This section tells why I call atomic physicists, "goofballs," because they are, in the eyes of common logic, intolerable lunatics obedient to the fiction of Godless, cosmic evolution.

To show that google AI is nothing much more than a human mocking bird, I asked it: "can protons cluster at atomic cores?" The true answer is a logical, no, because they repel each other, what could be more straight forward? But AI responded just like a puppet or recording of an evolutionist dingdong, even maintaining that neutrons are true particles, which they are not. Instead, they are particles invented in hopes of rectifying problems with the fictional atomic model of the evolutionists:

Yes, protons can cluster within atomic cores (nuclei). Protons and neutrons, collectively called nucleons, are the building blocks of the nucleus...The strong nuclear force binds these nucleons together, holding the nucleus together despite the repulsive electromagnetic forces between protons.

There you go, proof that AI doesn't literally think for itself, but responds as programmed to respond. It cannot tell us how the "strong nuclear force" holds protons in a cluster, and neither can anyone prove that such a force exists. Nobody can demonstrate a force that counters repulsion force. It's a fantasy invented because evolutionists decided that cosmic evolution needs an all-protons-are-identical fantasy. Otherwise, if cosmic evolution didn't need this quackery, it wouldn't have been invented and pushed for undeniable fact.

The only alternative model, which does away for the need for a strong nuclear force, is the model I claim to be fact: every one of the 100-plus elements has its own, unique proton, one proton per atomic core, no neutrons needed either. How could anyone argue against this model? What goof would insist that, no, we must have all protons identical, each element having a different number of protons in a cluster? Anyone can readily see the problem, but it benefits the big-bang Frankenstein because every atom can be deemed a multiple of an H atom, important for a "logical" approach to the teaching of the evolution of stars, because they are made of hydrogen atoms.

The goofs deemed it's more credible for the big bang to produce all protons exactly alike such that all atoms are simply multiples, roughly, of one hydrogen atom. This was the premise that evolutionists chose, and, I suppose, Creationists were lulled into accepting their views under political pressure, for evolutionists have always played politics with their theories, and with their specialized experiments supposedly proving their erroneous theories to be facts.

Try to imagine how mighty their proton must be where it can hold an electron in orbit at the near speed of light. Imagine what great centrifugal force there would be that wants to fling the electron out of orbit. Yet, they claimed that these protons do not inter-repel each other away. The big question I pose, therefore: why don't we examine the alternative theory, one proton per element, each proton different in one or more ways?

Next, I asked google AI: "can electrons orbit protonic cores?" Of course they can't, only a lunatic thinks this, and so AI, if it wants to be respected, should have answered, "are you kidding me?" Instead:

Yes, electrons can [just easy as pie] orbit protonic cores. While it's a simplified model, the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom, which is composed of protons and neutrons, is a fundamental concept in understanding atomic structure.

Surely, you can see how laughable this idea is. Surely, you assented to this orbital "fact" because you've been guilty of follow-the-leader, which is the politics that evolutionists played. Anyone who didn't follow the evolutionist guru was made to fail science class, you see. They didn't get hired much to do physics-related work. The lunatics marred others as lunatics who didn't stay the course of their "facts." Society was forced to adopt fantasies by the scores of arguments made on their behalf, and science idols were made to push those fantasies. Anyone who pushed the fantasies with experimental proof has been idolized, made to appear super-intelligent to this day. Who are you, commoner-know-nothing, to buck against such brainy idols?

google AI is dishonest, simply repeating the knowledge of the anti-Christs which programmed it. How do you think humanity will fare as more and more human problems are assigned to AI for rectification?

Next, I asked: "how can electrons enter an orbit?" The response doesn't answer the question but vaguely because the quacks don't have one that the general public will swallow if attempted:

Electrons enter orbits through a process where they absorb energy, typically in the form of photons. This absorbed energy allows the electron to jump to a higher energy level, or orbital, further from the nucleus. Lower, more stable orbits are visualized as being closer to the nucleus, while higher, less stable orbits are further away.

Telling us that electrons enter orbits by absorbing photon energy does NOT answer the question. We would like to know: how does photon energy create an orbit? Nobody can answer that question without looking like an illogical fool. Go ahead and try to convince yourself that a photon striking an electron NECESSARILY puts it into orbit around an atomic nucleus. That's ludicrous.

Explain like a scholar the possible mechanics of an orbiting electron tossing away a photon just because the electron goes into a "lower" orbit (closer to the core). You are going to appear like an idiot if you use straight-forward street language. The only way to avoid looking like an idiot is to use special but vague words mixed with confusion that give the appearance of your being above the commoner-crowd, super-intelligent...which is a typical magician's trick that evolutionist play.

Here's the street language: photons regularly strike electrons at just the right speeds, at just the right angles, in accordance to their specific heights above atomic cores at the time of striking, to put electrons into perfect orbits. See the problem? I'm trying to make a near impossibility appear simple, naturally expected or easy to accomplish. If I invented this theory and called it a fact, you would call me a lunatic, but if the guards of physics invent it, and protect it with smooth talk, people swallow it whole. Fools breed fools.

They tell us that photons have no mass, and then suggest that photons fling electrons around protonic cores. How? With zero mass, how can the photon's speed-energy give an electron its own colossal speed?

Or, if the moon had a colossal volcanic explosion such that rock material spewed into space, by what mechanics would it go to a lower orbit, closer to the earth? It could just as possibly go into a higher orbit. What logic is there that electrons spewing photons ALWAYS go to lower orbits? It's fantasy, it doesn't happen. We clearly need a new atomic model with an non-orbiting electron.

AI is going to make a total embarrassment out of modern atomic physics when it can't answer questions such as I'm tasking it with. I asked: "where does the electron get its orbital motion"? Instead of answering the question, it pretends to, but in reality it only describes the orbit as being in balance between protonic attraction and electron speed (kinetics):

Electrons obtain their orbital motion from a balance of attractive and kinetic forces within an atom. The nucleus, carrying a positive charge, attracts the negatively charged electron. However, the electron also possesses kinetic energy, which keeps it from collapsing into the nucleus. This interplay results in the electron existing in a stable, orbiting state.

It didn't answer the question, because the quacks have no way to explain the creation of an electron orbit without looking like fools. The response simply assumes that the electron has orbital velocity. Ya-but, how does it get that kinetic energy??? The response uses a trick by saying, "within an atom." That is, it pretends that the electron gets its speed from the speedy electron within the atom. It's trying to fool you with confusion, hoping you're not paying attention. The electron cannot get its velocity from "kinetic forces within an atom" because the electron is the only kinetic/moving part of their atom. The core is stationary in relation to the orbital electron. The latter can't get its orbital motion, at any speed, from the attractive force of the proton, because the latter can only attract it to a dead stop upon the proton surface. AI is therefore lying to us because evolutionists are lying to us. AI is a lying machine when programmed to lie.

When asking the dummy machine, "where does the electron get its kinetic energy," it now turns to the motion of a free electron in an electrical wire, which supposedly flies through atoms down the electrical wire, no longer in orbit. Ya-but, when the electricity is turned off, the flying electron stops flying. What does it do then? Does it sit there, or does it start orbiting another atom. Wasn't it orbiting an atom before someone turned on the electric power? How do zillions of electrons go from flying straight down the wire into perfect orbits again? That's quackery.

AI responds to the question above like a person deflecting to a different topic, now taking shelter in the kinetic energy of electrons in electric wires, totally ignoring the kinetic energy in orbits:

"Electrons gain kinetic energy from the electric fields created by potential differences in a circuit. When a voltage is applied, it creates an electric field that pushes the free electrons, causing them to move from the negative to the positive terminal. This movement is what gives them kinetic energy. "

Imagine electrons in orbit around the atoms of a copper wire, when suddenly the big magnet at the electric plant repels them down the wire toward the light bulb. The electrons are going from spinning dizzy at nearly the speed of light to straight-flying , and the quacks haven't got sense enough not to pass this lunacy onto the students. See my last update for what's really happening to electrons inside a metal wire.

Next question for AI: "do electrons break orbits in electrical wires?" Look at how dishonest the wackos are:

No, electrons don't "break orbits" in the way you might think of them as orbiting a nucleus in a traditional atomic model. In a conductor like a wire, electrons are more like a "sea" of delocalized electrons that move within the metal's structure. When an electric field is applied, these electrons are pushed along the wire, creating a current.

So, the evolutionists programmed the AI computer to just skip the problematic fact that copper atoms have orbiting electrons prior to the straight-running of electrons when electric current is fed to the wire. JUST SKIP IT, don't put it into anyone's head that orbiting electrons start flying straight ahead only to go back into orbits the instant they stop flowing. Let's not tell anyone that part, and hope they're too stupid to realize the problem.

We might be getting the impression that, for copper wire, electrons don't orbit at all. Let's ask: "what happens to electrons when electric current is shut off?" We now find that the imposters would rather deny orbiting electrons than admit to them:

When an electric current is switched off, the flow of electrons stops, but the electrons themselves remain in the material. Since there's no longer a force pushing them, the electrons return to a more stable state, which means they're not moving as much as when they were part of a current.

Not moving as much? What does that mean? They don't go into orbits, they just stay in place with their engines vibrating? They don't orbit? Have the goofs just thrown their hands into the air to admit that electrons don't orbit in electric conductors? If so, why is it necessary for any atom to have orbiting electrons? Why can't all atoms have stationary electrons (until something forces them to move)? But of course. And why not?

The morons claim 29 orbiting electrons per copper atom. Imagine the crash-bang congestion as the magnet at the electric plant forces them out of orbits, and blows them down the wire such that they all strike atomic cores. How possibly could they avoid crashing into atomic cores, and how do you imagine the situation as they move at near light speed when crashing? Laughable farce.

AI says: "In metals, the outermost electrons of the atoms are not tightly held by any single atom but rather form a 'sea' of free electrons." That's my atomic model minus the orbiting electron, and minus the speed-of-light speed. I see protons surrounded by a sea, or atmosphere, of countless electrons (a lot more than 29), with the outermost electrons barely hanging on to the proton, and thus they easily transfer atom to atom down the wire, when pushed. BUT, my atom has STATIONARY electrons rather than orbiting, and so now you're being fed LOGIC. Swallow it, it's good for you.

So, the goofs have invented "free electrons" in metals to act as the ones producing electricity. BUT WAIT. How exactly do their free electrons behave when the electricity is shut off? If not in orbit, they should fall to the proton's surface. Therefore, indeed, they are quacks teaching quackery, that copper electrons are forced out of orbit to fly straight, then re-enter orbits as if easy as pie. If some physicists claim that the running electrons don't go back into orbits, then they need to explain how electrons can be stationary upon atoms, and that's my atomic model.

They program the AI computer to say: "Copper atoms have one valence electron that is easily dislodged and becomes a free electron." If you then ask whether valence electrons orbit, the answer is, yes. A lie. An impossibility. Making fools of themselves. Mistreating you. Taking you for their fool.

Imagine a bulb filament as a bridge 100 lanes wide. The copper wire is thousands of lanes wide each having electron-cars screeching rubber down the road. When they get to the filament, the ramps there cram them all into 100 lanes suddenly such that the congestion on the bridge tosses many of the cars off the bridge, into the gas of the bulb, as heat and light. What happens to these electrons now? Do they start to orbit the gas atoms? No. Where do they go? Are they still travelling at nearly the speed of light inside the bulb? Are the wackos wacko? Shouldn't they crack the glass at such speeds? How many times will they bang off the glass in one second, or before coming to rest?? Why shouldn't they come to rest? Or, do they start to orbit a glass atom? Why bother to answer these questions? Why delve into lunacy?

Let's ask google, "what happens to electrons boiling off a filament?"

When a filament is heated, electrons are "boiled off" in a process called thermionic emission...The released electrons form a negatively charged cloud around the filament.

LIAR! The electrons do not remain at the filament, but go through the bulb as heat. The filament is highly negative, and therefore repels electrons in the bulb. The electrons themselves repel each other, and as such they move through the glass of the bulb. If you keep the light bulb on for days straight, the bulb has not the room for all the boiled-off electrons (they are forced closer and closer, repelling harder and harder), and so it's TRUE that they go through the glass, and, of course, they go through as heat particles because free electrons define heat.

If they did not escape out the bulb, they would burst the bulb due to repulsive pressures. It's obvious, for heat has explosive power. If heat could not get out of the bulb, the bulb would quickly crack. Heat has explosive power, the very thing that causes explosions, because heat is inter-repelling electrons.

Noting that AI refused to answer how electrons form orbits, I re-worded the question as, "how do electrons enter orbits". But the schemers didn't answer that question either:

Electrons enter orbitals in a specific order determined by their energy levels, following the Aufbau principle. Electrons fill orbitals of lower energy first, and then move to higher energy orbitals.

That doesn't tell us HOW the electrons form orbits. It only tells us what formation the wackos think the electrons take. Plus, they have their situation backward from the logical expectation, meaning that they chose the illogical for an important reason. They have their situation backward thus: "Inner electrons in an atom generally move slower than outer electrons. This is because inner electrons are closer to the nucleus and experience a stronger electrostatic force, which restricts their movement." That's STUPID.

Ask any astronomer or satellite fixer, and they will tell you that, the closer to a planet a moon/satellite is, the faster it needs to orbit to maintain an orbit. But the wackos wanted it the other way around because they want to argue that light is formed when an electron has been placed into a higher, FASTER orbit. Ya-sure-sure. They say that, when a photon strikes an electron, the latter goes into a higher, faster orbit. Ya-ya, sure-sure. And when the higher electron throws the photon away, the electron settles back to a lower, slower orbit. SHAMELESS LAW BREAKERS.

Ahh, I've just fished out their trickery by asking: "can electrons be stationary in the atom?"

No, electrons in an atom cannot be stationary. Due to the strong electrostatic attraction between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons, stationary electrons would immediately fall into the nucleus, causing the atom to collapse.

This response has a cheap red herring. It's not true that, if electrons fall to the nucleus, the atom "collapses" i.e. gets destroyed. They want you to think so, but it's not true at all. Why should an atom be destroyed if many / countless electrons cover, and hover over, the proton? Rather, that is the true atom. They brainwash their peers and students into thinking that non-orbiting electrons make for non-atoms.

In reality, there is an aether of free electrons outside of every atom in existence. These free electrons are not the captured "free electrons" the goofs speak of in an electrical wire. My free electrons are fully free from protonic attraction, fully outside of atoms. When light waves move through this aether or sea of free electrons, they plunge aether electrons into the upper/outer layers of captured, stationary electrons. The light waves thus create commotion amongst captured electrons, causing them to bounce outward in all directions as reflected light. They create reflected light because the upward parts of their commotion strike aether electrons and thus send waves through the aether. No photons needed in or out of the atom, just ordinary, law-abiding, logical light waves.

There's only one other alternative to electron capture by orbitals: stationary, captured electrons. It's that simple to make goofs of the goofs. They know this alternative method of capture, of course, but they never so much as mention it let alone give reasons as to why it can't be the reality. They don't want anyone to know of this alternative, because they're crazy, not scientists.

When light strikes an atom, the atom "grows" larger because its stationary electrons are put into motion, causing the outer electrons to move a little further away from the proton. The electrons don't orbit higher, stupids, they bounce upward. The harder the light waves, the higher the electrons bounce, the harder the reflected light waves go out. The heavier and faster the rock into water, the higher the water splash. Reflected light is from the splashing of captured electrons after a free electron falls into the sea of captured electrons. It's that simple, why complicate it with impossible orbits and impossible photons?

No physical energy is needed inside the atom to form light, until light falls on the atom. Only then does the atom start to move with physical energy. Or, if the atoms are stirred to motion by some other method, such as a hammer against them, light will go out, as infra-red, due to the atomic motion at the surface of the hammer-struck material.

When we shine a light on a wall, say from a flashlight or a laser, the light enters the wall atoms from a straight-line attack, yet the light bounces out of every wall atom into ALL DIRECTIONS. That's because the captured electrons are bouncing chaotically i.e. into all directions.

The Air is Stacked With Electrons

The aether, which is easily proven to exist, is defined (my definition, my discovery) as inter-repelling free electrons. Due to their repulsion forces, they press in on every atom, assuring that outer captured electrons are smack beside the first free electrons into the aether. The atomic electrons don't need to bounce very high to send out light waves, therefore, because aether electrons are virtually kissing the atom's outer electrons. The aether is not some mysterious, ghostly thing. It's an electron gas (that does not form a liquid).

Asking google AI, "do electrons fill the air", tends to prove that the wicked are terrified of the people learning that electrons fill the air. AI responds, "No, electrons do not fill the air in the same way they fill an atom's energy levels." It's a trick answer to avoid answering. I didn't ask whether electrons fill the air in the way they orbit protons. The same response goes on:

Air is primarily composed of neutral molecules like nitrogen and oxygen, with their electrons bound within those molecules. While UV radiation and cosmic rays can knock electrons off these molecules, creating free electrons and positive ions, this is a temporary effect and these free electrons are not a continuous 'filling' of the air.

Note how they insist that air has NEUTRAL atoms. But when it comes to their explaining how gas atoms turn to liquid, they say that gas atoms attract. Asking, "do gas atoms attract to form liquids", the response is: "Yes, gas atoms and molecules do attract each other...When a gas is compressed or cooled, the increased pressure and decreased kinetic energy of the gas molecules allow their attractive forces to overcome the repulsive forces, causing them to condense into a liquid." They can't have it both ways, neutral on the one hand, attractive on the other. It means that AI is lying the lie of the evolutionists, especially as it can be proven that all gas atoms repel each other.

One cannot build a device to detect the electromagnet charge of air atoms if one builds the device in air, and sets it to zero charge in air. It's going to register zero charge in air, duh, which of course doesn't prove that air atoms are neutral in charge.

So, we read above that free electrons don't fill the air. It's a lie. Desperation is showing. The odd electrons they say, are removed off of atoms, but this is "temporary." Oh ya? Where do the positive-charged atoms get their electrons to become neutral again? You are being led to imagine that the electrons lost by atoms, by any means, come back to the same atoms. BALONEY. Again, where do electrons come from to re-load atoms having lost some?

I ask google: "do rubbed objects re-load with electrons from the air." Of course they do, if they lose them during the rubbing, but AI again show the desperation of the evolutionists:

"No, rubbed objects do not reload with electrons from the air. When two objects are rubbed together, electrons are transferred between the objects, not from the air. This transfer of electrons causes one object to become negatively charged (gains electrons) and the other to become positively charged (loses electrons)."

See the trick? I didn't ask whether electrons from the air participate in what goes on between rubbed objects. Why is it lying when saying, "No, rubbed objects do not reload with electrons from the air"? From where do they re-load, if not from the air? Is AI stupid, or did evolutionists SPECIALLY and DELIBERATELY program the google computer to deny re-loading from the air? Now you're onto them, fiends, liars, guardians of big-bang "science."

How much friction happens every day, every minute, in this world? Yet, every object that loses electrons in friction re-loads automatically no matter where it is. You can rub objects in the living room, then take them quickly to the kitchen to get them away from any electrons that may have slipped into the living-room air, yet the object will re-load in the kitchen too. YET, google's LYING MACHINE wants to teach that the air is not filled with free electrons. That's because evolutionists are desperate to protect their photon, and their kinetic theory of heat. Guardians of the Lies.

Some admit that there are free electrons in air, but only scanty. Nobody who wants to remain respected in this world will openly say that the air is an aether of electrons that defines heat and allows light waves. Any such person will be taken as an uneducated / rebellious radical by the wrongly-educated and rebellious wackos.

You can't build a device to detect electrons in air if you set it to zero electrons in air. Plus, even though there are many free electrons in a light bulb, equipment cannot detect them as a strong negative charge, meaning that they are too few to make the gas emit a negative charge. I asked google about the charge of a gas in a bulb, and got this response: "The gas inside a light bulb, such as argon, neon, or krypton, generally maintains a neutral overall charge. While the gases may contain some ions and free electrons during operation, the net charge remains close to zero." It implies some scanty negative charge.

When electrons are "boiled" (stupid term) off of a light-bulb filament, the last thing the finks want to admit is that they go lost through the bulb's glass, because the finks then need to explain where the copper wire gets its electrons back. From the air, of course. And now you know partly why AI gave the following answer to my question: "do electrons come out of a stove element?"

"No, electrons don't 'come out' of a stove element in the sense of leaving the material completely. Instead, they are part of the current that flows through the heating element, and they return to the circuit via the wiring."

That's a lie. The element glows for the same reason that the filament glows, due to the loss of electrons, but perish that thought, they want to minimize the opportunities for people to realize that electrons define heat. They will admit only that the electrons indirectly cause heat by first speeding up the atoms in the stove element. The only alternative is that the electrons leaking out of the element are the heat. Therefore, I'm not passing off a wacko theory, but a fact, because the kinetic theory of heat can be shown blatantly erroneous.

Heat will penetrate a vacuum just as well / easily as it penetrates a gas. How can this be explained unless heat were made of free electrons? I owned a 40-watt light bulb (by Sylvania) with vacuum, and it got very hot, at the top, as soon as it was turned on. It was only warm at the bottom. HOT ON TOP, only warm on the bottom. Nobody can credit this to photons, because they shoot equally in all directions. Nobody can credit this to the kinetic theory of heat because it necessitates that heat spreads equally in all directions.

As a vacuum gets about 95-percent or more of the air removed, the kinetic-heat transfer through the bulb should be reduced greatly in quantity and speed, if the goof theory is true that heat is from sped-up atoms. As heat flows normally through a vacuum, that's how you can know that electrons come out of a stove element, for the only way to explain heat through a vacuum is by electrons through a vacuum. Put a stove element into a vacuum, and set it on the lowest seating such that it doesn't emit light, and heat will fill it because free electrons fill it. They lie; electrons do come out of the element.

They are prisoners to their theories, always teaching "facts" in accordance with the predictions of their theories. They say: "Yes, a heating element can be used to heat a vacuum. However, it will heat the vacuum primarily through radiation, not convection or conduction, as these methods require a medium [gas] to transfer heat." Liars. The radiation strikes only the container walls, and any heat on those walls is not supposed to enter the vacuum, in their kinetic theory of heat. Yet the vacuum is itself filled with extra heat from the element. It's easy to prove. Put any hot item in a vacuum beneath some suspended butter, and watch the butter melt. It's going to melt just as fast in vacuum as in air.

Measure the temperature increase per minute in a gas-filled container, and it will be roughly the same as in the same container but with gas removed, proving that heat is not due to excitation of gas atoms.

LIARS. They know full well that, when they place a heating element in a vacuum, the container gets hottest by far directly above the heater, proving that something is propelling the electrons upward. Blinded by their kinetic theory, they fail to realize, or at least resist telling the world when they do realize it, that gravity repels electrons. There's nothing in a vacuum but the electrons and gravity force. Duh, what's wrong with the big-bang goofs that they should war against this obvious truth?

Asking youtube for "heat in vacuum experiment," precious little comes up. In the video below, someone removes air from a container and shows that the vacuum temperature goes down from 17 C to 11 C at the lowest, during evacuation to near-full vacuum, but then rises again. Both are expected because evacuating the air also evacuates free electrons, and allowing the vacuum to sit allows electrons to enter through the atomic spaces of the container's atoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hTAr2GkhpM

The vacuum should not have increased from 11C if heat is defined as the motion of atoms. The video owner claims that the temperature started to increase, from 11 to 15.9, not in the vacuum, but only at the sensor of the thermometer, and he wrongly claims that this heat came from the other parts of the thermometer. He believes that the heat in the thermometer cannot transfer into the vacuum.

You can tell he's a dishonest player because he didn't show us the vacuum's final temperature. He didn't claim that 15.9 is the final temperature, and, no doubt at all in my mind, the temperature would have soon-after climbed back up to 17 to match the temperature outside of the container, because that's the true source of the heat that was entering the thermometer's sensor. Heat was passing right through the vacuum.

He then goes on to give his audience the false impression that a vacuum in a thermos doesn't transfer any heat. That thermos would keep coffee just about as warm if it had an air gap instead of the vacuum gap. The vacuum has a slight advantage over the air gap because a vacuum can hold more heat particles than air i.e. it takes longer to heat the vacuum to a specific temperature as compared to an air gap.

In the video below (after 2:00 minutes), a red-hot ball is placed in a vacuum, which loses most of its glow after little more than a minute, even though only a minute amount of its heat can be transferring through the stand that it sits on. After two minutes, the glow was all but gone. Imagine how much heat is in that ball, transferring through the vacuum as fast and easy as making brute, lying apes of physicists. The container walls are warm all over, and so why didn't the diabolical, lying apes get a similar video online? Because, they are diabolical, not wanting to reveal it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lR3k0wf_iU&t=19s

The video owner above is once again the dishonest player that did the earlier video. He now apes the liars in saying that the container walls got hot via radiated heat. He's dishonest because he could do the experiment again using normal air, to show that the ball loses heat roughly at the same rate in both situations, and we know for sure that heat leaks off (i.e. not radiated heat) into the air/space when the container is filled with air. Nor did this dishonest player tell us that the ball would come down to room temperature even after it stopped radiating. But, dishonest player that he is, he would say that a ball, or anything else, radiates some heat even at near-room temperature.

Plus, if he was a good guy, he would have told us what he knew, that the container was hotter directly above the ball than anywhere else, proving that the ball was leaking heat into the space, for radiated heat (they imagine photons) goes in all directions equally. The only thing this ape wanted to do was ape his idols. He's not after truth if it muddies what his idols teach only to point to guilty finger at himself for his part in the idolatry.

If he made the vacuum space very cold by applying nitrogen gas to the exterior of the container, the same hot ball in a vacuum would lose its glow a lot sooner, which is not expected if the only heat loss is via radiation. This man is not after truth. He lies to you. He's not trying, but to give you the standard trash. If he were trying, he'd cover the ball to keep light from getting to the container walls, to prove whether heat is leaking into the space. It of course is. Or, try a large light bulb covered in tin foil, then feel the heat on the container walls.

Worldly people love to celebrate the heights of modern knowledge, not realizing what a sham it can be. It's known that flames emit electrons. google AI will confirm it. The dishonest player above heated the ball to glowing with a torch, and he therefore impregnated the ball with electrons freed from the flame. Therefore, the heat released into the vacuum was, not from the captured electrons of the ball's atoms, but from free electrons crammed into the atomic spaces by the flame.

Dishonest player didn't tell his viewers that the red ball's light was almost wholly going through the transparent container, meaning that most of the radiant heat was not absorbed by the container.

Here's another video having a light bulb in a vacuum, and the vacuum starts at the same temperature as the air outside of the vacuum. He allowed the vacuum to reach that same outer temperature before turning on the light bulb. How does that happen, do you think? Everything is screaming that the kinetic theory of heat is false, for after the bulb is shut off, heat leaves the vacuum through the container walls. At 5500-6000 microns, this fella has 99-percent of the air removed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv3V5XIJayA

Let's go back to examine a light-bulb filament. One second it doesn't shine with photons, the next minute is does even though no photons were put into the copper wire in that time period. The goofballs need to argue that the photons were in the copper wire all along, stored on the atoms. But this is not what they say when they tell what atoms consist of, because it's problematic. If the electrons were not orbiting at the near-speed of light, people would have a harder time believing that photons move at the speed of light, if they were simply parked on stationary electrons within the atom.

Did you see that? The photon was invented roughly at the time of the orbital model of the atom. They tend to teach that photons are continually moving at 186,000 mps without ceasing, as if this is just a natural trait of this particle, as if nothing can slow it down. I assume they teach that, when a photon strikes an electron, it bumps up its speed to 186,000 mph, for they do say that the electron "absorbs" extra energy when absorbing a photon. The photons doesn't crash violently into the electron, but gets ever-so-nicely absorbed because these men were crazy law-breakers.

We now go to any kind of combustible gas coming out a torch nozzle. We give it a spark, and boom, there's light whereas there's not light prior to the spark. The lunatics now need to teach that the gas atoms had photons built-in, but they come out forming light only in the combustion process. But if all types of gases and metal atoms have built-in photons, why shouldn't all atoms have them too? Isn't this problematic? Why should photons remain on atoms forever unless the atoms are undergoing the combustion process, or unless the electrons are being stressed out through a thin wire or semi-conductor like a stove element?

google's AI: "LED lights produce light through a process called electroluminescence. When an electrical current passes through a semiconductor, electrons and holes recombine, releasing energy in the form of light (photons)." Never mind the "holes," which don't exist anymore than orbiting electrons do. The point is, the semi-conductor material need to be viewed as having built-in photons that stay forever on the atoms until a magnet causes electrical flow across the atoms. Does that seem real to you?

How does an electron "absorb" it such that it just stays on the electron? The photon can come in on the electron from any random angle. Go ahead, explain to your satisfaction how the photon comes to piggy-back on the electron. Go ahead, be a moron, claiming that it happens even though you don't understand how, even though the odds are a zillion to one against it.

When electrons fly through atomic space in an electrical wire to your vacuum cleaner, they don't strike atomic cores only, but the captured electrons. How do the straight-shooting electrical electrons collide with the orbital electrons without knocking them out of orbit, or without knocking off their piggy-backing photons? Go ahead, be an absolute moron, and try to explain it.

There are all sorts of electrical uses that produce ZERO light. Why? What allows the photons to remain on the electrons whether the electrons orbit, or whether they are suddenly sent straight along the wire? It makes us wonder what sort of a monkey wrench it is for the traditional atomic model to simply and logically claim that the photon is really the electron.

Usually, electrical flow only produces minimal heat, because some captured electrons are leaking out of the wire. But when electrons are leaking profusely when forced to flow across an extremely thin wire, the filament, they produce bright light and much heat. Doesn't it sit better with you that light is produced by the emission of electrons from the atoms, no photons needed?

In combustion, the gas atoms merge with oxygen atoms. When atoms merge, their electron atmosphere's merge. Of course, in that process, the density of electrons increases in the shared, merged regions. When two gas atoms merge to form a liquid, their shared, merged region exactly doubles in density. Right? What's going to happen as electrons are forced much closer together in these merged regions? They will repel each other much more strongly, and as the protons can't hold them in the electron atmospheres, they inter-repel each other clear out of the atom. Thus, they emit from the atoms and cause heat or visible light.

It's known that all gas atoms emit heat when merging to produce liquid droplets. Exactly the same amount of heat is absorbed by atoms when they unmerge again into separate gas atoms during evaporation. That's because atoms reclaim the electrons they lost during merger. But where do these electrons come from if not from in the air? No matter where liquids evaporate, they re-load their electrons.

The quacks refuse to see electrons coming and going during atomic mergers and unmergers. In that case, they need another way to explain heat formation and heat absorption during mergers and unmergers. As they define higher heat as greater atomic motion, they need to claim that atoms move faster when merging into liquid droplets. But where's the logic? Where's the reason for faster speed when, for example, gravity forces two water molecules to merge on a leaf top as dew? There's no energy going into the water molecules to make them go faster just because gravity pulls them together.

Or, when a gas is compressed in a sealed container, it forms liquid, and gives off heat, even though there's nothing going on to make the gas atoms move faster. Clearly, heat is NOT from faster atoms. Or, if a piston goes in the other direction, allowing a gas to expand, it absorbs heat even though there's nothing happening to make the atoms move slower. What's really going on? They can't argue that heat increase is also due to more-condensed gas atoms because doubling the gas pressure, which doubles the number of atoms, nowhere-near doubles the temperature.

There's only one explanation as the alternative when liquid formation releases heat, and that's because electrons go free from atoms during the merger of their electron atmospheres. Both heat and light are formed when electrons emit from atoms because heat formation emits some light, usually invisible. And the only way for electron emissions to produce light is via an aether in the air.

There's no way for the source of this vast aether to be merely in the electrons released by daily water formation in the clouds, especially as all water in clouds was evaporated to begin with, which absorbs as many electrons as are emitted during liquid formation. The only-possibly source for the atmospheric aether is from solar electrons, such a logical reality. It's possible that at least some of the solar electrons are leaked when hydrogen atoms in the sun become helium "atoms."

Why is helium called an atom when it ought to be deemed a molecule? Often, molecules do not react with any other substance to form a different molecule. As helium will not react with any other atom to form a molecule, chances are high that helium is already a molecule. Why couldn't helium be a merger of some hydrogen atoms i.e. a hydrogen molecule? If correct, then at least some of the solar-wind electrons may be sourced in helium formation, for it involves mergers i.e. releasing electrons.

At first, in or nearer to the 1950s, when the solar wind was discovered, the goons told us that the solar wind consists half of bare protons, and half of free electrons. Whenever any reality threatens their key theories, they start to fabricate i.e. tell lies. Shudder, not only might the people start to think that the solar electrons form the light-wave medium, but they might realize that solar heat are the electrons themselves. Something had to be done to counter those possibilities, and so what they did was to change their story such that the solar wind is now predominantly made of protons, with just a few electrons. LIARS.

Surely, you understand that, if the sun can fling protons into space, it should be able to fling full hydrogen atoms too. Why not? Or, with so many protons, how do they not attract solar-wind electrons such that they become hydrogen atoms on the flight toward earth? Indeed, as the goons insist that protons and electrons flying out from the big-bang explosion attracted each other to form hydrogen atoms, how could they not do the same in the much slower solar-wind situation?

Forget it. What really happened is that NASA discovered electrons flying away from the sun, and, in keeping with their erroneous theory that a hydrogen atom consists of one proton with one-only orbiting electrons (these guys were lunatics), they fabricated the "fact" that the solar wind consists of half protons and half electrons. Otherwise, the sun would get a surplus of bare protons if the solar wind had more electrons than protons.

But how can we even imagine bare protons in the sun when its filled with free electrons? If electrons can fly down an electric wire only to re-enter orbits as if the natural thing to do, how could bare protons exist in the sun with ample electrons?

How do we imagine that solar protons are shot into space without their electrons to begin with? If the solar wind has more protons by far than electrons, then the sun is becoming progressively negatively charged, in which case it ought to send more electrons into space than protons, for a negatively-charged sun would repel electrons and attract protons. If the sun can expel bare protons while negatively charged, it would be able to expel hydrogen atoms a lot easier. Forget it, it's not happening. There's no protons in the solar wind, the evolutionists lied to their students, who then passed the lie to their students, who then passed a modified lie to their students.

Earth's air is filled with electrons, solar heat, the scariest thing to big-bangers. They know that, if ever they need to confess that they had an erroneous atomic model, nobody will ever again respect their "science," which will put the spotlight on their big-bang fantasy. As it's not true that all protons are identical, their atomic model is ailing for a lot more reasons than the orbital electron.

Helium, they say, consists of two protons clustered at the core, with two orbiting electrons. They devised it to look like two H atoms superimposed. Helium gas weighs twice as much as hydrogen gas (when both are at STP), but, they wrongly gave helium an atomic weight of four when, in their atomic scheme, they should have assigned helium an atomic weight of two, because, in their scheme, atomic weight must be proportional to gas weights. That's because they claim (wrongly) that every gas at STP has the same number of atoms, meaning that they are forced to assign helium gas with as many helium atoms as hydrogen gas, except that helium atoms weight twice as much (in their book).

However, for some reason that I'm not familiar with, they made the hydrogen atom, without proof, a diatomic atom, which is to say that they made it a hydrogen molecule of two hydrogen atoms merged, but because they knew it would appear wrong to do so, they didn't call it a molecule, but a diatomic (= double) atom. Do you think they should have been able to get away with that? Then, because hydrogen gas has diatomic atoms, according to their scheme, they had to double the atomic weight of helium, and that's how they made it four instead of two, due directly to their diatomic-H trick.

But, it didn't end there, for with an atomic weight of four and only two protons, the helium atom weighs just as much as a diatomic H atom. The "solution" was to invent neutrons that weigh as much as protons but have no more positive charge. That's called cheating the world with make-believe. Voila, they pulled two neutrons out of their hat, and assigned them to the helium atoms so that it could weigh twice as much as a hydrogen atom, in conformity to a helium gas known to weigh twice as much. But if you buy all of this, your are one naive customer. Don't be stupid.

Realize, if nothing more, that all gases at STP do NOT have the same number of atoms. There's no reason nor rhyme for such a cosmic coincidence. That alone causes their atomic model to be erroneous. What a bunch of lying delinquents.

Let's ask google, "why do all gases at STP have the same number of atoms?" Google has no answer, of course, because the goofs have no answer. Here's the response:

At Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), all gases have the same number of molecules within the same volume because of Avogadro's Law. This law states that equal volumes of different gases, at the same temperature and pressure, contain the same number of molecules.

Ya-but, that's like saying that the sky is green because Avogadro made it a law. The goofs are trying to trick you. You are being led to believe that his law has merit. It does not. Nobody can explain the reason or rhyme for that "law," and you can find articles telling that it's a mere theory. Avogadro is one of the science idols that evolutionists push on the world, because he's badly needed for his law. Not atomic/molecular size, weight, density, imagined kinetic speed, or any combination thereof, can explain why all gases should have the very same number of atoms when they are at the same temperature and pressure.

Therefore, every atom is erroneously drawn due to this atomic-weight interpretation, but add to this picture that proton clusters cannot exist, and neither do neutrons. This is not a small problem for the wizards, who will go down in history as passing off the biggest science scandal ever. As oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than hydrogen gas, they assigned the oxygen atom 16 times as many protons as a hydrogen atom. See the problem?

It's easy to spot as a crippling problem. They think that both gases have the same number of atoms, at STP, and thus they conclude a fantasy, that oxygen has 16 times the protons, and 16 times the electrons. Just admit that it's erroneous, and then you are open and clear to come up with another atomic model. That's what I did, and I was able to find a way to find what molecules truly look like if only we know the weight of a gas for any element. But that's another story not to be repeated here.

The problem is, there cannot be a gas weight at STP for most elements because their boiling points are far above standard temperature. I don't know how the goofs work that out for finding the atomic weights of metals, for example, but there's a lot of room there for fudging with the numbers, when they need to. I therefore cannot trust their stated atomic weights for most elements, that they are perfectly proportional to gas weights. Their trick is to always make atomic weights appear as though atoms are made of multiple H atoms. They assign gold an atomic weight of 197 (full number) because assigning it 196.5 or 197.5 contradicts their claim that every atom is a multiple of one hydrogen atom, which itself is assigned an atomic weight of 1. What they are claiming is that gold gas weighs 197 times as much as hydrogen gas at the same temperature and pressure. Guaranteed, this is not true at every temperature tested. THEY LIE. Ditto for every metal. They can cherry pick a certain temperature that works for their theory, and then deny us the fact that a full number is not obtained at other temperatures.

Gravity Exposes Atmospheric Electrons

With their so-called "negative mass," physicists toy with a hypothetical material that is repelled by gravity rather than attracted, even though they do not view gravity as a negative, electromagnetic force. By "negative mass," they mean only that it works in reverse to the downward pull of gravity; it has not to do with electromagnetism. But it's not hypothetical, negative mass does exist as the electrons, and, therefore, they are wrong: gravity is an electromagnetic force.

The kinetic theory cannot explain why hotter air rises. Hotter air amid cooler air has no bottom side by which it can be lifted, as has a party balloon. In their view, the atoms in hotter air do not become lighter than atoms of cooler air. In their view, hotter atoms are faster atoms, but nothing is available in all the world of logic to explain why faster atoms should rise. Hotter air has atoms further apart, but there is nothing in all the world of logic to explain why atoms should rise just because they have more space between them. CLEARLY, hotter air rises because gravity repels electrons against the underside of each air atom. Therefore, the air is filled with electrons.

To be sure, colder air does invade hotter air. Open your door in winter, and colder air pours into the bottom half of the door, forcing the hotter air out the top half of the door. Never fails. Therefore, if there is a "pocket" of hot air outdoors, one might argue that the hotter air rises because colder air is forcing its way into the hotter air. But why should it rise on that invasion argument alone? One can argue that the invasion will simply spread the hot air out, not compelling it upwards necessarily, but in all directions equally.

But if we add upward-moving electrons into the picture of a heated pocket of air invaded by cooler air, then it tends to explain the upward direction of the heated air. But there is something else going on, because the upward lift from the electrons makes the atoms in the hotter air "lighter" than the atoms in the cooler air. The atoms don't change weight, but we can say that gravity has less net force upon them in the downward direction.

So, when you open the door in winter, the cold air forces its way into the door, as if it were water pouring in, because gravity attracts atoms in the cold with more net-force than atoms in the heat of the home. Atoms inter-repel more forcefully when in a colder environment, not only because they are closer to each other, but because the extra downward pull of gravity upon them translates to outspreading in all directions i.e. even sideways through the door.

The hot air in the home is not invading the outdoors under its own steam. The cold air at the top of the door would invade the house too if not for the fact that the heated air in the house has to go somewhere when cold air invades it, and so the heated air naturally goes out the top half of the door. The heated air never exits the bottom half of the door. Why not? The colder air has "heavier" atoms, and the warmer air has "lighter" atoms. Can that answer the question? I don't see what else can. How can heated air have de-facto lighter atoms? By having more electrons underneath them repelled upward by gravity.

There could be no air without electrons in their midst. It's a law. It's the reality that hell-bound deviants want to hide from you. Without solar electrons, gases couldn't exist. Remove all heat, and air is a solid block of "ice." God is a genius, admit it, goofballs.

In the kinetic theory, atoms do not have a means to alter weights. Atoms in colder air are not pulled by gravity stronger than atoms in warmer air, meaning that the kinetic theory cannot explain why cold air invades the bottom half of the door.

The goofs will tell us that colder air is heavier due to being more packed with atoms per unit of space, but the fact remains that all atoms are pulled by gravity by the same force. Don't fool yourself when pondering this situation. The air needs to be imagined as individual atoms, not blocks of air. Why should atoms plow sideways through the door just because they are more dense on the outside than the inside? What would compel them to go sideways where the goofs tell us that the atoms are neutral in electromagnetic charge? Why should atoms that supposedly don't repel each other move sideways just because they are closer to each other? See the problem?

But that's not all, for in their scheme, the atoms in the house are moving faster such that, if any inward invasion is justified, it should be canceled due to in-house atoms having more outward punch. The outdoors has more atoms for more inward punch, but they are to be deemed slower, having less punch on that factor. Besides, atomic invasion from atomic punching cannot conceivably move as fast as cold-air invasion into a house at multiple feet per second. The reality is that gravity is forcing the colder air in, in which case the "colder" atoms are getting more gravity pull.

They cannot get more gravity pull just because they are closer to each other, don't fool yourself. The only blocks the air is made of is individual atoms. You are correct to say that colder air is heavier, but you should not view the air as blocks of any size, but rather each atom is a block. The heavier atoms will move the lighter atoms aside. You should not view the air as a block of multiple atoms, and then say that this block is heavier (due to having more atoms per space) such that it pushes lighter blocks of air over. Don't fool yourself that way, because the atomic magicians want you to fool yourself in exactly that way.

As colder air invades warmer air, the goofs will tell us such contradictory things as: "Low air pressure is generally associated with warmer temperatures, not colder." Ya-but, warmer gas has higher pressure than colder gas, wherefore meteorologists are not wording it correctly with the claim above. The hotter air has higher pressure, yet a second factor must be at work to make colder air invade the hotter. The second factor is above. Free electrons fill the air and make the atoms of warmer air get less downward pull from gravity. This second factor allows lower-pressure air to invade higher-pressure air whereas the reverse is true when two masses of air are at the same temperature.

It then becomes predictable that, at some temperature above winter temperature but below room temperature, neither outside air will nor in-house air will invade the other because the pressure of the warmer air equals the invasive power of the cooler air.

I've noted that, in winter, the cold air from the outside does not flow down my 5-inch chimney pipe to a thankless hot-water heater when it's not operating. It suggests that, at some point up this pipe, the temperature is such that it creates an equalization of invasive powers, the hot air seeking to rise as hard into the cooler air as the cooler air seeks to fall into the warmer air.

When we light a match stick, we can see the upward direction of both the flame and smoke, yet there's nothing stopping the colder air from above and beside the match from invading in the downward and sideways directions. The colder air wants to invade the flame from all directions equally, and the flame is easily invaded. It doesn't possess concrete walls. Yet the flame, filled with freed electrons, insists on flowing upward. Every time, never fails. What do you think is going on? There is an upward force in the flame countering the downward force of the cooler air. A burning match wins the invasion battle because it's far hotter than the air halfway up my chimney pipe.

The goobers claim that gravity attracts electrons. Therefore, the electrons freed into a light bulb should accumulate at the bottom of the bulb. Do they? Of course not. For if they did fall to the bottom, the deviants would have been sure to make it priority education.

The reason that a bulb warms up a little sideways and downward from the filament is that electrons in the bulb inter-repel in all directions. The various temperatures at all points of the bulb's glass reach a maximum when the electrons escaping out the glass equal in numbers the electrons arriving to those points. The more they accumulate at any point, the closer they come to each other, and, consequently, the harder and faster they inter-repel through the glass. The video below shows that electrons in a light bulb discolor glass, a thing known for well over a century, same sort of yellowing effect as light shining on paper and other materials, because that too is from the striking of electrons:

There are stupids to this day preferring to say that filaments light up "when they heat up." No, stupids, not excited atoms, but emitted electrons. As they emit, they also excite the captured electrons which may or may not emit / leak out, adding to the light waves. Those which do leak away (completely predictable) form the heat in combination with the out-shooting electrons from the electric current.

Spiderweb Attack on Russia

One problem with Ukraine-war propaganda is that pro-Ukraine news activists portray Ukraine's survival on Russia's inability to defeat Kiev. The reality is that Russia has decided not to take Ukraine for fear of Western / world backlash. Russia doesn't want to look like an aggressor, and that is the correct decision. The war therefore continues because the West continues to egg Ukraine to kill Russians. NATO, last week, aided a brutal attack of Russia's nuclear aircraft just sitting at their airports. It's taking Russia to a breaking point.

Imagine this, comparing it to the situation in brackets. In 2014, Russia (or the U.S.) conducted a successful coup in Canada (or Ukraine), installing a pro-Russian (pro-American) president in Canada (or Ukraine). Russia (or the U.S.) then pays for weapons for Canada (or Ukraine) to use against the United States (or Russia). The United States (or Russia) then goes to war against Russia (or Ukraine) to defend itself from the Russians (or the NATO-Ukraine alliance). Would the pro-Ukraine Americans / Canadians blame the United States for defending itself? No. Yet they blame Russia for defending itself against U.S.-led NATO.

Not many days ago, about the time that Trump called Putin "crazy" for violating his will to create a peace treaty, there was an assassination attempt on Putin. When I saw Trump asked whether he knew about the assassination attempt, his surprise-look denial made me think that he himself called for the assassination. Immediately after the attempt, Putin threw some nasty words at Trump. The attack on the Russian airport could possibly have been ordered by Trump.

On June 2, the day of the drone bombing, the German chancellor said that America, France and Britain removed the restriction in Ukraine for the use of American missiles (I assume includes bomb-carrying drones) INSIDE RUSSIA. I suppose Germany was protecting itself by telling Russia, it's not Germany attacking you. If Trump ordered this attack, it just goes to show that he's exactly the type of lunatic that would go full-speed to Armageddon. It seems that NATO is intent on actually conquering Russia by a coup, by first spoiling the Russian military.

This thing could be integral to fulfilling anti-Christ prophecy. I don't think Putin has the personality or "values" of a Russian anti-Christ. I tend to think that, the more NATO pushes Russia, the more the latter will misbehave in the Middle East when the opportunity presents itself.

The attack exposes yet again that Russia has weak-against-drone defense. In the meantime, NATO probably views Russia's nuclear-bomb threats as empty, perfect for starting a world war. But, there will not be a world war during the first years of the final 1260 days. Here's reportedly how the attack took place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qotlLcuk4DY&t=58s

Why would Ukraine reveal how the attack took place? Why would NATO reveal to Russia how the next attack may take place? A warning to Putin to do a peace treaty or else? That looks like a Trump move. He's got his Ukraine mineral rights, and now he wants Putin to do his will lickety-split.

I'm now reminded that Mr. Kepke, my teen friend with a Ukrainian father, chased me with a spider dangling on a web because he knew I was terrified of spiders. I've shown many times how Kepke's and Keeps trace to "Kiev," and the Ukrainian bombing of the Russian military bases this week was called, Spiderweb. Keeps use a "weaver's shuttle" while Weavers were a Webber branch.

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

I've told that he chased me on Doner street between the GRAFF residence and a BARN, and I can now say that while English Barns share the Treby Chief, Trebys can be from ancient Trypillians of Kiev. Plus, German Barns/Berns, with the Keep bend in colors reversed, are first known in Switzerland with Graffs. English Trips are first known in Kent with Drainers while Drone's are listed with Drains (share Washington and Black Chief). Was God pointing via Kepke's spider chase to this week's bombing? If so, why?

[I missed it while writing here, that the Flame's/Flamants, expected in the "flammant" crescents of Putins/Patents, have a Coat reflecting the Barn Coat.]

Treby-like Traby of Poland married the Astikas' of Vilnius (see Traby horn article at Wikipedia), and, yesterday, a day before the drone bombings in Russia, NATO leader (Mark Rutte) was at a B9 meeting in Vilnius with Zelensky (Ukraine president). It appears that NATO and Ukraine were in the process, deliberately, of bombing Russia during the Vilnius meet. It's really quite amazing that this Arms of Traby shares five, white feathers in Crest with the Scrolls in the "scroll" of the Rutt Crest. Mark Rutte, NATO chief.

I don't remember when I first saw Kepke's white pet RAT, whether 15 or 16 years of age.

A couple of years after Kepke met Miss Peare at REITmans, he went into plumbing sales, and so it's very interesting that Jewish Reitmans share the hexagrams of German PLUME's/Plumers and Tunnels/Tunno's. English Plumbers share the Shoe star. Tunnels/Tunno's (Northumberland with Keep-loving Hebrons) are in the "tunnel" of spider-like Spitzers, incredible.

Towns/Tune's were heavily in the last update with Tunbridge's and Townsands, and the latter are in Rutt colors and format. Townsands were at Rainham while Rainhams almost have the Treby Chief. Irish Clare's share five, white feathers in Crest with Rutts while Rats almost have the cross of SinCLAIRs, a Clare branch.

It just so happens that while Clare's were at Tunbridge Wells, and while English Clare's are first known in Suffolk with Towns/Tune's and Kepke-connectable Kidds, Rutts have "A PLUME of SILVER feathers" while German Silvers are in Kepke colors and format. Irish Clare's have "A plume of five silver ostrich feathers."

During the spider chase, Kepke had a black dog, Blacky, and Blacks were Drone/Drain kin. Blacks (Yorkshire with Keppochs and Blaze's) have a dragon head while Drainers are listed with Dragons. Dragon-using Drake's are first known in Hampshire with Chase's. I can show that case's were kin of GRIFFin-loving Leslie's, from Lesce, beside Bled. Blackys almost have the Bled/Bles Coat (colors-reversed version of English Clare Coat) while Blaze's almost have the Black Coat. Bless' list Blois' while English Blois' show only dragons. Will the Biblical dragon show his face as a result of this week's attack? Does Russia have no choice by to conquer Kiev?

The spider chase was on Doner street in Gormley (the barn is still there last time I checked). Doners/Donahue's may have been from the Don river in Ukraine's Donbas, now controlled by Russia. The mouth of the Don is near Kepoi in the Taman peninsula. Tame's share the GRIMM/Grime martlets, in colors reversed from the Gormley/Grimes martlets. Across the sea from Kepoi is CRIMea, likewise a Ukraine piece of land controlled by Russia.

On Tuesday of this week, same day as I'm writing this section, Ukraine and/or Nato and/or the U.S. blew up a foundation section of the Crimean bridge. It remained operative, however. This bridge happens to span between the Taman peninsula and Kerch in Crimea, how about that. I didn't get the news of this bridge until writing to the Gutte's below, and I didn't know that it has one end near about 20 miles from Kepoi until now.

Just a few months after Kepke started to sell shoes, he began seeing Miss Peare for a couple of years, and Taman-like Thames'/Tame's share the Peare chevron-with-stars, and while both share the chevron of Abbots (all three surnames first known in the same place), "patria" is an Abbot motto term for connection to the Peartree's/Patria's.

Like I've said a few times: when Kepke was to my place, in Markham, at about age 13, the year before the spider chase, my mother's cousin was over, Mr. GRIMaldi, and we moved to Gormley late in my 13th year. Kepke called him a "goof" ON THAT DAY, and I've suspected that God breathed that through him because Goffs/Gough's share the GOOGE boar. Perhaps the Biblical Gog will be a Kiev liner, that is, but it also allows him to be a Russian, for Varangians named Russians and co-founded Moscow. My mother is a Masci on her mother's side. See that? Gog, Meshech and Rosh.

Moreover, Gophers/Gofer, in the same colors, have "GUTTee de SANG" while German Goods/GUTs (Switzerland with Graffs) share the Singer/Sanger sheaves. Kepke's use a giant goat expected in the "Gott" motto term of German Weavers/Webbers (Saxony with Kepke's), and Markhams are first known in Nottinghamshire with Goats/Gothams.

Gutte's (giant rose for Varangian Rus of Kiev) are first known in Hamburg with SHOE-using Trips/Treffs, from Trypillians of Kiev, and English Goods/Gude's are first known in Kent with English Trips. No more than four years after the spider chase, Kepke became a SHOE salesman. Make of all this what you will.

Lindsey GRAHAM is an avid supporter of Ukraine crushing Russia, all caution to the wind. He was in Ukraine the day before the drone attack on Russia. He's celebrating the attack and calling for more. He's Trump's golf buddy, and who knows what more. Did Graham go to Ukraine apart from Trump's permission? Some pro-Trumpers are saying so, but that seems ridiculous to me. It looks like Graham was giddy when Trump told him to go to give the green light for the attack. To the dismay of the war hawks, Trump held off on allowing strikes inside Russia since the last attacks, but, apparently, when Putin got problematic for Trump, the green light was granted to the war hawks.

It just so happens that Grimm-like Grahams/Grams were related to Varangian-like Varns. The Varni Germanics (predated Varangians) were in Mecklenburg, where Trumps, in Kepke colors and format, are first known. Kepke the Ukrainian was in Gormley when he chased me, a Moscow-like Masci, with the spider. The attack on Russia is the "Operation Spiderweb." German Grams share the split Shield of YARborough's, from king Yaroslav of the Kiev Varangians. Yarborough's have a Crest similar to the Varn / Graham Crest.

The Yarborough's, who love the Sine's in their motto, share the vertically-split Shield of English Neals who in turn share the Sine lion. These Neals are first known in Wiltshire with Webbs, and with trumpet-using Calles', and also the Russi-branch Russells. Roslin was home to Sinclairs sharing the Coat of Cunning-like Conans. Sine's list Sweyne's, a line that I think included Sweyn FORKbeard, son-in-law of Mieszko I of Poland. Varns are first known in Ayrshire with Forkers, and with the Cunninghams using a "shake FORK". The Sinclair and Conan cross is enGRAILed while Grails are curiously listed with Scottish Neals.

Yaroslav was the son of king VLADimir, and "wlad" is a motto term of English Josephs, first known in Hampshire (beside Neals) with the Burghs/BOROUGH's who share "wreaths" (different colors) with YarBOROUGH's/YEARbys. There are Year and Yarrow surnames. Vlads are in Kepke colors and format.

The video below says that Mr. Carp, a leftist, pro-vaccine globalist, is the Palantir CEO. Carps and Trumps were related. Trump wants Palantir to have all your information, Americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKmCkid6nW8

Carps, in Crab colors, are first known in Pomerania with Krebs'/Crebs' and Trumps. Crabs list Grail-like Crails, in Rutt colors and format, and comparable to the Sine/Sweyne Coat. Krebs'/Crebs' are in the colors and format of Keeps while Kepke's are in Trump / Carp colors and format. Krebs/Crebs' almost have the Coat of Keep-related Casimirs. The latter are from Casimir of Poland, husband of Maria of Kiev, and son of Richeza of Lorraine, explaining why Lorraine's share the Keep bend, which happens to be the Arms of Baden because Veringers, who used a red antler, the Casimir symbol too, are from Varangians of Kiev.

Casimir's father was Mieszko II Lambert while English Lamberts, in Rush/Rish colors and near-format, are first known in Surrey with Rush's/Rish's. The Coat of French Lamberts looks related to the Rutt Coat (bells) because German Lamberts have a Coat much like a Bell Coat.

Let's go back to Neals, first known in Wiltshire with Webbs and Stars. The latter share the lozenges of SETTLE's, first known in Lancashire with Scute's/Scutts having a Ukraine-like "crane," and with SHETTLEworths/Shuttleworths sharing the "weaver's shuttle" with Keeps. Settle's happen to be in the colors and format of French Locks while Scottish Locks (swans) are first known in Lanarkshire with swan-using Sine's/Sweyne's/Swans. French Locks share the triple cinquefoils of Gows/McGoo's while Gowers/Gore's share the white wolf with Gore's, and the latter were first known in Kent with Trips sharing the Gore crosslets.

Shuttle-like Shute's/Shitts are likewise first known in Wiltshire with Neals and Stars. Keeps use a "galley" while the Galley greyhound, in colors reversed, can be the black greyhound of Scoots/Scougals and Schutz's/Shutz's. The latter's saltire is in colors reversed with Scottish Locks who in turn have their swan "EATINg a perch" while Bellamys, sharing the crescents of Seatons/SITTENs (beside EDINburgh and first-known Scoots/Scougals), were at Perche. Sion in Switzerland is also Sitten, and Edins are first known in Suffolk with the Clare's almost having the Perche Coat. Sinclairs were at Roslin, six miles from Edinburgh.

NEWS

After Putin and Trump had a phone call, we heard that Putin told him he would retaliate against Ukraine. Trump reportedly didn't try to talk him out of it. Possibly, it's what Trump wants so that he can contribute to another deep attack against Russia. What for?

I've been wondering whether Musk could become the False Prophet. Here's the list of reasons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbcU-Nkg9BQ

Musk is committed to a large degree to China for his Tesla company. Musk's anger against Trump for not financially supporting Tesla could make him warm up to a Russia-China alliance, which, truth be told, is warmed up to by many people worried that an unchecked Western deep state is the worst looming cloud above their lives. Some Westerners are hoping that a looming but subdued Russia-China alliance can keep the deep state in check somehow. Nothing in this picture looks promising for peace lovers. The fault lies in NATO's nastiness and persistent quest to rule the world.

When watching the video below, ask why Trump's administration isn't exposing election fraud when it's so easy to do with so many Republican regions by which to investigate that have Republican-stacked election houses? Ask why Trump's DoJ is refusing to release the JFK documents after Trump ordered them released? Why does Trump consistently look like a hypocrite, saying one thing to his base, but doing almost nothing that it expects for solving in-house corruption? The Democrats have become, under Soros / Obama powers, for example, ready to foist a terrible tyranny on Americans. I've heard nothing from John Ratcliffe in exposing CIA corruption, even though Trump has stacked the top positions of Intelligence agencies with pro-Trumpers who can in turn stack it with more like-minded ones who in turn set the Democrat underbrush on fire. Think about that. His base expects retribution against deep-state crime, but instead there's mainly silence with a sense that it's never going to get done. I expect Trump to order something to satisfy his base, but I'm afraid it's going to be token little.

In this video, Tucker Carlson admits deep-state crimes he wasn't allowed to mention on Fox. This video is 14 hours old, but has only eight comments because youtube has removed most of them, obviously, because election fraud is one of the topics. Why shouldn't American Intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard) spy on youtube to reveal its cheating, biased methods, and then ask Trump to publicize the results for a wave of bad press against youtube? Otherwise, youtube will freely be a major election-cheating machine yet again. We do expect, imminently, some FBI backlash against January 6, but will the DoJ do some backlashing against election fraud in 2020? Why should conservatives stand in line to vote Republicans into power when they do almost nothing against Democrat oppression?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3W_WUv9ik8

Tucker Carlson has voiced, since his last days at Fox, the fact that January 6 was an FBI operation, yet it's on Kash Patel to reveal those details. Instead of stressing that, I'm afraid he's going to token-stress the "pipe bomber." See that? Just making a good show of things while ignoring the gigantic Democrat crime that can easily jail previous FBI leaders, especially Chris Wray. He deserves prison. He backstabbed his own party when allowing the FBI to feign an insurrection on January 6. It will seem that Trump was more a player in that event, rather than a victim, if his DoJ doesn't do what it should against Wray and the Bidenite DoJ and military.

This week, Tulsi Gabbard, chief of National Intelligence over-seeing 17 Intelligence agencies, announced that all Intelligence agencies will have access to a single pool of spy information, making it as easy as possible for all 17 to read YOUR file, American. Everything about you, at the click of a Democrat button, just as soon as Democrats get the White House back. Tulsi was a Democrat not long ago, and Trump nominated her to oversee Intelligence.

I think we now know why Elon Musk broke fully with DOGE whereas he said, about a month ago, that he'd continue part-time. It appears he was deeply disappointed in Trump's "big beautiful bill" that increases tax expenditures even while Trump asked Musk to save tax money. And then Trump says this week that Musk is angry due to Congress removing tax gifts to Tesla. I don't think governments should support electric cars, but Must is upset because Tesla lost a lot of money due to his supervising DOGE, and then others get tax gifts but not he. Musk is so upset that he revealed that Trump is in the Epstein files:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaU2qUR2H34

Last I hard, Robert Kennedy was doing something good against the availability of mRNA vaccines, but this video below suggests that Kennedy and the NIH chief are listening to Trump, to allow mRNA vaccines in spite of Kennedy knowing that a significant number of them killed or seriously harmed people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w_pus2xZDA

Trump is a mass-murderer.

The following story is China getting caught, this week, attempting to poison American-farm produce. In my off-the-cuff opinion, this looks like the will of WEF, for it loves China, and it wants to cripple Westerners. carney and China are in cahoots regardless of his denial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glgqoRIYhtM

I've just heard that carney is refusing to deport millions of foreigners on temporary work visas, after the visas are expired. This will cripple the country first by making the Liberal voters. The horror that almost overtook the United States has taken a tight grip on canada. This week heard that some 800,000 foreigners entered the county in the past four months alone. That's one out of every 50 canadians.

Here's a perspective wherein Trump has always been a globalist who's job is to act like an anti-globalist in order to hush the most-vocal anti-globalists (i.e. pro-Trumpers) when slyly implementing key globalist programs, for example forced vaccinations, spy-on-the-people systems, and money printing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVqIHAxDcoU

Now, roughly a whopping 90-percent of health workers don't want vaccines, yet many of them are guilty of killing people because they did not refuse orders when ordered to facilitate forced vaccinations. Where are the confessions and the apologies mixed with rebukes toward tyrannical doctors and hospital executives who forced unwilling nurses and doctors to comply under threat of being firing?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yjUQzb1N1XXh

This is a good video from Ezra Levant on carney's rush to tyrannize political enemies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89kIkGm8Ts

The C-2 bill above, by the carney parasites, allows various government agents to find your personal information, even your phone number and email account for deep-spy potential, if you own a computer and go online. It's a means to persecute those who differ with Liberal politics or even the business competitors of various Liberals.

Here's some archaeology from Jerusalem, which could appear as though God performed an act to preserve this tomb due to the importance of someone buried within it, perhaps from the noble ancestry of Jesus' mother/father in the Davidic bloodline:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X74dr58e6T8

---

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

---