoms, when at a liquid surface, are not only going to be tougher to dislodge into the air, but each atom will get less upward push due to being more-deeply "invisible" to the passing electrons. By "invisible" is meant the unstrikable parts of the atom due to being inside merged regions. Therefore, there are two factors here, with yet a third and fourth below, that counter evaporation, meaning that they all combine to increase the evaporation points to higher liquid temperatures.

Still, the evaporation point of every elemental liquid sees surface atoms stuck together by the SAME TOTAL FORCE of zero. The rising heat has overcome atmospheric pressure forcing liquid atoms together; has overcome liquid pressure forcing liquid atoms together; has overcome gravity keeping liquid atoms from going up; has overcoming the atom-to-atom bond keeping atoms together; and has overcome some atomic hooking that keep atoms together.

The good news is that there is no liquid pressure at the surface, and no atmospheric pressure either (I'll explain). Plus, gravity acts identically on all atoms so that we can ignore it for this discussion. Therefore, if the hooking of atoms plays a minor role that can be ignored, the only force that heat needs to overcome at evaporation point is the atom-to-atom bond, meaning that evaporation point in all liquids can be defined as heat overcoming the atom-to-atom bond (and gravity). Liquids need more heat at the surface to break those bonds when the size of atoms is smaller and/or the depth of mergers are greater.

Therefore, if by some method one can find several substances having the same depth of merger, their evaporation points would be able to reveal the relative sizes of the atoms for those same substances. In reverse, for atoms having the same sizes, the evaporation points can reveal the sequence of merger depths for those substances. Every fact nailed down serves to uncover other facts, but if the stupids can't even see that all atoms weigh the same, they are hopelessly lost in sizing atoms.

As mercury has a lowest boiling point (-57C) of all metals, it's got to be the largest metal atom. See how easy this is? One should be able to find relative atomic sizes to an approximation by boiling points alone, though the depths of atomic mergers once again throws things off from straight-forward results. Some substances with smaller atoms may have a lower boiling point than expected (from their small sizes) due to having shallow mergers, and vice versa.

Although the gas method alone is a non-complicated and certain way of finding relative sizing, it would be interesting to some scientists to see if boiling-point methods agree with the gas-method findings. For example, the gas method tells that hydrogen atoms have the largest atoms, agreeable to the fact that hydrogen gas has both the lowest melting and boiling points of all atoms. Helium has a boiling point lower than hydrogen, but I tentatively consider helium a molecule, and am not dealing with molecules here.

Liquid hydrogen atoms get eroded into the air with the least amount of heat in its midst, because H atoms get the largest lift from passing-through free electrons. One can then get a sense of how big oxygen atoms are in comparison to hydrogen by the boiling point of oxygen. Etc. If hydrogen atoms had been extremely merged, hydrogen might have had a higher boiling point than oxygen. The extreme-low temperature of hydrogen's melting point suggests that H atoms are barely merged when in solid and liquid form. Can we figure why that would be?

The definition of melting point that I use is unique, I think. But maybe not. Perhaps it was used once, then kept hush. I've not heard anyone using it. Melting point is when heat through a solid has unmerged its atoms to the point that the atomic bond equals gravity force. That is, heat weakens atomic bonds, and with a little more heat added after the melting point, the atomic bond becomes slightly less than g-force, i.e. when gravity is able to pull the atoms toward itself. This shows itself as melting. The solid substance is then pulled by gravity to the lowest-possible place.

Is this definition important is some way, besides the fancy of knowing the mechanics? Yes, very important, because, as I'm reading these things, every substance between its melting point and evaporation point undergoes the same atomic-bond weakening, from g-force bond strength at melting to breaking of the atomic bond at evaporation. Therefore, the more temperature distance there is between melting and evaporation points, for any one substance, the greater the force of merger (denying evaporation at a lower temperature).

We thus have a method to determine merger strength, though it's not necessarily the same as merger depth, unfortunately. Instead of using "merger depth," we can use "merger strength" regardless of the percentage of merger depth. I'm thinking that this merger strength is per cubic inch of material, not per atom. Some materials with shallow atomic mergers can yet have significant merger strength per cubic inch due to the greater numbers of atoms per cubic inch.

Unfortunately, this gets complicated. But it's a start. If merger depth can be discovered in some way, then one can test to see whether the predicted merger strength jibes with everything else to prove my atomic model correct, which is based on all atoms weigh the same while getting lift from upward-moving electrons. I don't expect anyone in the world to tackle this problem, but God may surprise us.

Let's explain more. Free electrons in a solid make their way through its atomic pores, and as they do, they push (by their inter-repulsion) atoms apart, which is called, expansion of materials. This expansion is undeniable evidence that the atoms of solids are being forced to unmerge with increased temperature. The bond strength naturally decreases with less merger, until gravity is ably to roll some atoms away from their neighbors, and down into the gravity pit, so to speak. At melting point, gravity is winning the tug-of-war against the atom-to-atom bond.

As we steadily increase the temperature from the melting point, the increasing heat rising through the melted liquid weakens atomic bonds further until the heat can fling surface atoms into the air. But it's not as simple as predicting a higher evaporation point due only greater total region of atomic mergers. A complication in this picture is that various protons have various positive force levels, which cause merger strength to begin with.

Protonic positivity does not dictate merger depth, as I once may have thought. But protonic positivity levels must surely play the chief, if not only, role in keeping the atomic bond. The problem is, a liquid with shallower-merged atoms may yet have a merger strength greater than another liquid with deeper mergers due to the shallower-merged atoms having stronger protons. It seems that discovering depths of merger by melting and evaporation points is way too complicated for one person in one lifetime.

I point these difficulties out lest anyone think that melting and evaporation points ought to straight-forwardly predict relative atomic sizes. Or lest any quack, in the future, wishes to prove my theory wrong just because the gas-method of determining atomic sizes doesn't jibe with the sizing results from melting and evaporation points.

I claim that all substances at their melting points have IDENTICAL atom-to-atoms bonds. It's not a small piece of data. It's a law. All substances at melting have the one thing in common: weakened atomic bonds such that gravity can roll or slide atoms over atoms down toward itself, whereas this is not possible in the solid state of the substance.

Melting and boiling points are all over the map, showing no solid reason-nor-rhyme for the wackos because they have an illusion for an atomic model. But with the cornucopia I'm offering, one can eat and be satisfied as to the reasons for their being all over the map.

My suspicions are that the temperature scale is defective. A spread of 100 degrees at the room-temperature range is not going to be identical to a 100-degree spread at 1,000 C. Just so you know, when working with high and low melting and boiling points.

Aluminum has a spread of 1,859 C degrees between its melting and boiling points while copper has a spread of 1,477 degrees. It suggests that heat has a more difficult time passing through aluminum liquid (not the same at all as heat-transfer through the solid). This doesn't square well with the fact that aluminum liquid is about 3.3 times less dense (less heavy per inch of depth) than copper liquid, for that means, on the one hand, that heat should pass through aluminum 3.3 times more easily. BUT that's ignoring the other hand: atomic mergers.

The conclusion I would suggest, for showing this example on how to work this science, is that aluminum atoms must be much-more merged than copper atoms, enough to more than make-up for copper's heavier weight due to copper atoms being the much smaller of the two. Deep mergers of aluminum atoms can explain why aluminum is such a strong metal in comparison to its lightness. It's lightness speaks of large aluminum atoms, much larger than copper atoms. So, aluminum must have larger atoms with deeper mergers.

If the numbers are corret at the page below, it shows that aluminum absorbs 10,530 units of heat, versus only 4,730 for copper, when both evaporate from an identical sample of liquid volume. It tends to show that aluminum atoms are more than twice engaged in merged regions. Gold on the other hand, having a very small atom, produces only 1,577 units per identical liquid volume. Mercury, absorbing just 295 units, thus appears barely merged at all. I don't think these numbers can be used to find the relative merger depth percentage-wise. Hydrogen liquid is give 455 units. To my surprise, oxygen absorbs only slightly more than nitrogen, 213 versus 200.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html

Don't mistaken "heat of vaporization" for heat absorbed by evaporated atoms. "The heat of vaporization is defined as the amount of heat needed to turn 1 g of a liquid into a vapor, without a rise in the temperature of the liquid." Heat of vaporization is the heat put into the liquid to keep its same temperature during a process that takes time. The longer it takes to evaporate a gram of liquid, the more heat needed to keep the same temperature (as heat leaks out of the liquid all around). Therefore, heat of vaporization can be viewed as a rough indicator of how fast or slow evaporation takes place per each element.

Evaporated atoms dislocate from the liquid body, wherefore we might be led to think that the liquid surface absorbs some of the heat demanded by evaporation, and that the rest of the demand is taken by the newly-formed gas atoms. That's what I first thought. But on second thought, the full demand of evaporation goes into the newly-formed gas atoms, and none into the liquid atoms because the latter's electron density doesn't change when atoms fly off. Only the atoms that fly off are needing to be re-dressed with captured electrons. If the page above measures only the heat loss in the gas above the liquid, then the page's relative heat figures seem to me to be good indicators of relative merger depths.

For theoretical atoms of the same size, it doesn't follow that they must have protons of the same size, or protons of the same positive strength by which to capture their electron atmospheres. Smaller protons with greater positive force, if such a thing can exist, can create atoms as large as atoms having larger but weaker protons (if such a thing can exist).

I now see specific merger depth as a function of atomic size in combination with heat. I once tried to figure merger depth as a function of protonic strength, but failed. It finally made no sense as to why stronger protons should attract merging atoms deeper, for the proton doesn't know that merged regions have the electrons of neighboring atoms. As far as a proton is concerned, the electrons in merged regions are its own electrons, and as it can't pull those electrons toward itself when there's no merger in its vicinity, ditto for when atoms merge.

Proton-to-proton repulsion during mergers can play a role in limiting merger depth. I wish it were not so because this brings another factor into the picture to complicate matters. I had concluded that, when the proton-to-proton force equals the proton attraction to merged-region electrons, merging ceases to go deeper. But I now see it differently...though some of this is easy to forget because I revisit this topic sparingly.

I now see that while multiple protons mutually attract electrons in merged regions, the protons have no power to pull closer those neighboring atoms. Protonic attraction serves to keep atoms from unmerging, but the protons do not cause the mergers or make them progress deeper. Instead, mergers are caused by other factors outside the atoms, either pulling or pushing one atom onto another.

The good news is that it doesn't matter how atoms are forced together, whether by gravitational pull, or by heat-particle push, the liquid formed by either process always has the same depth of merger at any given temperature. It means that something limits merger depth, and that's partly heat material. Imagine two atoms barely merged looking like a figure 8, with heat getting into its middle and pushing its top and bottom apart. At lower temperatures, this intruding heat material can thereby act against the two ends of the 8 to keep them from merging closer.

On the other hand, if mergers go so deep wherein an atom is exactly half sunk into another atom, there may be no way for heat particles to get under the atoms' butts to push one out of merger from the other. As increased heat ALWAYS pushes atoms apart into lone gas atoms, it means that something likely prevents atoms from merging halfway into other atoms. That something could very well be proton-to-proton repulsion, for I can't see anything else besides it, in combination with heat material, limiting merger depth.

When an atom is half sunk into another, the protons of both atoms are on (or roughly so) each others' peripheries. My guess is that proton-to-proton repulsion doesn't permit atoms to merge that deeply, sort of a safeguard God could have worked into the system to allow atoms to unmerge with added heat.

It's known that heat unmerges atoms. The true mechanics of that situation is that free electrons get between atoms and push them apart with increasing force with increasing temperature. The expectation is that, just as electrons give atoms upward lift when in gas form, so the same electrons provide solid and liquid atoms push-apart force.

The evaporation point is defined when heat-particle lift only begins to overcome the combined pull of gravity (on a liquid atom) and the atomic-bond strength. But in reverse, when a gas atom is hovering and about to land on a liquid atom, to re-merge with it, atomic-bond strength is irrelevant. While we might naturally think that atomic-bond strength is what determines merger depth when finally gravity begins merger, I determined above that atomic-bond strength does NOT pull atoms toward each other for deeper merger. It seems impossible to determine the percentage levels of atomic merger for all elemental atoms.

There cannot be liquids of the same atomic type with various depths of atomic mergers. That's a provable fact, from the heat absorption of evaporation, always an identical amount per cubic inch of liquid evaporated. Why? Because the depths of mergers are always identical per any given temperature (at the same pressure for all).

When atoms merge, they release exactly half their electrons from their merged sections, and thus release heat. When the same atoms separate fully, they re-absorb their lost electrons, and thus regain exactly the heat that got away during merger. Therefore, something must govern the depth of merger. The heat factor that plays a role in limiting mergers plays more heavily against larger atoms. The larger the atom at its evaporation point, the more the repulsive force of heat counters merger.

On the other hand, the larger the atom, the lower its evaporation point i.e. less heat for push-part force. It could signal, at first glance, that all atoms have similar merger depths. However, the larger atoms ought to have larger, stronger protons, and where proton-to-proton repulsion plays a major role in limiting mergers, the larger atoms will merge less, percentage-wise of their volume. It can explain why the largest atom of all (H) has such a low evaporation point, and why the smallest atoms (heavy metals) have the highest.

Let's look at metal atoms, and assume their proto-to-proton repulsion is so weak that they merge half into each other. How will one get them apart? I suggest that plenty of heat will be needed just to compress their sizes first, enough to form tiny undersides (like in this 8) in order that additional heat can push them apart.

Metals liquefy from gases at very high temperatures, when the push-apart force of heat is extremely strong. On the other hand, metal atoms are small so that it reduces the push-apart force, and where they are deeply merged to boot, more heat in the liquid will be needed to turn them to gas. The high heat needed to melt or boil metals is needed to get through the extreme weight, per inch of liquid depth, of small atoms. Heat needs to open passageways to the top of the liquid in order to ping metal atoms into the air.

Once a metal is molten but at a "cool" temperature, there's plenty of heat at its surface to lift any atom into the air, but if the metal atoms are unable to get that lift, I can see only two things preventing it: deep mergers and/or atomic shapes. This speaks to the argument above suggesting that the smallest atoms, due to weak protons, are merged deepest.

Feasibly, some atomic shapes can turn atoms into hooks of some sort. For example, crescent-shaped protons can build crescent-shaped atoms that hook into one another to prevent evaporation at an otherwise lower temperature. Cigar-shaped atoms can have partial evaporation at the evaporation point because only some would be hooked while other might not be hooked or as hooked. Imagine a pile of long logs not neatly piled, some with other logs crossing over them, some with fewer logs crossed upon them, and a few with no other logs upon them.

Perfectly-round atoms (no hooks) are expected to evaporate at a faster rate per degree increase than atoms that hook / block one another from easy lift. Somebody somewhere has a chart of evaporation rates per substance. Have fun finding one with corporate-compromised and anti-educational google.

A molecule has natural potential to form hooks even if all atoms in the molecule are spherical. A large spherical atom studded with eight spherical atoms has eight potential hooks. Molecules are various atoms of various sizes and shapes jutting out from each other. As we don't know atomic shapes, it's best to imagine atoms spherical or oval when trying to understand their behaviors in mergers. Don't respect the quacks when they claim to know the shapes of molecules. One quack passes down false knowledge to the others, and few ask questions enough to see the follies. None of the molecules imagined by the quacks is a real molecule, because the dopes started on the wrong premise with Avogadro's hypothesis, when they should have known better.

As water molecules, which have an atomic weight of 9 (nine times heavier than a hydrogen atom), become liquid at 100 C, the metal atom, with an atomic weight of 1 (identical to hydrogen atom), would need nine times less heat, in order to evaporate, than a water molecule, if the metal atom were as large as a water molecule. But a metal atom can be hundreds of times smaller than a water molecule, needing much more heat to evaporate.

I suggest with confidence that an atom having a cross section twice as large as another atom needs half the rising heat particles to acquire the same lift force. Lift power is going to be proportional to the atom's cross section.

If you can get a chart telling what the lift force is on individual gases in a vacuum, you will then know the relative sizes of atoms, but don't confuse with lift of hydrogen or helium balloons in air, for example. To find lift force of individual gas atoms, you'll need the various speeds of rise of gases in a vacuum, and work from there. Ask whether twice the speed is twice the lift force. I'm reading: "Hydrogen rises 2 times faster than helium and 6 times faster than natural gas at a speed of almost 45 mph (20m/s)." It doesn't say whether that data was taken for a vacuum situation, or in the air.

Helium gas at STP weighs twice as much as hydrogen gas, meaning that helium has twice as many atoms. As helium won't bond with any substance, it's likely an already-bonded molecule that won't become disassociated with any level of obtainable heat in a lab. If helium is made of four H atoms half sunk into each other while having a cross section twice as large as the cross section for a hydrogen atom, hydrogen gas would rise with twice the force of helium.

In order for there to be twice the atoms in a helium gas where each helium molecule is made of four hydrogen atoms, the helium molecules need to be half as many in numbers as compared to the number of hydrogen atoms in its gas.

At the very low melting point of hydrogen, there is very little heat between the atoms, yet as this is an unusually-large atom, the small density of free electrons between liquid-hydrogen atoms pushes them apart hard enough that the atoms can't merge deeply. At least, it seems they're not merged deeply due to such a low boiling temperature, so easy to turn to gas with so little heat.

You can't turn hydrogen gas to a liquid but at a very low temperature because the atoms remain hovering with very little heat, due to their large size. Gravity can't pull the gas atoms down to form a liquid until the evaporation point is passed in the downward temperature direction.

To be sure, the atomic bond at a liquid surface always exists so long at atoms are merged, yet the atomic-bond strength has been more than fully countered by the eroding, rising heat. For, if the downward force of gravity did not exist at an atom of a liquid surface, rising heat would rip liquid atoms into the air...in spite of their bond forces yet being active. Therefore, there's less than net-zero bond force between surface atoms at evaporation. Gravity allows the liquid atoms to act as though they are bonded.

The deeper into the liquid, the more potential gravity has in two ways to keep liquid atoms merged (throughout the liquid), both in water pressure accumulating with depth, but also with the full weight of air resting on (and in/below) the liquid surface that transfers liquid atom to liquid atom to the bottom of the liquid. However, air atoms do not rest on or contact all atoms at the liquid surface. Some of the latter, those between air atoms, get to go free as evaporation. Where gravity and air pressure do not exist, liquids disintegrate into their respective gases long before the boiling point.

NEWS

Here's a happy vaccine story, in the courts; imagine if there were only 20 cases like this:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Q2T1RLt2V_8

Fifteen-minute cities in Indiana, and anti-self-survival policies from WEF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZu5vO7swWs

In the 6th minute, Kash Patel backs down, under Democrat pressure, to prosecuting FBI elites guilty of weaponizing the FBI. Kash Patel was too gutless to tell the Democrat that the most-important criminal prosecution is the criminality of an FBI chief, to frighten future FBI directors so that they don't do the same. The best outcome is if he was lying to the Democrat, to get the job because he fully intends to punish the deep state. I could live with a lie like that, spoken to nation wreckers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqztn5xGv_8

Here's what Patel Should have said, proudly: "If anyone at the FBI, and especially the FBI director, committed an illegal offense, he should be charged. If you have anything against that, Ms. / Mr. Liberal, let's hear it now." Here's a better side of Patel at his confirmation hearing, which is partially for public consumption:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAUS1pdULLA

The good people in the United States want to see full justice against the liberalized FBI and DoJ machinery. If Patel chickens out, TRASH HEAP. If Trump directs Patel's boss not to allow Patel to make waves, not to "retaliate," TRASH HEAP TRUMP. It's not merely about retaliation, it's about scaring the spines of future would-be criminals in high places with severe punishments to those who've already been witnessed as guilty.

I'm hearing this week that Trump himself may have fired dozens of FBI workers all across the country. But even if true, I don't know who they are, or what they did to lose their jobs, and so I can't comment. If he's working to rid that machinery of gangsters, it's about time. I'm not going to congratulate him for being four or eight years too late, and causing the country a woeful four years under Biden, though it did serve, to no credit to Trump, to seriously wound the Democrat jackass that wore Obama's face.

Obama ruined the party, hurrah for him, half by giving the wink to Biden for president. The liberals are now too ashamed to put Obama's face on that unruly mule, except maybe to stick it where the tail belongs. Throughout Biden's four years, the gangsters condemned themselves all-the-more, and so the Trump Justice department had best round them all up, every last one of them, spare no dollars because those guys, not Russia, not China, but those guys are the ruin of the United States from within, and in cahoots with their European counterparts.

When many Republican senators, this week, complimented the FBI and the DoJ of the past, they are passing off illusions. That machinery has been corrupt for decades, not merely since 2016. It didn't get the way it exposed itself, in 2017, overnight. The FBI was needed to make the 9-11 inside job a Hellish success. Republican congress people, even many pro-Trumpers, are cowardly liars, therefore, not merely inflicted with self-inflicted illusions. These pro-Trumpers are trying to change history by making it look like Biden alone protected the FBI and DoJ. Trump was the first to do it, for his entire four years. That's called a really-big jerk. He promised to do it in order to get elected, then jerked and didn't do it. He was as good as toilet paper to his voters for the first three years, and capped things off by setting up the vaccine crimes, far worse that 9-11. He likes helping big corporations, maybe because he's found a way to be rewarded by many of them, but I wouldn't know. It's just what politicians do all the time, look for ways to benefit the rich in order to be rewarded. Maybe there's lots of rewards to be had by putting tariffs of certain, imported products.

Here's a brief story on prompt FBI firings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk6XeTUwa_Q

There's a question on who's going to suffer with Trump's cuts in government spending? He's already shown himself to be an AI pusher, because this technology goes hand-in-hand with military and spy agencies. The race toward mutual destruction is up a few notches with AI, and even some Christians with prophecy / youtube channels are supporting the race to building the best AI as a protective measure against the Russians and Chinese. This is incredibly bad. Stay out of this.

Trumps's already exposed himself as a unilateral dictator, and not everything he's doing is good, for he's fomenting an Armageddon scenario in spite of his calling for peace. He's acting much the world-class bulldog, the butt-nosed bully. He's making threats so proud of his political muscle that he won't back down. That's a dangerous bully. As of Saturday this week, he's already signed a record-smashing 45 Executive Orders.

He'll do wrong before he'll do the right thing and back down. Does he have an idea on what his tariff war will look like in a year? I doubt it. But no matter how badly it goes for some or most, he'll give it some rosy twists in news conferences, and never admit fault.

I've heard that Trump removed Pompeo's security rights, definitely moving in the right direction, not anything to boast about, no more than doing a U-turn in an intersection right in front of the cop car, because you forget to turn down the right street in the first place. The more he corrects himself now, the more he owes his voters apologies. But he's not big enough to apologize. If he were truly a big man, or a man at all, he'd understand enough that boasting is unbecoming. This is why he so badly wanted to be president again, half to bask in his own flashlight, and half to enjoy being the victor over those he allowed to beat him.

I was really turned off this week when hearing that Robert Kennedy had advocated abortion "rights" up to the time of birth, if the mother so chooses. If this is true, this man is disgusting, demonic. He wants to save you from a not-so-good dye in Fruit Loops, but would kill a baby at 9 months old if a "woke" mother's in favor of the murder.

For anyone who still needs evidence that 9-11 was an inside job by the American government. Between the 30th-33rd minute, you will see that building 7 was supposed to be taken down (by the government) a few minutes after the second tower was taken down in similar fashion, but something unknown delayed it until about dinner time:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kJlao3keAmpH

---

NEXT UPDATE

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

---