---

The following video that may or may not be from John MacArthur is up front so you know it's in this update. You can listen to it later, if you get reading this update. It's got a mountain of loaded theology key to Jesus' teachings. It stirs the hearer to fear in Christ, and while fear kills nobody, chronic fear of loosing salvation is not the calling of Jesus. Some words of Jesus can make us unsettled, but a some shake-up kills nobody, and is Intended to purify us. The only thing more I'd ask of this one-hour message is a post-tribulational outlook. Alas, I think it's pre-tribulationist leaders who make Christians more lukewarm, more prone to ignoring the Word without qualms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsQg9lLVeEM

I'm sure I heard MacArthur tell that he's a pre-tribulationist, but in the video below, he comes across as a post-tribulationist. I was wondering whether this video is an AI fake, for there is a youtube channel claiming that someone's making AI fakes of preachers (it can bring in easy money, shame on them, while putting words in his mouth). I've seen one click-baiting youtube channel airing his sermons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00tTY9cJhRw

When the Bible says that the grace of God is sufficient for us, there's something to unpack. Once we are sure that we have properly repented, to become worthy of Grace, we recognize that we have The Treasure of a lifetime. We have it ALL. We need only to maintain repentance, and to produce fruit by allowing the Word to change us. There's fruit in us, and fruit in others. That's the Purpose of Grace. We are not to lust/chase after salvation as though it were the top priority of God. God is not calling us to salvation-end-of-story. God is calling us to love Him, to accept His thinking, to reproduce it in ourselves. The one who loves God in this way is saved as a consequence. We do not automatically love God just because we have proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God. See the danger? Belief is not the end goal. Think as Jesus thinks, to the best of our abilities, but most blessed is the one who cherishes how Jesus thinks, not obeying out of duty only, but for placing high value in His ways, wishing that we ourselves could be filled with them. My lack of keeping Him at the forefront of my mind is my stumbling block. Keeping Him on my mind is carrying my cross daily. It increases the quality of just being alive. That's life more abundant. Grace and our proper reaction to it makes being alive better, which allows us to enjoy even our work.

Arrest yourself. Put shackles on your feet. Don't walk to your destruction. Become the slave of God, so to speak, because God rewards service with life-quality that money can't buy. Life-quality is the abundance Jesus spoke of, but goats don't know it. They think the abundance of Jesus is typical things in this world. Life-quality starts with the Holy Spirit in our beings. This is the Calling, to value God in us. Christians should spend time together, enjoying activities together, because church alone does not make for Community. If we don't like spending time together, we may as well be murdering each other. Weekly get-togethers can be more edifying than weekly Bible studies, because even our words to each other can be the fulfillment of the what the Bible says.

Reading and studying the Bible is not the end of things. Being together in harmony is. Can anyone imagine Jesus and the Father having an argument, a disagreement? Their oneness is what God desires for all of us, oneness in agreement with Him. But even that's not the end of things. There is a goal in oneness. And goals have rewards. A product of oneness is satisfaction, fulfillment, happiness. It's all good without snares, without illusions, without betrayals, without calamities, without ironies, without war. See that? It's The Goal, after Armageddon cancels that list of nasty products and more.

The youtuber below has a video showing that a certain King James Version, when all chapter titles and verse numbers are included as words, has 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7 = the number of words in a certain edition of the King James Bible. He has many similar videos, having spent countless hours in numbers discoveries, tending to show that God involved Himself in verifying that the Bible is His Word. The only alternative is that the handlers of the KJV arranged for those numbers coincidences, without computers, very unlikely. If you're rushed for time, you can start this at 20 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdQLo8UQ27M

Gravity Repulsion Solves Central Gyroscope Mystery

This week, Glenn Beck had a guest claiming that his team had found a way to counter gravity to some degree, though we were not told anything more on the means aside from static-electricity of some kind. I happen to know what his team has done because there's only one way to counter gravity: one needs to stack atoms, beneath the protons, with more free electrons than gravity permits.

I therefore assume that people have found a way to stack materials with electrons such that their bottom sides become more net-negative than normal. Not knowing the reason why, these people think that they might be able to crack the secret to fully countering gravity. "Static electricity" implies a stacking of a material with extra electrons, for things with high static electricity create more sparks (caused by jumping electrons) precisely because they are stacked with electrons.

However, I don't think it's possible to stack atoms with enough electrons that their bottom sides significantly counter gravity, unless one spins an object. A few extra electrons on the bottom sides is predicted to alleviate gravity force, because gravity is a negative force.

Gravity's negative charge forces more captured electrons above protons, logically, and thus gravity arranges for the bottom sides of ALL atoms to become net-positive, explaining why gravity attracts ALL atoms. Nobody else is going to tell you that, at this time. It was discovered by my personal "genius moment," which does not involve genius at all. Instead, a genius moment is a lucky strike when someone happens to be walking along a path to bump into something, to see it. It wouldn't have been seen if the mind were not on that path.

It doesn't matter whether atoms become positive ions or negative ions, for either one generally involves a very small percentage of the captured electrons, and so it doesn't change the pull force of gravity much at all, especially if static charge is only on the surface of a material. In most situations, the bottom sides of atoms are always positively charged, and, consequently, the top half must be negatively charged. HOWEVER, what happens to this situation when we spin a wheel or disc? We now enter the unusual.

We may think that the distance between the bottom side of an atom and its top side is so small that gravity force will not treat the atom as positively charged just because it's bottom half alone is positively charged. But when all atoms are forced to have positive bottom sides and negative top sides, they each attract one another top-to-bottom...though the fact that gas atoms are surrounded by a multitude of inter-repelling free electrons (heat material) keeps them apart top-to-bottom.

If you are familiar with gyroscopes, you know what I mean by "unusual." You may know the headache in trying to figure out what's going on. You see the spinning wheel defy gravity, and nobody is able to explain the reason. The most you get from explanations is that the "angular momentum" in combination with momentum from some axis-based torque causes the disc to track a circular path around a hub upon which the gyroscope shaft rests. You're not convinced that the explanation works, and you don't understand it, anyway, but worst of all, it doesn't explain, nor even touch upon, why the disc defies gravity.

It's as though the science goons don't even want you to realize that the gyroscope is defying gravity. At least, they want you to ignore it because a spinning wheel can defy gravity only because gravity is an electromagnetic (negative) charge. Their Newtionian view of gravity becomes obliterated by the formation of an anti-gravity material due to spin alone. In their claims from "old" science, every atom has a graviton particle that is a gravity force. It's ridiculous from the very outset, which is why you don't hear of gravitons. But the evolutionist goons, who conducted a coup on atomic physics, were intent on rejecting the definition of gravity as heat-source electrons in the earth's hot rocks because they, the goofs, did all in their powers to hide the fact that heat is defined as the invasion into materials (including rocks) of free electrons.

I tackled the gyroscope mystery again Saturday and Sunday of last week. I followed logic. I accepted the fact that the gyroscope disc defies gravity, but I also accepted the fact that it registers all its weight when its on a weight scale. I think I was able to solve this apparent contradiction with my understanding of the atom, where gravity attracts all atoms due to having positive undersides.

I got to thinking that the outward (centrifugal) force in a spinning disc forces proton-captured electrons (of the disc) toward the periphery of the entire spinning wheel. The expectation: the captured electrons get piled more densely above protons on the top half of the disc, and more densely on the bottom sides of protons on the bottom half of the disc. That's easy, you can grasp it. The atoms on the disc's top half are therefore attracted by gravity while the atoms on the bottom half are repelled by gravity. That logical find became more than interesting, for it provided a possible solution to the apparent contradiction above.

For this discussion, imagine the disc of a gyroscope spinning at an angle, as you see at the 18-second point of this video. For this discussion, the gyroscope must be attached to, or suspended by, one end only of its central shaft. While on an angle, the gyroscope is expected to fall to gravity, but as it does not, it's clearly defying gravity. Admit it. Don't rebel against the obvious, but rather explain it.

Only half the disc is attracted to gravity while the other half is repelled by gravity. This seems like the key to solving the gyroscope mystery, but it's just the start, a good start.

What do you think will happen when gravity attracts downward the top half of this slash \ while the bottom half of the same slash gets repelled by gravity? Will the slash go more toward the horizontal, or more vertical? That slash is a picture of the angled and spinning gyroscope disc. It will go more horizontal. It will go even more horizontal with faster spin because faster spin forces the electrons to pile-on more densely, either above or below protons.

As the disc is connected to a central shaft that is itself sitting on a hub, all of the gravity force, seeking to make the disc horizontal, will cause the shaft to press down on the hub. See that? Experiments "prove" that the gyroscope's full weight gets transferred to a weight scale underneath the hub. But that claim is technically wrong, because the disc has zero weight. Admit it, gravity is suspending the disc, wherefore it has zero weight. Admit it, and seek the reason.

The only path for the weight of the gyroscope to get to the weight scale is through the hub, and as the weight scale registers a weight that is exactly the full weight of the whole gyroscope, you're bound to be fooled to believe that the gyroscope loses no weight as it spins. BUT, this is your lucky day, because I'm here to first remind you that there is, at times, a difference between weight and force. Weight is itself a force, but not all forces are from weight. Can you see that there is a non-weight force acting on the hub?

Forgive, I don't have a draw package at the ready. I think I can explain the situation if only you can imagine a shaft going out from the left side of this slash, \ , which is acting as the disc/wheel. Play with me here: if you put your left hand at the top of the slash, and pull downward, and if you put your right hand on the bottom of the slash and push upward, the end of the shaft will be forced downward. If the end of the shaft is sitting on a hub, and if the hub sits on a weight scale, the FORCE of your hands will transfer to the weight scale, yet it is not weight-force at all. It's force from your muscles.

Therefore, when gravity attracts downward the top half of the gyroscope disc, and repels the bottom half upward, the hub gets gravity force, yes, but it's not weight proper. Instead, the hub is getting a twist force through the shaft from what we can call anti-weight, or weight in the upward direction. Your intuition alone tells you that the weight is not going straight down through the hub, for the gyroscope can be suspended in the air even in a vertical position, when it's way over to the side of the hub, with its shaft perfectly horizontal. In that picture, you realize best that the straight-down weight of the gyroscope could not possibly be acting down on the hub. The weight first needs to be pushed up, and only then across the shaft.

Therefore, I do declare, even while gravity suspends the disc in the air, the weight of the disc is converted to torque/twist force acting through the shaft to the hub. Or, in the case of the man holding this 40-pound anti-gravity wheel, the torque-force acts through his hand and then to the weight scale.

By the way, the torque I'm referring to here is not the torque that others talk about in seeking to explain the mechanics of gyroscope precession. The shaft torque I'm dealing with always acts 90 degrees to the shaft direction.

The man admits that he feels some "weight," but he does not feel the expected difficulty. He says that the wheel does not try to twist his hand, as he expects with a 40-pound weight three feet away at the far end of the horizontal shaft. That's because the 40-pound force coming from the shaft comes straight down to his hand, rather than from 40 pounds acting straight down three feet away from his hand. See that? Big difference. Gravity not only suspends the wheel, but twists it such that the shaft end (not the whole shaft) in his hand wants to move downward.

BUT WAIT. There is another consideration to be had. The man doesn't lift the wheel high enough such that the shaft is at a 45-degree, which positions the wheel at 45 degrees too. And so we need to go back to the small gyroscope for this discussion. In various videos, the gyroscope is shown directly above the hub, with the shaft perfectly vertical, and the disc perfectly horizontal. It becomes clear that the full weight proper of the gyroscope is weighing normally through the hub. There's zero anti-gravity torque force involved because the shaft is vertical. Any torque on a vertical shaft makes the shaft end go sideways, off of the hub, meaning that there's no torque left when the disc is horizontal, flying-saucer-wise.

Therefore, I now understand what's happening more than ever. When the shaft is horizontal with vertical wheel, the full 40 pounds of the wheel is transferred by torque to the hub. When the shaft is at 45 degrees with wheel at 45 degrees, only 20 pounds of the weight is converted to anti-weight torque, with the remaining 20 pounds acting down on the hub in the normal way that weight works. When the shaft is vertical with wheel now spinning directly above the hub, there's no torque, and the full 40 pounds weighs normally.

Therefore, there's no torque possibility when the wheel spins in the horizontal direction. It's no longer receiving anti-gravity force! I get it. It receives full anti-gravity force when in the vertical position, and steadily less anti-gravity force as it rises such that it becomes angled. Keep in mind that half the wheel is attracted normally, and half is repelled, at all times.

Very conveniently, the wheel needs only half the anti-gravity force when it's at a 45-degree angle, to remain suspended, because half the weight is resting on the hub and no longer needs to be repelled to keep the disc levitating. Only the remaining 20 pounds needs to be repelled at a 45-degree angle.

When it's at 22.5 degrees, at near-vertical, 30 pounds (or 75-percent) weighs down normally on the hub so that only 10 pounds (25 percent) needs to be repelled, and it just so happens that the anti-gravity force, at that angle, is 25 percent. It's still true that part of the wheel is attracted, and partly repelled, but, at this angle, the mechanism that birthed the repulsion is fainting away. The attraction forces become more pronounced the higher the wheel rises.

The vertically-positioned wheel must receive a good chunk of attraction force, but it's got to be less than 50 percent. That is, the repulsion is more than 50-percent while the attraction is less than 50 percent. To provide a reason, there's more going on as per the shifting of electrons than their veering toward the wheel's periphery. This latter mechanism predicts a 50-50 split in attraction versus repulsion, but a second mechanism must be active to give the repulsion the advantage (when the wheel is in a vertical position) because we can witness gyroscope discs levitating even when below the vertical position, i.e. when the center of the disc is below the hub.

There's no other way for torque force to press down on the hub, from a vertical wheel, unless there's a horizontal force acting on the wheel. If it's not perfectly a horizontal force, then partially. If you strike the wheel of your car horizontally with a sledge hammer, striking on the rim's inner-bottom edge, the wheel shaft will want to go downward. A simultaneous whack of a sledge hammer to the outer-top side of the rim will also make the drive shaft want to go downward. Thus, if there's a reason for gravity to act horizontally, it can cause downward shaft pressure against the hub.

Horizontal is perpendicular to the vertical action of gravity. As gravity is an electromagnetic force, note that magnets can send electrons flowing perpendicular to the magnetic force. Therefore, one can propose that gravity force can direct FULL ATOMS into a horizontal direction. For example, if the spinning of the disc causes electrons to batch up to one SIDE of the bottoms of protons, atoms could be pushed quasi-horizontally.

The full weight of the wheel can be cancelled when the shaft is horizontal. The wheel is clearly levitating in the air. The full weight is cancelled when the repulsion force reaches 50 percent, equal to the attraction force. Electrons get re-arranged progressively differently as the wheel goes from vertical to horizontal, which causes progressively less repulsion force on the wheel.

"Maximum" repulsion is when the wheel spins vertically, though it's not truly maximum because more repulsion can be had by spinning the wheel faster. However, faster spins causes the wheel to rise, which then reduces some of the repulsion force due to the changed angle of the wheel. The spin-speed needs to be increased enough to lift the wheel in spite of the reduced repulsion force.

Someone might object to the wheel's weight loss by pointing out that a spinning wheel, sat directly over a weight scale, shows no loss of weight. Yes, but the usual way to weigh a spinning wheel is to mount its central shaft to TWO bearings, one on either side of the wheel. The gyroscope ceases to hover if precession is not permitted, and so we need to consider that a spinning wheel fixed to bearings is not undergoing precession. That is, a wheel fixed to bearings is not receiving more repulsion than attraction, and is therefore not levitating while spinning. When precession is cancelled, gravity repulsion and levitation is cancelled too; I'll take a jab at the reason below.

It doesn't matter which way a gyroscope is spun, counter-clockwise or clockwise, the end of the shaft is forced downward, never upward. The only thing that changes (with counter-clockwise versus clockwise spin) is the direction of precession.

As this theory is working, mechanically, to explain the effect of the gyroscope and anti-gravity wheel (its a gyroscope too), it tends to confirm that gravity attracts atoms if their bottom sides are net-positive. Therefore, it tends to predict that gravity will repel atoms if their bottom sides are net-negative. The wheel first needs to achieve a spin-speed that eliminates all gravity attraction, and only afterward, with more spin-speed, will gravity repulsion set in.

There's something else predicted, within the atoms, when a wheel spins. For example, if marbles cover the bottom of a stationary truck bed, all the marbles will go to the left if the truck suddenly drives to the right. Therefore, if the wheel is spun counter-clockwise, the captured electrons, simultaneous with moving toward the periphery of the wheel, should also move toward the left side of protons at the 6 o'clock part of the wheel, and toward the right side of protons at the 12 o'clock part of the wheel. At 9 o'clock, electrons should move toward the tops of protons, and toward the bottoms of protons at 3 o'clock. I'm thinking that this complicated combination of situations somehow makes for net-repulsion, from gravity, on the wheel. That is, some atoms will be attracted to gravity, but most must be repelled.

The direction of wheel spin, whether counter-clockwise or clockwise, determines whether the gyroscope will circle (or "precess") counterclockwise or clockwise around the hub. When dealing with this circular path, the hub becomes a central axis. For me, it's a no-brainer that gravity causes the circular precession. However, my brain is not able, yet anyway, to explain the atomic mechanics that causes repulsion on the wheel. The electron re-arrangements are complicated when the wheel spins on angles between horizontal and vertical. The first step is: admit the obvious. But if we're fooled by the physicists into thinking that precession is due to a mix of "angular momentum" (= spin momentum) and shaft torque, then we won't seek how gravity could cause precession.

If precession is not permitted to take place, for example by blocking it with the hand, the gyroscope will fall. What can we say, that gravity repels the wheel only so long as it's allowed to circle the hub? Not necessarily true, even though it appears to be true. The gravity force causing precession may go to another function when precession is blocked, which could eradicate some of the repulsion force acting on the disc. In that case, precession is not necessary to keep the disc in levitation, but rather full blockage of precession happens to give gravity attraction the upper hand upon the disc.

It's like saying that a bubble will levitate in the air whether the wind blows it horizontal or not, but if one blocks that bubble from being blown along, it destroys the bubble. The bubble is not levitating because the wind blows it. The disc is not levitating because precession is taking place. In fact, it's vice-versa. However, the two are bound together as a package such that levitation requires precession.

Solution: the net-repulsion is due to disc spin, but if precession is impeded, some repulsion force is cancelled (even though the spin speed remains the same). If enough is cancelled, the disc will be handed over to net-gravity attraction.

The precession is itself very curious, as though a force is acting in a totally unexpected direction. The PHYSICAL forces of a spinning wheel are net-zero in any direction, meaning that the wheel's precession is unexpected with physical force in view. Whatever are the physical forces on one half of a spinning wheel, the other half counters exactly. The result is zero net-force in any direction, meaning that the forces are equal in all directions, meaning also that the wheel cannot precess due to the physical spin forces, nor can it "float" or rise/fall due to the physical spin forces. Yet the suspended wheel wants to creep horizontally, around the hub. What's going on?

I've heard from videos that, the faster the disc is spun, the slower the precession. I suggest this reason: the faster the spin, the higher the disc, and the smaller the orbit-like circle around the hub. That is, the force causing precession gets more "bang for the buck" when the circle is wider, just as it's easier to turn a wheel the longer the shaft is by which one turns it. In short: the available precession force rotates the gyroscope faster when it's furthest from the hub.

Horizontal Gravity Force

If the wheel is vertical, like so, | , it's no longer at an angle. How possibly could gravity apply force on a vertical wheel such that it twists the end of its horizontal shaft downward?

I had said that gravity attracts the top half of the slash, \ , while repelling the bottom half of the slash, which naturally causes the far end of the shaft to press downward, but if the vertical disc with shaft looks like this, ---| , how can downward force on the top half of that vertical slash, in combination with upward force on its bottom half, cause the far end of horizontal shaft to press either downward or upward? It can't. If the disc is levitating in a vertical position, the shaft is expected to levitate too, neither going up nor down. Unless gravity can act horizontally against the wheel.

A faster-spinning disc will rise, taking it off the perfect vertical to a slanted position, at which time the countering gravity forces on the disc can twist the shaft. A perfectly-vertical disc provides a mystery as to how gravity can transfer its weight to the hub.

The full weight of the 40-pound, anti-gravity wheel is transferred to the weight scale. THEREFORE, admit what we are seeing, and move on to explaining it, if an explanation comes available. We are seeing that gravity force twists the end of the shaft downward, into the man's hand, even when the wheel is vertical, meaning that gravity can seek to twist the top half of the wheel to the left (HORIZONTAL) and downward, while seeking to twist the bottom half of the wheel to the right (HORIZONTAL) and upward, even when the wheel is perfectly vertical. Don't rebel, just accept.

The problem to solve is: both the top and bottom of a vertical wheel must be pushed horizontally first, before the top half of the wheel can move downward while the bottom half moves upward. How can gravity attraction and repulsion push horizontally?

This looks like when the force of a magnet acts in a perpendicular direction to the force's direction. At the electric plant, metal wire, run between the two poles of a horseshoe magnet, receives magnetism across the width of the wire, yet the electrons are curiously pushed longitudinally down the wire, perpendicular (at 90 degrees) to the direction of the magnetic force. Therefore, I suppose, if a magnet can act perpendicular upon the captured electrons of atoms, ditto for gravity, for both are magnetic forces. I've never had reason for this idea before.

Can gravity push electrons sideways? Not if there's no spin. There's nothing happening to a vertical wheel that's not spinning. Only when it spins do we see the abnormal, the curiosities. Only when it spins are the wheels electrons re-arranged in relation to the wheel's protons. See that? It's not so much that gravity acts sideways on objects, but that it can if the electrons are arranged in a certain way. At the electric plant, the magnet cannot cause the electrons to flow down the wire unless the wire is rotated fast in a circle between the magnet's poles. The circular motion "upsets" the electrons and protons (maybe they like it).

The people trying to explain precession maintain that the momentum of the spinning wheel goes perpendicular to the spin direction, which, for me, is ludicrous, looking like a desperate means to explain what is inexplicable for them, inexplicable because they haven't understood that gravity force is at the root of precession. Do you imagine that the spinning of the wheels on your car sends out momentum to the sides of the wheels? That's ludicrous. Yet this is what the videos claim for a gyroscope, which only fools the people with a false explanation for the circular precession.

I suggest that the precession is circular only because the gyroscope's shaft is attached to a hub. Otherwise, the gyroscope might go in a straight line. If the man holding the anti-gravity wheel walks a straight line, the wheel might go with him, that is. But if he stands in one spot, the wheel is forced to make a circle around him. Wouldn't it be hint-ful to see a suspended wheel moving in a straight line? What would it be hinting?

Wouldn't it be something to throw the wheel, at just the right speed, into the air so that it levitates on its own, without a hand or hub holding it? Alas, as long as there's a downward force on the end of the shaft, a free-floating wheel will tilt and throw the repulsion force out of whack. It would be interesting to see what happens to the anti-gravity wheel if the man just lets go of it. Will the shaft point down first, or will the wheel fall while the shaft stays in the same position? It matters which of these two is the reality.

It seems correct that precession moves horizontally with the ground. The wheel does not attempt to change height while precessing, meaning it's moving horizontal while moving in a circle. It takes little energy to move a suspended object horizontally, for friction on suspended items, such as gas atoms, is due to gravity pull. Birds can fly only because gravity pulls air atoms. Gravity supplies air atoms with friction. It allows the bird's wings to do work and thus get lift. But if an item is suspended by gravity alone, the friction due to gravity is gone when seeking to move the object horizontally.

Therefore, if anyone is seeking to find a way to net some free energy from the precession, there's likely near-zero energy there. The small energy can explain why the gyroscope doesn't fall off the hub even though it's barley attached to it. The one watching it thinks it doesn't fall off the hub because he/she thinks it's naturally moving in a circle. But I think it's more logical that it's sent moving in a straight line, but forced to go circular due to attachment to the hub.

The only reservation I have about the prediction that the gyroscope is sent into a straight line is that the people testing the hand-held gravity wheel are likely to have discovered it, yet we don't see it in videos. It would be easy for a person to walk a straight line while holding the shaft of the wheel. If the wheel comes along with the person, then I'm correct, but if the wheel wants to do a circle while the person walks a straight line, then I would be greatly surprised. Why should gravity force cause a circular motion; it makes no sense. The direction of force is constantly changing when a circle is made. It becomes a centripetal force, such as a true orbit pulled by a central body.

You can't understand how gravity can set the gyroscope into motion if you've been brainfooled to believe that gravity attracts both protons and electrons. But when you are open to gravity repulsion of electrons, it can explain a spinning disc put into motion by gravity.

In order to set a gyroscope into "orbit," gravity must KNOCK it in a horizontal direction along the ground by sending a force against it, either horizontal or vertical force. Is it possible to move an object horizontally with a straight-up force? Yes. If you strike this slash \ with a vertical force (such as from a bullet) from underneath it, it's going to go up AND to the right. However, if it can't go up due to some blockage, some of that upward force will transfer to the right alone i.e. move the slash horizontal with the ground. If the slash mark is further obstructed from going to the right, due to attachment of the shaft to a hub, it will circle the hub horizontal to the ground.

To elaborate, the upward force REBOUNDING horizontal, or quasi-horizontal, will send the disc into the direction of least resistance, and that's in the circular-horizontal path that it does take. We can propose a means by which the rebound happens. When energy is sent to a disc that's resisting the upward force such that it eventually ceases to rise, the remnant energy -- the leftover after motion ceases -- enters the atoms and bounces around within them, which could then be re-directed into another direction. To put it another way, blocked gravity repulsion force is finding an "outlet" to send the disc sideways in precession.

Another consideration is that, as DOWNWARD gravity attraction can cause water to run on a near-horizontal surface, when the surface blocks the vertical path, so should upward (vertical) gravity repulsion be able to send materials on a near-horizontal path, when upward (vertical) motion is blocked. The blockage to upward motion of the disc is where a part(s) of the wheel receives gravity attraction. The upward repulsion needs to overcome that, and when it does due to fast-enough disc spin, that extra force has to go somewhere when it can't raise the disc more than it's already done so.

I suggest that the repulsion-force capability on the disc goes from 100-percent when it's positioned vertical, to zero when it's at its highest in a horizontal position. When the disc spins in the horizontal position, the re-arrangement of the electrons toward the periphery of the disc no longer makes one half of the wheel positive, and the other negative. All atoms are identical toward the gravity force when the disc is in a horizontal position. There are no longer atoms with more electrons on their bottom sides than on their top sides.

Therefore, I suggest that attraction force of the disc increases steadily, as it rises from the vertical position, to 100-percent when in the horizontal position. The disc doesn't fall to gravity, however, so long as it spins, because, I think, an "anti-gravity" mechanism is still in play similar, or even identical to, a person and bike balanced horizontally when MOVING laterally on a two-wheeled bike. The lateral motion overcomes gravity force. The motion doesn't involve an anti-gravity force, but it overcomes gravity none the less.

Every atom in the disc is moving horizontal on a straight line, even while circling, we could say, because gravity doesn't recognize the difference between a circular path and a straight line; it only recognizes the lateral aspect. A person on a bike can lean over on a drastic angle but not fall to gravity if moving fast enough; he and the bike are evading/avoiding gravity attraction.

It's even possible that gravity repulsion ends once the disc achieves a 45-degree angle, and that the disc can go all the rest of the way up, to zero degrees (highest position), on its spin power alone. But, clearly, spin power cannot raise the wheel from, or keep it levitating at, its vertical position.

This vertical slash, | , representing a vertically-positioned wheel, can't get horizontal / precession motion by straight-upward force unless gravity force is able to act quasi-horizontally on spinning objects. If the going theory in gyroscope science is wrong for explaining precession, and I think it definitely is wrong, then I don't see an alternative explanation besides this gravity-repulsion concept.

This gyroscope, \ , will look like this, / , when the shaft is below the hub and pointing up toward the hub. There are many videos showing gyroscopes circling the hub with shaft pointing up toward the hub, incredibly enough. How can anyone can see that and not realize that gravity is being defied by something more than the physics of the disc spin?

The man in the video below says that the spin momentum is "chasing the torque," to explain precession, but this only creates an illusion in your mind, because you can't really understand it. When you think about it, you think you can understand it, grasp it, but it's fleeting because you can't explain satisfactorily the mechanics involved. For example, why should the momentum force go out in a direction along the shaft? It's a trick, and you are the intended victim. You are supposed to trust scientists with that claim, but not object.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXIV-wMVUk

Near the end of the video above, the wheel has sunk such that its center is below the "hub." In this case, the hub is where the shaft is attached to the rope. The shaft is now pointing up toward the hub. Gravity is obviously repelling the wheel, but with less force progressively as the wheel-spin slows. The man doesn't want to say, "gravity is repelling the wheel." Why not? Because he's a stooge of modern science. He'll get persecuted if he says it. youtube might even shadow-ban a channel, at the request of the physics establishment, if someone comes out with compelling evidence for gravity repulsion.

Note, at the 1:11 point, of the anti-gravity video above, that the man actually lifts the wheel easily a couple of inches when it's directly behind his head, even though he's holding the shaft a whopping 30 inches from the wheel. Clearly, gravity is defying the wheel's weight. YES, undeniable.

As the full weight of the wheel is transferred to the hand, pressing down on the hand, it becomes clear that gravity is not so-simply repelling the wheel straight up. If it were a simple, straight-up force, there would be zero force coming down on the hand. If you had a second person holding the wheel up (spinning or not), there would be no downward pressure on the hand holding the shaft. Ditto if gravity repels the full wheel upward such as to suspend it.

Therefore, what I'm learning here is that gravity tends to move the upper half of the wheel toward the man, and move the lower half of the wheel away from the man. Why couldn't this picture also cause the wheel to "orbit" around the hub? If we say that gravity acts on the wheel EAST toward the man, why couldn't gravity also act south on the wheel to send it on its circular path around the hub?

To put it another way, gravity acts through the wheel's cross-section in order to transfer its weight to the hub, but acts in a straight line through the wheel's 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions to make it precess. All I need to do is prove it, and one way to do it is to spoil the "competition." As the momentum of a spinning wheel cannot create force in any direction, it's not true at all that the momentum is chasing the torque, which is to say that a combination of momentum and torque causes precession.

In fact, I'll even claim that the torque they refer to cannot exist unless the wheel is first precessing. In other words, the torque doesn't cause the wheel to precess, but the precession causes the torque, wherefore there cannot by a combination of torque and momentum causing the precession...even if the momentum could create a force in any direction. The explanation of the establishment is a non-starter on top of being a nothing-burger.

At the 2:33 point, the wheel video shows that a gyroscope disc rises if the precession speed is manually increased. And, the disc precesses lower if the precession speed is manually decreased. At 2:44, the disc is shown falling when the precession is momentarily stopped, but it's not easy to understand how attraction force should over-ride the repulsion just because precession is blocked.

Gravity force seeks to raise the disc higher, and in the process finds a horizontal path by which to create precession. The disc is thereby denied more lift power. When we manually speed precession, depending on the specific speed increase, some or all of the gravity force that had been expended to create precession is no longer expended there, but can now expend itself in raising the disc higher. It's as though manually speeding precession closes the door to gravity's creation of precession. It's no longer an option.

The problem, in this explanation, arises when we slow or fully block precession. When we fully block it manually, we can say that it's no longer an option such that the full force of gravity repulsion should go into raising the disc. Instead, slowing or blocking precession causes the disc to sink. But wait. Slowing or stopping precession does NOT remove the option for gravity repulsion to go in the horizontal direction. It goes that way whether the disc is precessing or not. If we block precession, the gravity force enters the atoms and bounces around within them. It's absorbed.

Why should the disc sink just because gravity force is absorbed by the disc's atoms? The only answer I can come up with is that it re-arranges the electrons such that repulsion on the wheel is diminished or overridden by attraction.

Static Electrons

Electrons rather easily jump from material to material when conditions are right, even when not running in wires. They create sparks, meaning that the physics establishment sees photons emitting from the electrons. Once again, they would need to claim foolishly that photons piggy-back on orbiting electrons of air atoms, on-the-ready at all times to cause the light of a spark just as soon as electrons come flying out of a material charged negatively from friction.

Is there not an alternative? Of course. The air is filled with free electrons that define a light-wave medium, and electrons emitting from the air atoms cause waves of light through that medium. No massless, impossible photons necessary. The electrons jumping from material to material in a spark crash into air atoms, and that's what emits electrons from air atoms.

Video after video on static electricity fails to mention the electrons in the air, lest people get the impression that they constitute a light-wave medium. That is, the establishment doesn't mention electrons in the air, and the video owners copy the establishment...because they feel compelled to be approved by establishment thinking. MERE APES. They learn from the establishment, then repeat what they learn. They consider themselves smart if only they can learn correctly what they are taught. Self-programming apes.

The establishment doesn't want people to know that the science of static electricity is not as clear-cut as they say it is. They tell us that balloons rubbed into hair make them negatively charged, more stacked with electrons after the friction event than before, because the balloon "robs" electrons from the hair, thus making the hair positively charged. Yet there is at least one video online ("Reactions" youtube channel) showing that two balloons rubbed together both become negative, not the establishment's prediction. In all cases I've seen in videos, one rubbed object always loses electrons to the other, never a mention of the many electrons dusted off into the air.

The control goofs don't like you imagining orbiting electrons flung into the air. What do they do there, twirls? The control goons don't want you trying to imagine electrons in air going back into orbits when they enter materials. The goons only want you to imagine electrons in orbit without thinking about the difficulties involved in starting an orbit around an atomic core that already has a multitude of orbiting electrons. They don't want you to think there's going to be some crash-banging going on instead of perfect orbits. The goons want you stupid. The establishment is a cripple pretending to run like an athlete, storing up humiliation for itself when better people finally insist on telling the truths.

The same video even showed that a part of a balloon could be positive while another part is negative, after rubbing two balloons. That's not clear-cut, meaning something else is going on, as if both balloons are robbing electrons from the air. This video owner was so science-sloppy that he didn't even mention the air and humidity inside the balloon.

Rubbing round balloons is not like rubbing flat bricks together. The latter do not allow air to contact most of the rubbed sections. But after a rub in one direction of balloons, both rubbed sections contact the air, and consequently, air atoms and water molecules (from humidity) come in to press against the balloon. On the next rubbing action, in the opposite direction, the air atoms and water molecules on the balloon surfaces become part of the rubbing process, wherefore the prediction is that some air atoms and water molecules let loose some of their electrons to explain why both balloons become negatively charged. I can't see any other way.

After some short time, the balloons lose their charge as the extra electrons leak off. The fact that it can take minutes to lose the charge suggests that electrons had been foisted to some depth into the balloon material, for if the outer layers of atoms is the only one to get stacked with extra electrons, the charge would instantly disappear. In the case of rubbed materials made positive, they can get their electrons back only from the air, yet the videos I've watched failed to tell this, as if the establishment's failure to mention it causes their science stooges to likewise fail.

The video owner told that, when he first encountered a positive charge after rubbing two balloons, on a different day, the humidity in the air was about 95 percent. It suggests that water molecules either stole some of the balloon's electrons, or caused some balloon electrons to leak off into the air. In turn, it suggests that rubbing air atoms (during the balloon rubbing) is what causes the balloons to become negative. Rubbed water molecules take electrons; rubbed air atoms give them away?? Looks like.

It can explain why rubbing a PVC pipe (with wool/cloth) causes it to attract a flow of water out of a tap. PVC becomes negative after a rub. We can wonder whether the water is being rubbed when sent down the water pipe. It shows itself to be positively charged, at least toward the PVC.

A metal can or some Styrofoam, neither rubbed at all, are attracted to rubbed PVC. How can that be, if the can and Styrofoam are neutral?

But wait. As magnets cause nails to become temporary magnets by re-arranging their electrons, why can't rubbed (temporarily magnetic) objects re-arrange electrons in neutral objects? The PVC sends the electrons to the far side of atoms, and then pulls their near sides made positive. This is just as I claim for gravity, a negative force sending electrons to the top sides of atoms, then grabbing their positive near sides i.e. their bottom sides. Echo: gravity makes the near sides positive, then grabs the whole atoms in attraction. The existence of charges by friction can become proof that gravity is a negative charge doing exactly what rubbed materials can do.

Things are so not straight forward in charging by friction that the establishment had to admit that charged substances re-arrange atoms, though the orbital-electron theory doesn't allow them to say that electrons can be moved from one end of an atom to another end. How can we imagine orbiting electrons more stacked on one end of an atom than on the other? We can't. Therefore, the orbit model cripples the goofs, making them unable to see the reality: atoms can be negative on one side and positive on the other. Had they not envisioned orbiting electrons, I wouldn't be viewing them as goofs. Had they not envisioned orbiting electrons, their atom would be like mine.

If orbits don't exist, then the captured electrons tend to be stationary on atoms, and thus they can move from one side to the other of ALL atoms without any problem, when something forces them to do so. They can also go clear off of one atom onto neighboring atoms when rubbed objects are brought near them. Why not?

AI answered a question of mine like so: "Yes, rubbing PVC and bringing it near a stream of water will cause the water to bend or be attracted towards the PVC. This is due to the static electricity generated by rubbing the PVC, which creates a charged object that can attract the oppositely charged ends of water molecules." It doesn't say "attract the water molecules," but rather says the "ends" of water molecules, implying that the PVC makes the ends nearest itself positive. But how? Alas, they don't see the attraction as per the shifting of electrons to the far end.

Instead, the goofs think that the PVC's negative charge re-arranges water molecules such that their negative ends face away from the PVC while the positive ends face the PVC. Which is easier, to turn entire atoms while under inter-attractive bondage to each other, or to chase away a few outer electrons barely hanging on to protonic attraction?

The elaboration of the AI response above says: "Water molecules have a slightly positive charge on one end (the hydrogen end) and a slightly negative charge on the other (the oxygen end)." However, never trust the establishment with anything, meaning don't take "hydrogen end" and "oxygen end" as fact just because it says so. Fact: the establishment doesn't know what a water molecule looks like. It doesn't have an oxygen end versus a hydrogen end, guaranteed. The goofballs are tricking you.

Why shouldn't electrons be shift-able in atoms? google AI: "When a magnet is brought near a nail, it induces the magnetic domains in the nail to align in the direction of the magnetic field, creating a temporary magnet." You see? They don't want to admit that electrons are being repelled to far sides of the nail's atoms. The goofs are locked by their orbital theory into a position that will ultimately shame them as science imposters.

In the elaboration for the response above, under the sub-title, "No Electron Movement," AI says: "While the electrons within the nail do align their magnetic moments, they are not physically moving from their positions in the atoms. They are simply changing their orientation within the nail's structure." The goofs absolutely do not want electrons to shift in atoms when a magnetic material is brought close to them. Suddenly, electrons become mighty, able to resist the magnetism while entire atoms shift instead.

Which do you think is stronger, atom-to-atom attraction, or attraction of the proton to an orbiting electron? How strongly is an orbiting satellite in orbit? FAINT. It's balanced delicately between attraction and outward force. The slightest magnetic impulse would send it out of orbit. That's a fact you can depend on, which is why the goofs are goofs. You can't be so stupid as to believe that electrons orbit at the near-speed of light, because that speed would create enormous outward force. Why won't the establishment come to its senses? Why are the guardians of the establishment like rats urinating into your mind? How can such deceptive tricksters be so respected? What bewitchery ails humanity?

How strongly do atoms attract? Ask a sledge hammer to a piece of steel. Yet, you are to believe that all electrons maintain their orbits when a sledge is slammed against a pea on a block of iron. The pea's atoms are disbonded; the pea is crushed to a pancake, yet the electrons remain in orbit??? Are we nuts?

No, but electrons are jolted off of atoms. Banging a pea with a sledge is friction too. The electrons come off as the heat of the frictional process, but the crushed pea material re-loads with electrons from free electrons in the air.

So let me get this straight. A massless photon can knock an electron into a higher orbit, but a sledge hammer can't? What kind of absolute morons are our educators?

How do the photons hang on to electrons when smashing atoms with a sledge? Why don't photons come flying out? To answer that, use your imagination, not science, not logic, and you will be just like a science goof. C'mon, you can think of something. Just invent it. How hard can it be? The squashed pea emits no visible light. Where could those speedy photons be hiding upon the electrons?

Maybe photons have hooks that pierce the skin of electrons, hanging on in that way as the electron spins and orbits, just use your imagination. All you need do now is figure a way for the hooks to let go when the time comes for light formation.

Ignite some hydrogen gas, and H atoms unite with O atoms GENTLY, with much light production, yet zero visible light comes from materials slammed hard with a hammer? Are you sure that light derives in photons hiding out on electrons? Are you absolutely sure? Is there a better explanation for light formation? How do photons travel in straight lines after launching off of electrons orbiting at nearly the speed of light? Who in their right minds would take this seriously?

A hammer against iron can cause sparks. Electrons jump out of iron struck by iron hammers. The electrons crash into air atoms, causing light. Are you sure that this light is from photons coming off the orbiting electrons of air atoms? They say that the orbiting electron nicely settles trouble-free to a lower orbit when emitting a photon, yet the electrons of air atoms are bombarded by "giant" electrons jumping out of the iron or sledge. How can those orbiting electrons remain in orbit under that bombardment? What kind of absolute morons have been placed in charge of our physics education? They know that the light of the spark occurs only because the electrons in the spark-path are striking the electrons of air atoms. This spark to mamma's finger can send her ouch-ing across the room, but, according to the morons, the spark-force can't knock a wee electron out of orbit. Instead, it sends the electron to a lower orbit? MORONS.

The spark-path is like a meteor shower of electrons ramming through the electrons of atoms, but the morons tell us that the struck electrons just settle to a little-lower orbit? Why? Because they are ignorant morons who love to deceive, who won't play straight with your mind. In their picture, a spark would strip every orbiting electron from air atoms struck by the spark.

But, in true atomic model, only the outer electrons go free because they are held with little protonic attraction; the interior electrons remain on the atoms. They need a lot more force to be removed, and should anyone be able to, that's called "nuclear power." I don't know how many electrons atoms have, but I suspect thousands per atom, at least.

Better question: why do Christians believe them and even promote their "science"? I'm disheartened. Instead of exposing the enemy, they're scratching its back. Science departments are controlled by God rejectors and God despisers.

Rather than realizing the easy reality, that charged PVC plastic repels captured electrons as far as possible to the far sides of atoms, the goofs claim that the PVC's negative charge causes the positive ends of water molecules to face the PVC. But as this explanation cannot be used for all materials, they start to fall right in line with my claims, for lack of an alternative explanation:

"Yes, a negatively charged PVC pipe can attract an aluminum can due to static electricity. When the PVC pipe is rubbed against a material (like fur), it gains a negative charge. When brought near an aluminum can, the negative charges on the PVC repel the electrons within the can, causing the can to become polarized. The side of the can closest to the PVC becomes positively charged, and the opposite side negatively charged. Because opposite charges attract, the can rolls towards the PVC pipe.

That is a moronic answer desperate not to tell the audience that electrons in the aluminum atoms are repositioned in the metal, but rather than telling the people that electrons are sent to the far side of atoms only, they have electrons shifted clear across to the far half of the can. Instead of polarized atoms being the result, the entire can is said to be polarized (defined as one side negative, on side positive).

You can clearly understand why they prefer half the atoms in the can to be negative, and half positive, rather than half of each atom negative and half positive. BECAUSE, you cannot have orbiting electrons on one half the atom only. Orbiting particles must traverse both halves of the atom, the near side and the far side.

And so they cling to the fantasy that some electrons orbiting on the near side, the side nearest the PVC, are chased to the back half of the can, and they somehow traverse instantly through the atomic jungle to the back half while not orbiting protonic cores, but, upon arrival to their final destinations on the back half, they start to orbit there. DISGUSTING LIARS who know better, but lie anyway.

Why are they not making the same argument for aluminum as they do for water molecules? Because, aluminum is an element that does not have a multi-atom molecule by which to fantasize a negative charge in one atom (of the molecule), and a positive charge in another atom (of the same molecule). They take the opportunities to make such claims when it comes to molecules, but cannot with the elements.

You can begin to see what a horror story it becomes when they assign negativity and positivity to atoms for all the many molecules, for in one molecule they would make one type of atom negative, but positive when the same atom is in another molecule, as the needs arises, not following a strict rule for the atom, but cherry-picking...like acrobatic hypocrites. Falsifying imposters have no moral dilemma when cherry-picking whatever works at the time. In order to get away with such things, there's no end to their inventing justifications for their fixes upon fixes upon fixes. They give fixes special names to give the impression that the fixes are acceptable science to the bulk of scientists.

With their admission that electrons can be sent to the far half of a can, by the magnetic power merely of rubbed PVC pipe, they have fallen into the trap they dread. They are essentially in agreement with me when I say that a negative gravity force can send electrons merely to the far sides of atoms, and in the meantime attract the atoms. See that? Their admission admits that gravity could be an electromagnetic force, because there is a logical means by which to explain how such a force attracts ALL ATOMS.

Only one thing is required for negative gravity to attract all atoms: gravity sends electrons in every atom more to the top sides of atoms. How can that simple thing be impossible or even unlikely? It's LOGICAL, EXPECTED, REVOLUTIONARY, and it makes willful idiots out of orbit-worshiping goofballs. I apologize for that language: some are only blind idiots.

You can find videos of PVC pipe attracting a metal can such that the can is made to roll along on a table. The goofs must now fantasize that the orbiting electrons on the far side of the can are, DURING THE ROLL, transferring atom-to-atom while retaining orbits, because the far half of the can becomes the front half after a half-revolution of the can, in less than a second.

Watch AI squirm when asked: "what happens when an orbiting electron strikes an orbiting electron?" KABOOM, the universe dies in two seconds flat. How many electrons in solid and liquid objects would collide due to orbits? Innumerable. But the quacks tells us it isn't so. AI:

In quantum mechanics [a fantasy you are to be entertained and stupidified by], it's not quite accurate to say orbiting electrons "strike" each other in the way we might imagine macroscopic objects colliding. Instead, when electrons in different orbitals interact, they can exchange energy and change their quantum states, a process often described as a "transition" or "scattering". This can involve the emission or absorption of photons (light particles).

Electron transitioning, the changing of the heights at which electrons orbit, doesn't answer the question, doesn't explain why electrons don't strike each other millions of times per second per atom. No solid or liquid material could exist under that scenario. Orbiting electrons are the destruction of merged atoms, yet they say that an atom is destroyed unless it orbits. WACKO.

AI deflected with a word salad because the quacks programmed AI to answer the question that way. BLASTED, LYING DEMONS control science. How many billions of dollars and hours have been wasted for understanding orbiting electrons that don't orbit, and for making excuses for how they can indeed orbit against several laws of physics?

It's all-too possible that the God haters, or the demons who controlled them, chose orbiting electrons to avoid the reality of electromagnetic gravity, for the latter makes the evolution of the cosmos, by the big bang, impossible. The alternative to orbiting electrons is stationary electrons that "dance" (toss about) lightly on atomic peripheries when light shines on them (no light, no motion). This alternative lends itself so much to a re-defining of gravity as electromagnetic force that, maybe, it partially explains why the evolutionists decided to go with orbiting electrons.

For star formation, the goons needed every atom to possess a gravity power by which to "conceivably" attract one another into proto-stars. All they had was "conceivably," half the basis upon which they could fool the people. The other half was their masking themselves as super-intelligent heroes such that nobody should counter their claims. When you think about it, IF you think about it while deluded and hypnotized by "quantum mechanics," a wee-wee gravity power existing in each proton could never allow protons to attract each other for forming proto-stars. But, as long as the super-intelligent say it could be done, and was indeed done, who are you to argue?

It's clear to science that a small shedding of electrons from two or more atoms causes their protons to repel each other. Therefore, any gravitons in the nucleus can't rescue the atoms from repelling each other. How, then, did these gravitons cause protons to attract from vast cosmic distances? Didn't happen. It's a God-murdering fantasy.

I'll remind you that a man on a bike, travelling far slower than protons from the big-bang explosion, defies gravity. As long as the bike moves five miles per hour, earth gravity has insufficient power to attract the bike and rider to itself. The forward motion over-rides earth's gravity just a few thousand miles underneath his feet. Imagine how much less the gravity of one proton is upon a speeding, "neighboring" proton a million miles from itself, a million years after the big bang. Ten million years after. A hundred million years after. Are you nuts who actually believe this star-formation garbage?

I asked google: "how do orbiting electrons avoid each other?" AI responded:

Electrons, being negatively charged, naturally repel each other due to electrostatic forces. However, in an atom, they also experience an attraction to the positively charged nucleus. These two opposing forces, along with the principles of quantum mechanics, dictate how electrons arrange themselves and avoid colliding.

It again did not answer the question, for it is inconceivable as to how the inter-repulsion of electrons, or their attraction to protons, keeps them from crashing. It's irrelevant. Their inter-repulsion is meaningless when they fly such tiny orbits at nearly the speed of light. The wee bit of repulsion can't alter the trajectory of such a fast orbit should two or more electrons be headed for a crash. In just one second at that speed, sufficient orbits are made that the electrons would pass each other zillions of times, and, as such, they will crash without question within that one second, especially when two or more atoms are merged (i.e. when sharing orbiting electrons).

Planet Formation According to the Weeds

I'm going to accuse people who love to push atomic physics as people who love delving into fantasies, who love entertaining themselves with fantasies, and teaching them to others. I'll go so far as to say they love to deceive while being self-deluded into thinking they are teaching realities. Anyone who loves truth can see that atomic physics is a big red flag. Many people just stay away from it, not interested, good for you if you're like that.

Ditto for many astronomers and cosmologists. They invent all sorts of entertaining ideas, and are prone to "proving" that there was life on Mars, for example. Some of them will ape what they hear from NASA. For example, that the stepping stones to life on earth have been found on asteroids. It's wholly expected that God-haters would seek to make down-and-dirty evolutionists celebrate "finds" like that. The more they invent things, the more the down-and-dirty get emboldened. When evidence against the big bang comes out from Hubble, just feed the crew exciting stories of amino acids found on asteroids. That's how deceivers work.

NASA DID NOT put men on the moon. google has hidden most of the evidence for that fraud. Some of the accusations against the moon landing can be seemingly "de-bunked," but de-bunking videos never treat the most damning evidences that cannot be de-bunked. If you search for the most-damning evidence, google gives you the de-bunking videos. People denying the moon landing are now lumped in with flat-earthers. Trust your intuition, knowing that, if NASA put men on the moon in 1970, they would have RUSHED back to do the same in every decade since then.

Trust your intuition: it was impossible to drive a capsule backward/downward toward the moon, to keep it straight up so that it did not crash. The astronauts could not practice it on earth because NASA knew such an attempt was fatal for anyone inside the craft, yet we are to believe that, on their first attempts ever, at the moon, all the pilots got it right the first time, Apollo landing after Apollo landing. Horse manure. What insane man would agree to drop a capsule on the moon that did not work on earth, knowing he'd likely kill his buddies in the capsule? Don't be stupid. They did not walk on the moon.

Don't be stupid, NASA is yet involved in entertaining deception, now with all sorts of computer animations and invented claims to keep your interest.

How did asteroids come to orbit the sun along with the planets? What kind of a physics weed would teach that metal / silica gases from the sun started to orbit the sun until they condensed, then cooled further into hard rocks? Astronomy has an infestation of poisonous weeds, do not eat. They are reserved for Fire from the hand of God. It will not be fire from happen-chance, but from the hand of God Himself. It will go to astronomers. Stay away from them, do not partake in their sins.

What do we know about gases? They SPREAD OUT. Hello? How could the atoms of gases in OPEN space come together to form hard rocks? Are we so stupid that we believe these moronic ideas without going through the steps to assure that the claims don't break the laws of physics? What do we see in open space, walls that prevent the gases from spreading out? No. Then what is out there that could possibly allow the gases to come together into hard rocks? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. This is how easy it is to make jackasses of big-bang cosmologists.

Not only would the big-bang gases not come together to form stars, but gases from stars could not form orbiting rocks. In the 1950s, NASA reported the discovery of the solar wind. It wrongly reported it as half free (bare) protons and half free electrons, but regardless, this wind carries gas atoms away, not allowing them to gather at the planetary orbits even if gas atoms could in themselves congregate as proto-planets. Not only do gas atoms seek to get away from each other, but the solar wind would brush them clear out of the solar system even if the sun did expel gases.

How many gas clouds do you see, today, circling the sun? Why zero? If the sun expelled gases long ago, why not also today? What could be the difference of long ago as compared to today? Where did the early sun get the metal atoms, the silica atoms, etc., to form the planets?

How did the protons get into the big-bang spot? What kind of a demonic moron dares to teach that all the material in the known universe was at a single, big-bang spot? These ruinous and harmful lunatics should be in a jail, and God has prepared one for them, a very terrible place for all who war against Creation. Stay away from them. Don't scratch their backs by passing off their inventions.

Whenever the goons try to explain proto-star formation, they begin with a gravity pool at one region of space. They draw it on paper, and show atomic particles sucked into that gravity pool. Ya-but, how did the gravity pool form in the first place? Duh, it couldn't have. If they say that gravity resides in protons, and if protons repel each other, then a gravity pool could not have formed, yet these weeds claim that trillions of such gravity pools formed, each one a proto-star. Therefore, fire like the fire inside of a star will be the resting place for these thorny plants, and God will not have mercy upon them when the dark gases of their lives go up in torment. A star is a lake of fire, we could say, with the "chasm" of space all around it.

Did the big bang also create gravitons? If so, how did each atom get one or more of them? Something in the proto-atom had to attract the gravitons, right? If protons attracted gravitons, the latter look negatively charged. The goons tell us that gravitons are not magnetic, however, yet they somehow got into every atom. HOW? Not only did the goons invent a force that keeps protons connected such that this scheme could form metal and silica atoms, but they invented some method for atomic cores to attract one another into stars. They never discuss with you the complications and impossibilities involved.

The big bang with its related inventions would never have occurred to people, never have been taken seriously, never have gotten a government platform, had not the weeds warred against God, to de-throne Him on earth, to steal His universe for themselves. Their guilt is not merely being innocently wrong with their science, but they have pushed error upon obvious error just because it has worked to destroy Faith in many, and to make people callously and gratefully sinful. Evolutionists are not guilty of a small sin only, but the very sin of the rebellious and devious devil. Do not show such fools respect. People will latch to popular evolutionism just because it's the wide road to sin. Evolutionism is "naturalism," devoid of Spirit, playing to mammon, the root of many evils, especially kingdom-building wars = brutal murder for money.

Not only do gases in space spread out ever-thinner with passing time, but they will not orbit the sun unless something puts the gas atoms into orbit. It's completely moronic to suggest that gases exploding forth violently from the early sun were put into perfect orbits that retained perfect orbits for millions of years. Do they even know how long that is? Sinners swallow a million years as if it were candy. They pass such long ages mouth-to-mouth, happily infecting each other.

Do we see hydrogen gases orbiting the sun today? Do we see hydrogen gases floating away from the sun today? The sun is filled with hydrogen atoms, but if they are not exploded forth into space, but are trapped in solar gravity, what makes the morons teach that metal and silica atoms escaped the early sun for planet formation? Nothing makes them say it having natural logic as the basis, but rather they claim the incredible as if it were candy because they are evangelists of the devil.

How did metal atoms and silica form in the early sun? The weeds had choices. They could invent the formation of those atoms from within the big-bang explosion, ready-packaged there such that they didn't need to invent any processes by which they could be formed in stars, but they opted to invent the fallacy that all atoms are multiples of the hydrogen atom. In this way, stars could become the factories that built the atoms of all the elements, by clustering of protons. They needed only invent the "strong nuclear force" that could keep the inter-repelling protons clustered. And that's what they did.

Stars could not magically create whole protons that were of 100 different types, and so the goons opted to build an atomic model wherein 100-plus elements have the same proton, but with each atom having a different number of protons. And that's what they did.

Someone in their ranks probably objected to the invention of the big bang creating 100-plus protons, because the people would not easily swallow the idea that an explosion could perfectly replicate each of 100-plus protons in innumerable quantities. And so they opted to devise the fantasy that the explosion replicated only one type of proton. And as stars are made of mainly hydrogen, that's the only reason that hydrogen was invented as the only atom (in their scheme) having one proton alone.

We Christians can prove Creation by God in countless ways using science FACTs instead of science fantasies, yet the evolutionists loath that we should use "their" science for our own purposes. So long as we attach a Creator to science, the goons claim that we are cheating science. Sinners will take that position. But nobody owns a fact.

If the big bang and star formation are impossible, if fossils do not reveal front legs evolving into wings, then the only alternative is a Creator. We can win this war easily by exposing and spoiling evolution's key inventions. We don't even need to prove that Creation took place, because it's the only default where evolution is fakery.

But, it is enjoyable to watch Creationists prove a Creator by many methods. All Christians should become excited fans of Creationist science, like when two teams are battling it out for winner-takes-all, and we know we are the winners who will take all, when the weeds are exposed worthy of being burned in the fire. This conflict should be our number-one "sporting" event. We should cheer Creationist scientists. But, alas, they adopt many evolutionist fantasies, what a shame. They score into their own nets when they do that. They move the goal posts closer to the evolutionist field kicker when they do that. They let evolutionists steal bases when they do that. They lose their fans when they show respect for the killers of God. Evolutionists are not seeking to steal bases only, but whole souls, even of our children, and do we treat them with respect?

When Paul met the false prophet, Bar-jesus, did the apostle show him respect? No, but filled with the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:9 says, he called him a "child of the devil." Don't you think that evolutionists who convert to Jesus would be more proud of Creationist scientists if they showed the same disrespect for the arch-enemy, passionately and fearlessly calling it out for what it is? We don't need to lavish that beast with respect for fear that one of their people might not be saved, because not one will be missing from Eternal Life whom God has chosen for it. By showing respect, we send the signal that it really doesn't matter much what side people are on. Treating it with respect is like making a peace treaty with it, allowing it to re-arm in secret while we're pacified. Rather, the more we are whacking this beast to death, keep whacking it harder because it's trying to rise up to kill us.

A cold planet or moon has no gravity, but it can still be placed into a solar / planetary orbit because solar / planetary gravity attracts its atoms. Some moons are so small they are not expected to have molten interiors, without which they can have no gravity. Gravity is from heat, though gravity is not heat proper. Gravity is the negative charge of heat because heat is free electrons. The many round craters on our moon are from lava flows, not from asteroid landings. Therefore, the moon once had gravity force, if it no longer does now.

Only a non-thinking idiot box claims that thousands of round and near-round craters are made from asteroid landings. The problem is, Creationists scratch the back of the evolutionist beast on this matter, for this beast uses lunar and planetary craters as proof of long ages in the billions of years. What's wrong with Creationists that they don't point out the lack of long skid marks on the moon expected if asteroids have been pelting it? What's wrong with Creationists that they don't point out the lack of oval craters expected if asteroids have been pelting the moon / planets? Asteroids don't land only while striking dead-on. Yes, striking dead-on will create a round crater, but asteroids are expected to land randomly at all angles, and when landing on sharp angles, the space rocks are expected to skid into the ground, creating long ditches, or even bounce after making a long skid mark. What's wrong with Creationists?

If asteroids explain lunar craters, there should by far be more non-round craters than round. My estimation is that, for every five round craters, there should be 24 oval ones from 45-degree strikes on average, and more than 24 skid marks from near 90-degree strikes.

Revelations from PVC

I'm wondering whether rubbed PVC attracts all atomic materials. I therefore asked google: "what does rubbed PVC repel?" The response tends to affirm that it will attract all atomic materials:

...This negatively charged PVC pipe will repel other negatively charged objects and attract positively charged objects. Specifically, rubbed PVC will repel other negatively charged PVC, as well as other negatively charged materials like a plastic bag or a negatively charged foil bit.

It tends to suggest that PVC will cause all non-rubbed atomic materials to become positive such as to attract them all. In that case, why can't negative gravity do the same?

google AI tends to tell me, in another way, that PVC will attract all materials, unless they are rubbed or made negative in some other way. I asked, "does rubbed PVC attract all materials", and got this possible half-lie:

No, a rubbed PVC pipe does not attract all materials....This negatively charged PVC pipe will then [when rubbed] attract materials that are positively charged or have a neutral charge [= unrubbed materials!] with a polarized charge distribution, where one side is slightly positive and the other slightly negative. However, materials that are already negatively charged will be repelled by the PVC pipe.

Ya-but, just because PVC repels other negatively-charged materials doesn't mean that gravity will too, for such charges are only "skin deep" into materials. Gravity attracts negative, rubbed PVC because the great majority of its atoms are made positive by gravity, and only few atoms become negative toward gravity by rubbing them.

I've just attracted plastic vitamin caps with rubbed PVC. Rubbed plastic goes negative such that it will repel rubbed PVC, but when the rubbed PVC is put to unrubbed plastic, attraction happens, i.e. same effect as gravity.

Where AI above says of neutral materials, "where one side is slightly positive and the other slightly negative," that to me is a fib. It wants you to believe that rubbed PVC makes the entire far half of an aluminum can negative, and the entire near side of the can positive. BUNK. The only reason the goofballs make this claim is that their orbiting electrons can't make half an atom negative and half positive. My atomic model allows for it, however, meaning I win, they lose. I share the true mechanics for attraction by static charging.

When I rub PVC and bring it close to an upward-pointing flap of small note paper, the two attract. If I keep the pipe a half-inch or more from the paper, the latter only nears the pipe a little but does not touch it. When I sink a plastic ruler between the paper and pipe, most of the attractive forces are blocked. Attraction force does not go through the ruler. Yet AI's programmers would have you believe that the PVC pipe acts on the far half of an aluminum can some three inches from the pipe, right through the metal in the front half of the aluminum can.

The PVC pipe is only 5/8" inside diameter. When rubbed on the one side, the opposite side/half does not get charged; it neither attracts nor repels the paper. When rubbed on one end, the opposite end of the pipe does not get charged. The charge is only where the rub occurs; it does not spread throughout the atoms of the pipe. I'm not suggesting that the rubbed atoms are half negative and half positive, but am claiming that the non-rubbed atoms of the paper, plastic, steel, aluminum, etc., when brought close to the rubbed pipe atoms, become net-positive on their near halves facing the PVC, and net-negative on their far halves. This is the secret to gravity force that is no longer a secret.

Let me say that again. When PVC becomes negative, I see that the atoms at the rubbed area are over-loaded with electrons all around the atoms, not heaped on one side of the atoms. BUT, when this PVC is put near another object, it causes electrons within it to become heaped on the far side of atoms.

It doesn't matter where you are on earth, rubbed PVC loses its charge after two or three minutes. Ditto for all rubbed / scraped / banged / eroded / blasted / wiped / stirred materials. Those materials that lose electrons are going to re-load with electrons from the free electrons in the air, ANYWHERE ON EARTH. You will not hear the goofballs speaking on these electrons much, if ever. They are brainfooled (trained) not to mention them. There's no talk about atmospheric electrons at the central square of science. They appear in the minds of the goofballs only in their nightmares.

As free electrons, they cannot be orbiting atoms. They are envisioned as bang-banging together in the way that the goofs imagine air atoms bang-banging together in all directions randomly, and never loosing speed (impossible). But you never hear the goofs tell that a vacuum has free electrons. Even if they wish for there to be few free electrons in air, the goofs are required to be honest, to tell of them, when explaining a vacuum. They therefore pretend that their tongues have been cut out, because nobody is supposed to know that free electrons are in the air.

While they tend to claim that air atoms are neutral toward each other -- until they need to cherry-pick an explanation as to liquid formation from gases, when gas atoms suddenly and magically have attraction toward each other -- they cannot claim the same for free electrons in the air. They are therefore required to inform the people that free electrons in the air will inter-repel each other clear out into outer space. The reason they don't tell you this is because they then need to explain where atmospheric electrons come from to replace the ones lost into space. The solar-wind electrons, of course, but they don't want you to know it.

You can now see why they absolutely did not want a negatively-charged gravity force, for it repels free electrons into outer space even faster than the electrons themselves do. A negative-gravity definition compels the goofs to admit that, yes, no matter how few we think there are, atmospheric electrons must be replenished after being lost into space. Yes, they must admit, solar electrons must be entering the air. We were wr-wr-wrong, not just about the solar wind, not just about gravity force, but on our positioning ourselves as the holy guardians of science. We are a gross farce, they must admit.

Atmospheric electrons are a major problem for the goofballs, liars, deceivers. They won't come straight with you when their theories have major problems; they prefer to fool you, to hide the problems in their explanations that are moreover delivered to you often with law-breaking nonsense. If free electrons are travelling at vast speeds in the air, as the goofs claim they are, then they must be colliding at vast speeds against air atoms, in which case air atoms will become positively charged due to the bombardments knocking off some of their captured electrons. BIG PROBLEMS THERE. First of all, it predicts more free electrons from the air atoms and atmospheric water molecules. For them, this extra infusion of free electrons into the air is a bad nightmare going worse. Best not to inform the public about it, they decided. Best not to inform fellow goofballs, they decided.

Contact between atoms is going on all over the world. Some electrons are always going lost into the air, and others back into materials, not as rare events, but as the norm. But the finks don't want to talk about them? Why not? Why do they always say that electrons from rubbed objects go from material to material, but not into the air? When I ask AI how much free-electron material there is in the air, it's programmed to lie to me:

The vast majority of electrons in the air are bound to atoms and molecules, not free to move and conduct electricity. The percentage of free electrons in the air is extremely low under normal conditions, making it a poor conductor of electricity.

Air is not a poor conductor of electricity due to having very few free electrons, but rather because electricity is defined as electrons flowing as captured electrons. Electricity doesn't flow across free electrons. Therefore, if the goofballs use poor electrical conduction of air as proof that air has few free electrons, it's a trick, totally irrelevant yet played to your mind as relevant.

When asking whether a magnet attracts electrons or free electrons, AI is programmed to say, no:

No, a magnet does not directly attract free electrons. While magnetic fields can exert a force on moving charges, including electrons, they don't cause a simple attraction or repulsion like static electric charges. Instead, a magnetic field can alter the path of a moving electron, causing it to curve or spiral, but it doesn't pull the electron towards the magnet's poles.

I beg to differ. The very fact that a magnet can curve the path of an electron is evidence that a magnet affects the electron. Moreover, the fact that magnets attract iron suggests that the magnet re-arranges the captured electrons in iron, which in turn suggests that the magnet attracts and/or repels captured electrons in ALL materials. In most materials, however, magnets unable to re-arrange the electrons much would be the conclusion.

My point in going to magnets here is the claim that the earth's magnet re-directs solar electrons away from the planet such that they don't enter the atmosphere. This claim is to fend off their worst nightmare: the air is stacked with free electrons.

On the one hand, they say that magnets don't attract or repel electrons, but on the other hand they say that solar electrons are re-directed from striking the earth via repulsion from the earth magnet. Not that the latter exists (it does not), but that they contradict themselves whenever cherry-picking is necessary in attempts to hold their fantasies together. If they claim that magnets attract electrons, then they would need to claim that the positive pole of the earth attracts them too, and vice-versa for the other pole. As they don't want you to know that solar electrons enter the air, they also claim that magnetic poles don't attract them. Cherry-picking. They yet claim that the magnetic forces of earth somehow repel them ALL, ALL AROUND and PAST the earth. CHERRY-PICKING LIARS.

Wikipedia, typically aping the establishment, says: "The south pole of a lodestone points to the north pole of the Earth and vice versa as the terrestrial globe is magnetic." Ah, er, not so fast. Just because the one end of a compass needle is attracted by the north pole of earth doesn't necessarily mean that the other end is attracted to the south pole. The needle pointing south does so by mere default of the opposite end pointing north. There is no magnetic south pole. It's a lie that conveniently allows the goons to fabricate a reason for the false claim of earth's rejection of solar electrons. This is nasty "science."

Here's Wikipedia aping a lunatic theory:

Free electrons in the atmosphere move at very high speeds, typically around 10^6 meters per second (one million meters per second). However, this is their thermal speed, meaning they are moving randomly in all directions [= the impossible bang-bang theory of particles].

That speed of one million meters per second is only 622 miles per second, much-much lower than their electron-orbit speed. I have no idea how they arrive to the speed of atmospheric electrons, but it's not from experimental observations, that's for sure, but rather from their typical fix-a-fix reasoning. They create the need for fixes almost each time they fix a problem with their own theories, for one fix requires another fix requires another fix. They need to fix the problem of how possibly rubbed materials, which lost orbiting electrons, can take in slow atmospheric electrons and catapult them to the near-speed of light in orbit again. Fix-a-fix-a-fix lunatics never come to their senses.

They probably slowed electrons in the air so that they could minimize the lost electrons expected from their bombardment with air atoms. With super-fast electrons in the air, all air atoms become inter-repelling ions, you see. They didn't want that, and so they fixed the problem with the claim that orbiting electrons, which never slow down while orbiting, suddenly slow down to a near crawl when they enter the air. FIXITY-FIX FARCES. Whatever they WANT the world to be, that's their "science." They shape science, not vice-versa.

I asked google what material makes PVC positive, and it told me that wool does. Yet google's AI also tells that wool makes PVC negative. "PVC (a type of plastic) tends to attract electrons more strongly [more affinity] than materials like wool or fur." Yet, google AI says: "...a material like wool, which has a higher electron affinity than PVC." Either AI has its wires crossed, or someone wants us to falsely believe that PVC can be made positive.

It also says: "To create a positive electrical charge on a PVC pipe, you need to rub it with a material that has a higher electron affinity than PVC, such as wool. This process transfers electrons from the PVC to the wool, leaving the PVC with a net positive charge." That seems incorrect to me.

I would suggest that there may be no material that makes PVC positive, otherwise AI wouldn't have chosen wool. It should mean that PVC holds its electrons very miserly. I hesitate to use "very strongly," because the atomic fact may be that there are few captured electrons available for knocking off, depending on PVC's molecular configuration. In my atomic model, the exterior electrons on all atom types are held on with the same strength/force.

Plus, not only is PVC stingy in giving up electrons, but it adds electrons from other materials rubbed against it. Rub PVC against aluminum, and it robs aluminum electrons. How does that happen? What gives the PVC atoms a propensity to hold more electrons when rubbed, though it doesn't steal electrons from the air (or the aluminum) when not rubbed? I suggest that the PVC atoms hold their electrons weakly, unexpectedly enough. That is, when electrons from cloth or aluminum come off in friction, they inter-repel and punch each other DEEPLY into PVC, precisely because the PVC electrons are held weakly. Otherwise, if they were held strongly, they would be more like a solid wall to electrons punching their way in.

As you probably know, PVC is easy to cut, scrape or break, suggesting weak atomic bonds. Steel is harder in these ways, yet steal loses electrons to PVC when rubbed with it.

Another consideration is that the atoms having the most electrons, per depth into the electron atmosphere, are those that release the most-dense electrons, and the most-dense ones are those that inter-repel hardest, predicting that they will punch into the other material more than the other material's electrons punch into it. It's not always going to be so simple as to assume that the negatively-charged material has the strongest hold on (most affinity for) its electrons.

Gravity force is a MUCH-GREATER force than mere static-electric forces. The goofs always wish to portray gravity as a weak force. What? Are they science lunatics? Earth gravity reaches the moon, achem. How they call that "weak" is another evidence of their being cherry-picking boneheads.

google AI: "Gravity is often described as the weakest of the four fundamental forces in physics...While other forces like the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are vastly stronger,..." What a bunch of retards. They obviously have a fixity-fix motive behind this claim. Always suspect that their theories are fixes to other bad theories. Always assume guilty until proven innocent.

google AI: "Yes, electromagnetism, which includes magnetism, is fundamentally stronger than gravity." This is an idiot box speaking. Just because a magnet can pull a nail faster to itself than gravity doesn't mean that the magnet is stronger than gravity. The nail is pulled fast by a magnet due to its closeness to the magnet, but gravity force is thousands of miles below the ground. Try putting the nail an inch away from the heart of gravity force, and then tell us whether it's weaker than a magnet.

google AI: "A small magnet can easily overcome the gravitational pull of the entire Earth on a paperclip, demonstrating the difference in strength." RETARDS. These people are unworthy to educate humanity. What could be their secret motive for posing openly as such retards? I think I know. They decided to make a distinction between magnetism and gravity lest the people realized that gravity is a magnetic force. See that? Magnetism is strong, they say, gravity is weak, therefore gravity is not magnetic. Trust us, we're the super-intelligent who have it all figured out.

Gravity repels the electrons of ALL atoms to their top sides, as can rubbed PVC when it's positioned a half-inch underneath some atoms. But the rubbed PVC can't do the same to atoms an inch or two away. Gravity can do it all the way to the moon. Kick the bums out.

Hearken ye, science buffs with youtube channels. There's more money to be made exposing the inconsistencies and errors of modern physics than confirming its lunatic claims.

One of the four "fundamental forces" is the invention, the "strong nuclear force." It reportedly resides as an attractive force in the atomic nucleus. Very conveniently, the goons cherry-picked its nature. They couldn't have it attracting electrons, and so they decided that it acts over a very-short distance? How short? Not outside of the nucleus. It's a STRONG force, able to hold 100 protons together in a cluster, but it can only act a microscopic distance. If you believe that such a force exists, you are a sandblasted fool. The establishment has taken a sandblaster to your good senses, and turned you into a shining moron. If you are advertising the establishment's "science" on youtube, you are shining as bright as blinding light, and have become a sandblaster yourself, breeding morons.

The strong nuclear force was invented because evolutionists chose to go with the all-protons-are-the-same model. In this model, all atomic nuclei, for all the elements, have different weights. The more protons they cluster in the nucleus, the more that atom weighs. Ya-but, Galileo discovered that all atoms weigh the same, for he verified that all materials fall to gravity at the same speed of acceleration. There is no way to explain that reality but that all atoms weigh the same. Gravity pulls on every atom with exactly the same force, as long as all the atoms are the same distance from gravity. Therefore, atoms cannot have clustered protons, it's as simple as that.

Go ahead, try to explain how all objects, regardless of size or mass, fall at the same speed to gravity, if not due to gravity pulling all atoms with the same force? The latter is defined as, "weight." "All the same force" means "all the same weight."

It's not a grand coincidence that all atoms weigh the same. Gravity arranges it. Gravity force NATURALLY removes all electrons from the undersides of all atoms that are held on to the proton with less force than the gravity force. Only the deeper electrons, held to the proton with more force than the gravity force (at any one specific distance from gravity) will remain tight to the bottom of atoms. What does this result in?

It means that, after gravity has done its thing, the outer layer of every atomic bottom will have a protonic force equal to the gravity force. That's why all atoms weight the same, for every atomic bottom has exactly the same attraction force coming forth toward gravity. The very outer layer of the atomic bottom has electrons held to the proton by exactly the force of gravity, because the protonic attraction at that outer layer is equal to the force of gravity.

If the outer layer were held on by less than the force of gravity, it will be blown away by gravity. If the outer layer is held on by more than the force of gravity, it wouldn't be the outer layer, but would instead be a layer deeper into the atom than the outer layer. The higher from the proton the electrons are hovering, the more weakly they are held by the proton. Gravity will continue to repel electrons until it reaches the depth where the electrons are held by the same force as gravity.

Gravity arranges an atom to shine forth, beyond the host of its electrons, with the same protonic-attraction force as all other atoms, because gravity strips all atoms of electrons to the same point of net-attraction. The more that gravity undresses the proton of its electron clothing, the more protonic attraction overrides the negative forces of the electrons. Both forces shine forth in unison, but the more electrons are stripped away, the more the atom becomes net-positive in the downward direction. Gravity hasn't got the power to strip atoms more than when the net-positive force downward equals the negative force of gravity.

It doesn't matter how strong or weak gravity is at any elevation from the core of gravity, the only point I'm making is that all atoms at the same elevation have the same net-attraction force toward gravity such that all atoms at the same elevation will weigh the same (the higher we go, the less atoms weigh). Therefore, atoms cannot have clustered protons such that all the different types of atoms weigh at variance to one another. Every type of atom has ONE proton. Every type of proton makes a different-sized atom, but gravity pulls them all with the same force, GENIUS, because gravity reduces all atoms to, and maintains them with, a g-force attraction force.

If you're interested in the video having balloon friction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Buz6Sp2YTg

NEWS

Another food-and-water poisoning video, only this one pegs Trump's poison-control people as the poisoners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0lsLnXX4U8

Here's how liberal governments are ruining farmers, on the pretence of soil poisoning, then buying the farms themselves. It could appear like a deliberate scam. This program comes on the very wake of the COVID scam, same goonish fiends, same goonish agenda, same faked claims of danger via fake testing. Afflicted farmers need to take governments to courts, to expose this scam, in class-action suits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt-PSei2ENM

For the United states, a great shift on the vaccine front thanks to Robert Kennedy. Story here on this week's Highwire:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eBPDxdXbdgl4

By Sunday of this week, it appeared that Israel had gone a giant step to conquering Iran, so quickly, with Iran showing no muscle in fighting back, aside from some pitiful jabs that missed Israel's face. However, a mix of propaganda from both sides, clickbait, and fake news photos makes it hard to know for sure what's truly going on.

When I read tribulation prophecy decades ago, I assumed that Israel would slowly become weaker until the anti-Christ got the upper hand. I didn't envision a successful offensive by Israel, such as has been ongoing for well over a year now, prior to the invasion of the anti-Christ. It's making sense where the success against Iran and Lebanon, and even Yemen, in the wake of brutality in Gaza, is going to stir a wide backlash, where antagonistic groups are more prone to rallying around a common military leader.

There's been no talk from Russia that I've heard, as of Sunday, that Russia is rabidly opposed to Israel with the sort of spirit Iran has typically had. Russia has made it clear that it sides with Iran.

Iranian military leadership yet exists, but the pro-West Iranians (in Iran) are calling for a coup against the religious bloc. I don't see how this can be conducive to fulfilled prophecy if the "Persia" in Ezekiel 38 refers to Iran. There's nothing to do but wait and see where the situation is in a week from now. Israel wants to have Iran on its knees by then, but Trump may be serious in calling Iran to a peace deal with Israel.

The fall of Iran to the West is a big blow to Russia and China, not because the two care for Iran, but because they don't want the West to control the Middle-East. This video explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f946M6a7Io

Russia should be ramping up its alliances with Turkey and the New Syria in the face of Iran's tumbling this week. Turkey so hates Israel that the latter's over-reach in Iran will send Turkey closer to Russia, I predict. Turkey happens to "own" the New Syria, you see, and so it makes much sense that Russia should now give some substantial gifts to Turkey in hopes of deal made for fending off Western intrusion into Syria and Iran. Turkey might just agree to such a deal.

The Netanyahu leadership could allow Iranian missiles to strike targets as the excuse to keep the war hot. There were many who thought that the same leadership allowed Hamas to kill Israelis to gain the justification of finalizing Gaza. While there are legitimate concerns as per how Israel operates brutally against enemies, there are also many anti-Semites who will chime in against her with unjustified remarks. Also, God has many accusations against last-days Israel, and we Christians don't want to speak things against those accusations. We don't want to portray end-time Israel as blessed of God or unworthy of punishments.

---

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

---