Over March and April just passed, I spoke on a hockey goal of my youth that I think could be a pointer to mark carney. The problem is, I was thinking throughout the election, and even prior to it, that this goal represents carney's loss to Poilievre, which didn't happen.

I had shown (last update in March) how the goal pointed to the proto-Rothschild Pollocks and Bowers / Bauers, and as Rothschilds are international bankers while carney was the head cheese of both the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, I hate to say it, but it seems that I, and my goal, are a pointer to carney's election win. PUKE.

But wait. The reason I'm bringing this topic back up again is because my slice-to-pieces theme of last month could refer to some part(s) of western canada breaking up from carney's eastern canada. I have a hard time believing that separation will take place, even though there is a movement started already to that effect, with the premier of Alberta catering to it. Even though I have a hard time believing that separation will take place, I thought I had best mention it in regards to the slice-to-pieces theme. Here's from the 3rd update in April:

In the first update of this month, I said:

I'd like to say that I've been praying recently that God would slice Carney to pieces so that he will not win the election later this month.

...My choice of words, that God might SLICE Carney to pieces, has only-now caused me to check for a Slice surname, listed with Slays/Sleigh's using owls. Then, while Owls are also Howls, Howells have the Pellican tower while Welsh Carne's use a giant pelican!

I went on to add to that theme such that it convinced me to feel that God will slice carney to pieces. Then, in the same update, it occurred to be that Steve TARR, who got the assist to my goal, could possibly be a pointer to the oil in Alberta's TAR sands, which is the crux of Alberta's separation movement. I even showed that English Alberts use a "sledge hammer" while Sledge's are listed with Slice's/Slays, can we believe it?

You can load Sledge's/Slice's now, which loads on another tab, in order to load other surnames, to better follow the heraldic links.

After writing the quote above, I went on like so with an Albert-like surname: "I'm now going to show a new thing, how the Slice's get us to the Halpert axes...Slice's/Slays are in Halpert/Halbert colors and format... [and both have similar Crests] There we have some evidence that the goal can be a pointer to the separation movement now building in Alberta.

It's interesting that, during the election, Pierre Poilievre lost his own riding, for which reason he needs to run as a candidate in a new riding. He's chosen to run in an Alberta rising for a sure win, though he opposes separation, probably because he doesn't want to become the prime minister, down the road, of eastern canada only.

The goal took place like so, with under a minute to go in a 2-2- tie game, in the semi-final match. Steve Tarr took a pass at the right-side boards, at the center-ice line, then skated with the puck over the blue line and took a slap shot. I was skating a little behind him down center ice toward the net. There was just one defenseman between us and the goalie. His slap shot knocked the goalie flat on his back; the puck bounced over his head and, hitting the ice behind him, slid/rolled to the goal line but not over. I'm wondering whether Tarr represents the Alberta Conservatives, therefore, who, along with the country's other Conservatives, almost won the election that was a near tie by popular vote.

When I saw the puck on the line, I was so excited that my 12-year old knees gave out. I fell to my SHIN BONES, and poked the puck into the net while sliding (on my knee pads) past the left goal post. I talked much over the past couple of months about my shin bones representing China as per the Chine/Ching variation of English SHINs. It's known that carney is in cahoots with China, and so, yes, it appears that I and my goal are a pointer to him, whom I despise, and to his "winning" the election partly by foreign interference.

As I poked the puck in with the BLADE of my stick, I showed how the Blade surname (Yorkshire with Bank Newton of the Bank surname) not only shares white pheons with Carneys, but adds a saltire in the colors of the Newton saltire. Not only is the latter's saltire formed by so-called "shin bones", but the Newton Crest uses an "eastern prince." I conjectured that God arranged that Crest as a pointer to Chinese Orientals, but, now, maybe it's also a pointer to carney as the "prince" only of eastern canada. The Prince surname is first known in Yorkshire with Bank Newton.

After scoring, I crashed into the boards behind the net, and the Board surname is first known in Sussex with the Albert-beloved Hammers, with the Newton-beloved Bone's, and with the Peace- and Paisley-connectable Packs. I showed how Peace's/Paise's (Newton colors) can connect to "slice to PIECEs." Peace's/Paise's are in the colors and format of McCabe's who in turn share the "salmon" of Hams, and the latter, in the colors of Hammers, are first known in Sussex (beside Hammer-beloved Alberts) with Hammers. The latter love the Dolphins, first known in Cumberland with Salmons and some Salemans.

I also showed how Lievre's, as per "PoiLIEVRE," almost have the Coat of English Pace's (Cheshire with Newtons) while Italian Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels were a branch of Paisleys (Renfrewshire with POKE's/Pollocks and Spears) and Packs. When I poked the puck across the goal line, I SPEARed it in, with stick along (or almost along) the ice, as would be expected from a kid sliding by the net on his knees.

English Packs (Sussex with Pucks/Puckells, Mascals, and Angers) love the Anger-branch Anchors who in turn almost have the mascle of Alberta's (Spanish surname). Anger-branch Hangers almost have the giant griffin of sledge-hammer Alberts. It just so happens that the Alberta mascle is shared by Petts, the latter first known in Kent with sledge-hammer Alberts. Cheyne's/CHAYNEYs (Saleman colors and format) are likewise first known in Sussex with Albert-beloved Hammers, Salmon-loving Hams, and Pascals. Then, Italian Alberts use "CHAINs." It then gets amazing where Italian Alberts (Bologna with Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels) link their chains to an annulet in the colors of the annulets of German Pucks. It seems that God arranged the heraldic symbols to jibe with my last-minute winning goal, and it seems to be pointing heavily to the province of Alberta. Will it successfully canada to pieces?

There is the "coincidence" that Lievre's, expected in "PoiLIEVRE," almost have the Pace Coat. Poe's/Pough's look like they may have been off of the Puck-like Pughs/Pews.

From the 3rd update of April: "Lucky me, in the right place at the right time, poked the puck across the line to send the team to the championship game...which we won too thanks to Tarr's four goals and at least one assist." I scored the first goal of that game, when Tarr passed to me (that was the assist above). Is God now saying that the province of Alberta is going to fix carney's crooked clock in time for the next election? I've been hoping that God would catch carney's election fraud and thus finish him off sooner than the slated time of the next election...which some are saying could be as early as a year from now, depending on how badly carney becomes politically lame.

If not mistaken, carney was born and/or raised in Edmonton, Alberta. The Edmonton Oilers hockey club just eliminated (days ago) the Los Angeles Kings in NHL playoffs. Liberal Los Angeles must be a China-loving bastion in the political sphere. carney is the "prince" in OTTawa, interesting where Italian Otto's/Ottone's almost have the German Puck Coat. German Otts use an "old man's head" while Oltens/Oldhams/OLDMAN's share the owl (different colors) with Sledge's/Slice's/Slays. Doesn't this heraldry appeared Arranged by God? It appears that God arranged heraldry, centuries ago, to point "Ottawa" to the globalist tyrant, the fork-tongued and slippery snake, mark carney.

Oldman-like Oltmans/Altmans happen to share the Coats of Westerns and Manets, the latter first known in Savoy with Aude's/Ode's. This thus looks like a pointer to western Canada. The Wests were even related to the Dove's in the Peace/Paise Coat!While I hit the boards with my back when sliding into them on my shin bones, Westerns share the Coat also of English Backs, first known in Somerset with Shins/Chine's/Chings.

The Arrangement would be much better if we could do something with the Taws half expected in "OtTAWa." I was over this turf in recent weeks. Taws happen to share the crescent of Otto-connectable Hoods/Hoots while Oddie's/Hoddys (Yorkshire with Odins/Hoddys) share the saltire of Italian Alberts (though the latter make the saltire by two chains). Odins/Hoddys (Yorkshire with Bank Newton and Prince's) share the lion of Otone's/Oltons', the latter first known in Cheshire with eastern-prince Newtons, and with Puck-beloved Hands.

The Oddie/Hoddy saltire is white, as is the one of Blade's/Blate's (Yorkshire with Oddie's/Hoddys), and then "plates" are used, in the colors of the near-same annulets of Otto's/Ottone's and Pucks, by English Otts/Oats.

The Taws and Albert-connectable Halberts/Halperts (Sledge/Slice/Slay colors and format) are first known in Perthshire with the Rollo's who in turn love the Fortune's who in turn share a gyronny Shield (different colors) with Taws. This is amazing because Scottish Fortune's are first known in East Lothian with the Flemish Seatons while Otts/Oats are said to be Flemish too, from Belgian, which jibes with the Belgian Vante surname expected in the "juVANTE" motto term of Taws. The thing is, the triple crescents of Seatons are shared by Edmontons! The inclusion of Rollo's here may point to Tarr's slap shot rolling to the goal line.

EDmonton is the Alberta capital, and while Edmontons are first known in EDINburgh, that's at Midlothian at the border with East Lothian. Edins are first known in Suffolk with the Slice-beloved Owls/Howls, and Midlothian is where Falls'/FALLIS' are first known in case my falling on my shin bones applies. In fact, I showed how OULlette's, from Falaise, can be of the Owls/Howls. Falls/Fallis' and their Feller branch are of the Rockefellers, cheats and pro-censorship goons just like carney.

Edmonds even share the Bank and Arrow/Arras fleur-de-lys. See that? carney likes to brag about how he's from Edmonton. Arrows/Arras' are likely of pheon arrow heads, and it just so happens that they are first known in Staffordshire with the Fridays sharing the triple crescents of Edmontons and Seatons/Sittens! Staffordshire is also where Bassets are first known while Oullette's are from a Basset area of in Falaise. These crescents are colors reversed with Kenns while Kemmis'/Kenys and Shins/Chine's/Chings (beside Sturs) share triple-red chevrons with Bassets and Sturs. Stur-branch Asters/Easters (Essex with Sledge's/Slice's) can be in the "eastern prince" of Newtons because STURminster Newton (Dorset) is near the first-known Shins/Chine's/Chings (beside the Kenns of Devon).

To show how close the Seatons/Sittens were to Edmontons, the latter use a swan head in Crest, which, by the way, jibes with the swan in the Crest of German, Plate's/BLATE's while English Plate's are in the Ott/Oat plates. "Edmond" was the name of ATHELing royals of England, and Athels are first known in Perthshire with Taws, and with the Dogs in the Crest of Blade's/BLATE's! The latter are the ones expected with the saltire of China- and banker-pointing Newtons, and Blade's/Blate's share white pheons with Carneys, though the latter's are in both colors of the same of French, Plate-like Pilotte's/Pilate's/Pilots while French PILE's/Pilots can be expected in the team piling on top of me after scoring the last-minute winning goal on by shin bones. There we have more evidence that the goal is a pointer to carney's win in what was essentially a tie vote otherwise.

As I've said, my coaches wouldn't have allowed the bench to clear, to pile on me, if there was still time on the clock. Therefore, I figure I scored with ten seconds or less to go, and then, when the clock reached one or two seconds remaining, the coach allowed the team to come out. As per that WINNing goal, note that the WINNipeg Jets, late this week, a few days after the Oilers knocked out the Kings in the seventh game, came back from loosing 3-1 in the last two minutes, to tie the game at 3-3. The second of those two goals was with 1.8 seconds left. Then, the Jets went on to win this game, likewise the seventh game, in overtime. Winnipeg is part of Western Canada (province of Manitoba).

Note "WinniPEG," for Peggs could have been of the Pucks / Pughs / Pough's. Peggs are first known in Derbyshire with the Sleigh's of Ash! Ash's are first known in Devon with Poe's/Pough's! Peggs use "wedges" while Wedge's, in VINCE colors and format, share the Vince motto! "Vince" means "win"!

The English Nests, probably in the "nest" of Welsh Carne's, are in the colors and format of Pucks/Puckells, are said to be first known in Sussex with Nests and English Finners/Fenners. These Nests share the dove of Page's, the latter first known in Devon with Dove-related WESTs!!! English Nests are said to begin with "Nest de BARRI," and Italian Paloma's, sharing the same dove, are first known in Bari, in Apulia with Taranto. The Arms of Taranto has mythical Taras, and Tarrs are also Tarrs'/Tarres', and first known in Somerset with Pegg- and Watch-beloved Wedge's, and with Coffee-branch Coffers/Coffare's. The Arms of Taranto are in the Coffee/Coffer Crest but with a green dolphin, and the latter is in the Crest also of French's (Devon).

Wedge's share the gauntlet with FIENS/Fane's/Vans having a Vince-like VEYNES variation while Vince's list Finch's while Bar-loving Feins/Finns share the Finchem Coat. Then, while Winns are first known in Wales with Welsh Carne's who in turn share the pelican with Wayne's who in turn have more gauntlets, and, zikers, not only are Wayne's first known in Essex with OWL-loving Sledge's/Slice's/Sleigh's, but Fiens/Fane's/Veynes' are first known in Monmouthshire with HOWELLs (Pellican tower in colors reversed), smack beside the first-known Carne's of Glamorgan.

Ahh, Irish Finns/Finners, with a dove in Crest, not only have the Alberta mascle in colors reversed, but are first known in Sleigh- / Slice-like Sligo. English Finners/Fenners, with the Winn eagle in Ham and Hammer colors, can now take use the "sledge hammer" Alberts, the latter first known in Kent with Fiens/Finis' (Fien/Fane/Veynes colors and format) who in turn share the lion of German Hammers and German Winklers. Dutch Winklers love the Acorns, first known in Sussex with Hams and Hammers. English Winklers (Cheshire with Newtons) have the Finner/Fenner cross in colors reversed, and the latter's is in the colors of the saltire cross formed by shin bones of Newtons. German WINKlers share the border of JUSTINs, who trace to VINKovci, where the imperial husband of Justine of Picenum lived.

Note how "APULia" could have named pelican-using Pullys/Pullens, and then the Purple's/PurPUL's can be in the purple Shield of English Winners/WhinRAYs (Cumberland with English Rays and Finner-beloved Falcons).

Google won't quickly/easily give me the final vote count, which makes me suspicious i.e. carney's side may have asked google not to advertise the tally. Last I heard, the win wasn't by much more than 1-percent, totally expected when cheating is needed, at the last minute, to get the real loser into the win category.

The Sledge/Slice/Slay write-up: "The hamlet of Ash in Derbyshire was an ancient family seat at one time. 'The place was the property of the Sleigh family, from whom it came to the CHEThams, and subsequently to the COTTON.'" Note how Cheathams can point to election cheats. French Cottons/Cottards are first known in Languedoc with French Julians while Kenns share the crescents of German Julians. Julian-branch Gullys/Gollys are first known in Oxfordshire with Cottars, and the latter are in the rare colors of Froggits (Derbyshire with Ash of the Sledge's/Slice's).

Aurelia Cotta was mother to Julius Caesar, who formed an alliance with royal Cottians. Caesars (Surrey) almost have the Olten/Oldhams/Oldman Chief, and both surnames have white Crests. Both Chiefs share the roses of Hatters and Haddens, the latter first known in Derbyshire with the Sleigh's of ASH. Haddens use a scimiTAR, and Sleigh's are listed with Slice's while the sliced-to-pieces theme is now being presented (by me) as part of the tar sands that carney rejects such that Alberta is wishing to cut itself off from carney. Hadden-branch Haldans are first known in Renfrewshire with Paisleys. While Ash-like Ass' are first known in the same area as Peace's/Paise's, English Ash's are first known in Devon with the Saffers suspect in the "Suffer" motto of Haddens and Haldans. Haldan-like Oldans are listed with Oltens/Oldhams/Oldmans in turn sharing the owl with Sleigh's/Slice's.

Cheathams share the red griffin in Crest with BROCuffs (share Chief-Shield colors of Brocks) while Brocks and Brooks are both first known in Essex with Sledge's/Slice's/Slays. carney stepped down recently as the head cheese of a corrupt BROOKfield company, in order to run for the head cheese of canada, and everyone in the Conservative camp expects him to use the canadian treasury on behalf of Brookfield and friends.

English Cottons are first known in Huntingdonshire with the Otto-connectable Others/Otters, and with the otter-using Fenders/Venders while the Vante's expected in the Taw motto are also FENDens/Wendens. Others/Otters are said to be from the theater of Ottone Visconti, and they are said to be proto-WINDsors. Huntingdonshire is also where Kemmis'/Kenys are first known who share the Shin/Chine/Ching Coat.

Trump's vice-president, J.D. Vance, is expected to foment or facilitate Trump's will with carney. We shall see what that will is. Trump the vulture, waiting for the canadian corpse to stop moving.

While West-connectable Waistells (doves) are first known in Cumberland with English Vaux's, Vance's are listed with Scottish Vaux's, first known in East Lothian! Vance's are expected in the motto of Hills, the latter first known in Worcestershire with the thumb-like Tume's/Tombs expected in the "tuum" motto term of Cheathams (share griffin with Marble's). Cheathams are also CheeTUMs.

I trace the Tume/Tomb Coat to the royal COTTIANs on the RIParia river, and so Cheathams and Cottons both look like they were from the Cottians. King Cottius of the Cottians was father to Waistell-like Vestalis, and Cottius' father, king Donnus, is suspect to the Dance's/Donnas' expected in the dancetty-fesse of Wests. Cutters are first known in Dorset with the George's sharing the blue dove of Waistells, and with the Gallops in the galloping horse of Waistells. The latter's Wessel variation takes us to German Wissels who in turn love the Wings/Winks, first known in Worcestershire with Tume's/Tombs.

And wow, I can now return to my oft-shared story about ALBERT Oosteyn, who asked me to move into his apartment while he went to work at Whistler Mountain ski resort in British Columbia! That province is far west as one can get in Canada. Note only do Columbia's have doves colors reversed from the ones of Waistells/Wessels, but English Wissels (Somerset with Shins/Chine's/Chings) list Whistlers!!! The Columbia Chief is shared by English Ducks/Dacks, first known in Somerset with Wissels/Whistlers!

This reminds that Christine Peare pointed to Waistells (white horse) partly when I rode her white horse, whom I first kissed at La Paloma, and then Italian Paloma's use a giant dove. German Wissels almost have the Coat of Jewish Glass' while Glasgows (same place as Paisleys and Poke's/Pollocks) love the Lords who in turn share the pheon arrow heads of Glaze's and Carneys. Scottish Glass' are first known in Bute with Kims/Shimmie's (have the Lord cinquefoils in colors reversed).

It should be repeated here that Pollocks, Pullys/Pullens, and Sabine's were from Vespasia Polla (wife of Flavius Sabinus) of Rieti while Pools/Pole's and Rita's share the same giant lion. The point is, Rita's have "PIECES of wood" while Woods and Roots can be gleaned as kin of Rieti-line Roets. We're back to proto-Rothschilds who named Rothes on the SPEY river of Peter Pollock (the first Pollock who built Rothes castle). Rita's almost have the Coat of Sforza's (Rome with Rita's) who in turn share the giant lion of French Pole's. Vespasia Polla was mother to three of the seven Roman heads of Revelation 17. This is the proto-antiChrist.

The Sforza lion, shared by German Hammers, holds a "quince," and it just so happens that Quince's/Quincy's (Northamptonshire with FACE's) share the Alberta MASCLE. Saer de Quincy is in the write-up of FAUCets (East Lothian with Vance's/VAUX's and Keaths/Mascals) as the builder of their castle, four miles from MUSSELburgh. Then, French Carne's, in Vance/Vaux colors and format, share the cinquefoil of the Ardens in turn in the motto of Petts, the latter first known in Kent with Hammer-loving Alberts. Mascals are first known in Sussex with English Hammers. English FAUX's use a giant mascle, in colors reversed from the same of WHALLEys (Lancashire with Ardens), and then Vaux's are also VALLIbus'. Bus', with the Arden cinquefoil in half its colors, are first known in Norfolk with Keats, Haydens and Heads/Heeds while Keaths/Mascals are first known in Haddington. Haddingtons have the Face Coat in colors reversed. Hadden-branch Haldans were once said to be first known in East Lothian with Haddington, but are now said to be first known in Renfrewshire with Paisley(s).

It's mentionable that while Paisleys are also Pasleys, English Pasleys (Berkshire with Otter-related Windsors) share the triple fesses of Shins/Chine's/Chings and Kemmis'/Kenys'.

The Chief-Shield colors of Glaze's, Brocuffs, Brocks and Cutters (Dorset with Hats/Hades' and Pools/Pole's) may be shared by the Hanks in the "hanks of cotton" of English Cottons. Hank-like Hangers (Hampshire, beside Dorset) share the "escarbuncle" with English Angers (Essex with Sledge's/Slice's/Slays, Brocks and Books). Anjou of Angers has a Broc location.

While Fulks ruled Anjou, Brocuffs love the Fulke-connectable Flags/Flecks (Norfolk with Fulke's, Beauty-related Haydens, and Heads/Heeds). Hanks almost share the Coat of OILeys/OWLeys, you see, the latter first known in Oxfordshire with the Tiens suspect in the "tuum tene" motto phrase of Cheathams/CheetTUMs. It's also where Ship-loving Edmonds and Ships/Shiptons are first known, and while Ships love the Bellows/BALLOTs, the latter share the cinquefoil of Dogs, the latter first known in Perthshire with Athels. King Edmond Ironside was an Atheling.

Oxfordshire is also where Cottars are first known while French Cottons are also Cottards. Cottars call their lizards, "evetts," and Evetts (look like Seaton and Eaton kin) use a giant "pattee" cross while Pattys are first known in Worcestershire with Albert-connectable Halpers and Tume's/Tombs. Hanks are first known in Lincolnshire with Halper-branch Halps/Halfs, both of whom are connectable to the Sledge/Slice/Slay Crest. The Halper Crest shares a brown lion with the Evett Crest.

I'll add that while an old friend of mine, Joe Oullette, was in a dream of mine that pointed hard to Arizona election fraud, that's where Kari Lake was cheated out of two election wins. My shin-pad goal actually pointed to Mike Lindell, who paid for some/much of her legal costs in fighting election fraud. The point is, Kari Lake is married to Mr. Halperin, and Halperins are listed with Halpers. Lake's are first known in Oxfordshire with Evett-beloved Cottars and Edmonds. The latter share the fleur-de-lys of Arrows/Arras' who in turn are first known in Staffordshire with the Bassets who named Ouilly-le-Basset of the Oullette's. Bassets share the Coat of Scottish Drummonds (Perthshire with Athels). Edmonds are in Heath colors and format.

The Odin/Hoddy and Albert saltire is shared also by Puck-connectable Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels, though the latter form the saltire with crossed spears on blue. The ROET- and Rollo-related Spears/SPEYERs have crossed spears on blue too, and then German Rothschilds/Roddensteins are first known in Speyer. Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels share white, crossed spears with Scottish Line's/LINDs, and I speared Tarr's puck across the goal LINE. Lindells are listed with Dutch Linds. I'll come to Mike Lindell shortly.

The "vireSCIT" motto term of Scottish Line's/Linds and Brookfield-pointable Brocks helps to show that God set up this heraldry where Skits, first known in Ayrshire with Scottish Line's/Linds, share the Coat of Skate's. See that? I didn't make the heraldry. Line's/Linds (and Rush's) even have the Puck and Otto/Ottone annulet in colors reversed. Rush's were once said to be first known in Suffolk with Slice-beloved Owls/Howls, but are now said to be first known in Surrey with Ham beloved Salmons while Hams are in the colors of Hammers in the Albert sledge hammer. Slice's list Sledge's, and Hams with Hammers, and Dutch Hamils/Hamme's too, are in Burley/Bourley colors to boot.

The first Rothschild banker was Mayer Bauer, and while Bauers/Bowers share the green Shield with Scottish Bowers (essentially share the Arms of Rothschild arrows), and I was wearing my new Johnny Bower brand skates when scoring the winning goal.

French Pine's, suspect in the pineapples of Prince's, share the cinquefoils of Kims/Shimmie's, the latter first known in Bute, an island that was previously ROTHESay. Kims/Shimmie's share the cinquefoils of McKinneys, first known in Peebles-shire with Scottish Bowers. The latter, along with Bauers/Bowers, share the green Shield with Burleys/Bourleys, the latter first known in Somerset with Shimmie-like and Kemmis-branch Shins/Chine's/Chings in the Newton "shin bones" (Burley/Bourley colors). See that? I didn't make the heraldry. It wasn't my choice to fall on my shin bones. English Pine's, with more pineapples, are first known in Devon with Burley-connectable Burys while Irish Burys have another green Shield.

As I'm the writer here, it doesn't sit well with me that my winning goal should point to God's will in making carney the prime minister unless He's setting carney up to slice him to pieces before the whole world as a happy audience. That's sounds nice. Peace's/Paise's, in Burley/Bourley colors, are first known in the SHETland theater while Skate's are listed with Sheets! Peace's/Paise's love the West-related Dove's! Wests are first known in Devon with Burys! Bury of Lancashire is where Cheathams may have been first known. The West (canada) wants to slice carney's canada to pieces.

Wests and Dove's share the dancetty-fesse (different colors) with Chet-like Ches'/Cheatle's (Cheshire with Newtons, Ballots and Puck-beloved Hands). Packs and Pucks are first known in Sussex with Mascals while Cheatle-like Keaths/Keiths (East Lothian with Musselburgh, near Lauder) come up as "Mascal." Mussels/Muscels (Lincolnshire with early Otts/Oats) share white "plates" with Otts/Oats, and Plate's are first known in Lancashire with Cheathams and Bury. Skate's/Sheets are first known in Norfolk with Keath-like Keats and Plate-like Platters. Burys share the Masci fleur-de-lys.

Peace's/Paise's are first known in ORKNey, which I see in the "ORGAN pipes" of OulLETTE-connectable Letts/Late's. The latter's Letter / Lauder branch have the griffin in colors reversed, yet it's also the griffin of BUMPs, the latter first known in Gloucestershire with Letts/Late's. In the dream with Joe Oullette, he shoveled snow into a container from the BUMPer of his black van.

I now need to go to my Sleeping Beauty dream again because I first saw Sleeping Beauty at the FENDER of an AUTO (car), walking to the front of the HOOD. Auto's are listed with German Otto's, sharing the black bull with Beautys, and the latter are first known in Dorset with the Head-branch Hats/Hades' while the Hate's/Hague's (Yorkshire with Odins and Oddie's/Hoddys) share the Oddie/Hoddy saltire. Cheathams are first known in Salford with Ratcliffs sharing the black bull head with Auto's/Otto's. Ratcliffs are first known in Bury of Salford while English Burys are first known in Devon with Hoods/Hoots.

Enter trudeau

Amazingly, the Sledge/Slice Coat is almost in the colors and format of Moe's/Moens/MOINS. Scott Moe is the premier of Saskatchewan, one of the western provinces that may like to separate with Alberta. It just so happens that Monks/MOYNE's ARE INDEED in Sledge/Slice colors and format, showing that Moe's could have been related to Slice's! Monks/Moyne's are first known in Devon with the Pike's who share the Moe/Moin trefoils. Both Coats are similar to the one of Slate's while Sledge's/Slice's show a Sleight variation. The Slice-beloved Owls/Howls are first known in Suffolk with Blonds and Blondville's while Blundville's (Cheshire with Chester) almost have the Slate Coat. Slate's are first known in CHESTERfield of Derbyshire, and Ash of Derbyshire is where the Sleigh variation of Slice's are said to have settled.

What are the chances, unless Arranged centuries ago, that Slate's have a "ponDERE" motto term while the Trudeau "deer" ought to be code for the Deers/Dere's!? It's like the perfect proof that God wants us to know that He breathed "sliced to pieces" out of me in relation to carney's demise at His hand. Can't wait to see it. The "CreSCIT" motto term of Slate's goes well with the "VireSCIT" of Brookfield-connectable Brocks, and with the Skit-branch Skate's/Sheets who both share the red-on-white potent cross of Brock-branch Brocuffs! The latter are first known in Silesia with the Sitlers/SCHITners (!) who happen to share the MOE/Moen/Moin and Pike (same place as Monks/Moyne's) trefoil! Can we believe it? It tends to prove that Slate's were a branch of Slice's! I'm so impressed.

Skate's/Sheets are first known in Norfolk with PilGRIMs and Bags; the latter share the Shield of GRIMaldi's and Cocks, and so as Monks/Moyne's use a "COCKatrice," it's very likely that Monks/Moyne's and Moe's/Moins are from Grimaldi of MONACo. Grimaldi of Genova were partnered with Fieschi, explaining why Fiscs (Norfolk again) have a Shield much like the Grimaldi Coat. It also explains why German Munichs/Munch's share the Fisc Shield. Are we pointing to Hitler's Nazi bastion in Munich?

Irish Munichs use a giant "DEER"!!! It looks like a pointer to justin trudeau, and to the "pondere" motto term of Slate's.

German Munichs/Munch's share the double fesses of Parrs expected in the Rollo motto phrase, "PASSE par TOUT." Touts are listed with Toots/Tute's while Tuttle's/Toothills share the Rollo chevron, in colors reversed from the Valois chevron. Rollo married Poppa of Valois. Tute's/Tuits and Thwaits/Twitts are first known in Norfolk. Rollo's share the black boar with the Ponds/Ponts and Ponders/Ponters expected in the "pondere" motto term of Slate's. Ponds/Ponts are first known in Hampshire with POPPins/Pophams who in turn share a "Mens" motto term with Pepins.

Pepins share the Pipe Coat, and Letts use "organ pipe's" while Lett-branch Letters (Berwickshire with Tatton-connectable Tate's) share the "goose" with Germans Gas'/Gascons. GAS PIPES. German Gas'/Gascons are in Letter and Lauder colors and format. Scottish Gas' (Yorkshire with Smiths) share the Fisc Shield. French Gas's/Garcons are first known in Dauphine with Payens/Pagans while Italian Daniele's (share Pane/Panico and Ping/Pagan label) are first known in Bologna with Pane's/Panico's. DANIELLE SMITH, current premier of Alberta who defeated the vaccine goons. Daniele's are in the format of, and colors reversed from, Letters and Gas'.

Italian Daniels share the crescent of Touts/Toots, in colors reversed from the same of Italian and Scottish Deins/Deans (Sussex with Dans, Dane's, and Albert-beloved Hammers) who in turn share the giant lion of French Daniels. German Hammers share the giant lion of German Smiths. Danielle Smith of Alberta. Albert-beloved Sledge's are first known in Essex with the Sempers/St. PIERRE's in the Smith motto, a potential pointer to Pierre Poilievre. German Smiths share the lion of Pierre's.

Plus wow, Scottish Daniels/DANIER's are first known in Gloucestershire with Letts! It recalls that I bought two LEATHER Coats at Danier leather (in Kingston). Letters are also Leathers! Letts and Lords are in the Glasgow motto while Glaze's (Yorkshire with Smiths) and Lords share the Carney pheon. Daniels/Danier's have a "SPERNo" motto term while Smith-beloved Herons use "SPERANDum." There is a Speranza surname using "arms" while Armys/ERMINE's are first known in Lincolnshire with the Fish in the "fish" in the mouth of the heron of English Smiths. Scottish Smiths use an "anvil" while Anvils have an ermined eagle head. "SperanDUM" is a surname code because Dume's/Dome's/Dummers use a giant heron.

I bought the leather jackets in Kingston, and while Kingston (England) is on a Hull river, Hulls, in the colors and format of English Smiths, can point to Hull in Quebec, a twin city with Ottawa.

The heron of Scottish Smiths is shown with black drops, but are called "erminois." If this surname did use black drops, they are TAR drops. In fact, the heron of English Smiths has "guttee d'or," meaning "gold drops." The Army/Ermine Chief is almost the one of Drops/Trope's, and as the latter has a Shield filled with black drops, it appears that God arranged Smiths to point to Danielle Smith and her drive to get the tar sands going again!!! carney is apt to forbid it, for Quebec and the Liberals have been forbidding it for a decade or more.

"Victor" is the full motto of one James' surname which shares a blue lion in Crest with English Dummers. The latter are said to have been first at Dummer, "four miles from Basingstoke." The latter is where Poppins/Pophams are first known who can certainly be from Poppa of Valois. The Laws suspect in the "La" motto term of Rollo's are first known in Northumberland with Herons. Laws share the Coat of Salome's, first known in Rhineland with Dume's/Dome's/Dummers, and almost have the Coat of Scottish Vaux's, first known in East Lothian with the Fortune's in the "La fortune" motto phrase of Rollo's.

While Alberts love the dolphin-using Hammers, the latter were a branch of Hams whose salmon in turn are in the colors and format of the triple herons of Haverans/Hearns (Heron Coat on a green Shield).

Herons share the Coat of Orne's/Horns, first known in Middlesex with Brookfields, in case this applies as a pointer, for carney doesn't want the tar sands running again due to pipelines owned / used by Brookfield (love the Wheats), the competition. This recalls that my old friend, Paul Smith, moved to wheat-laden Saskatchewan, beside Alberta. Danielle complains that Liberals have increases taxes on Western grain farmers for the same reasons that they attack the tar sands, to cripple the West.

It recalls my dream (mentioned many times in updates) where Paul Smith appeared on my driveway in crutches while the Crutch's/Crooch's (Croce branch) almost have the fitchee of English Smiths. Paul was following (on crutches) a sickly-looking stag that I deciphered as Trump. The latter, a lunatic, wants to steal Alberta's resources, with carney's help, I assume, while annexing all of canada. Trump thus ruining his own reputation, perfect justice on an egotistical oaf.

The sickly stag was following Lawrence Kepke, another of my old friends, and, as I've said, Kepke moved to Hull in Quebec! Repeat from above: "I bought the leather jackets in Kingston, and while Kingston (England) is on a Hull river, Hulls, in the colors and format of English Smiths, can point to Hull in Quebec, a twin city with Ottawa." Trump's have a giant "stag" head. Kings, sharing the Kingston lion, share the gold crosslets of Pauls (Yorkshire with Hulls) in one color. Hull-branch Halls are first known in Lincolnshire with Smith-beloved Fish's, and the latter are in Vaughn / Fish colors and format while Paul Smith lived in Vaughn when I was his buddy. He was an avid fisherman.

Lookie. Paul was/is a licensed carpenter, and CARPenters (pale bars) share the crosslets of Pauls (Yorkshire with Pale's/Palys and Pullys). Carps/KARPFF's (Pomerania with Trumps) use a big "fish" in Trump and Kepke/Kopke colors and format. Lawrence's use a fish ("turbot") tail. Karpff-like Kopffs share the goat (different colors) with Kepke's/Kopke's! The Carp/Karpff fish is in the colors of the fish of Trouts while Trots/Trude's may have been a Trudeau branch. That's all got to be why Kepke came walking up my driveway, followed by the stag, followed by Paul Smith on crutches!

It's pointing to Danielle Smith, but why the crutches? Is it because carney defeated her province when he cheated Poilievre out of the win? What next? German Smiths share the lion of Pierre's, and so, maybe, Paul's crutches are a pointer to Poilievre's "loss." Crutch-branch Croce's use a "stork" but Storks are first known in Northumberland with Smith-beloved Herons. "Dum" is a motto term of Croce's, and Dume's/Dome's/Dummers have a giant heron. Croce's use a potent cross, known to be shaped after the crutch, for obvious reason as per the Crooch variation of Crutch's.

It's interesting that the annulet of Italian Alberts is in half the colors of the Bull/Bule annulet while Bullys share the Alberta mascle. Trump is the bullDOG in the Sleeping Beauty dream, that is swallowed by a shark, and Dogs/Doags/DOCKs can be of the HARDY-descended Douglas'. Bullys (DUMfries with Bells and Castle Douglas) and Douglas' use a HEART, and Douglas' are first known in Moray with the Bellys in turn sharing the Carpenter motto. English Docks share the lion of Douglas-connectable James', jet the same James' also have the lion of Italian Croce's. Crutch's/Crooch's are first known in Somerset with Bulls/Bule's.

English Smiths are first known in Durham with the Darlingtons who not only share the Croce/Cross motto, but share gold drops with Smiths. Plus, Darlington-branch Darlene's are super for sharing the fitchees of Sands (Surrey with James') and Sandys! Tar Sands. Tarrs (Sand / Sandy colors) are first known in Somerset with Bulls/Bule's. The "poeNITet" motto term of Sandys (probably share the Annandale griffin) could be for the Nitts/Naughts, first known in Dumfries with the Nith river, near Castle Douglas, and with Annandale's. Nitts/Naughts share the checks of Pett-branch Pitts while Petts (stork in "BULrushes") share the Bully / Alberta mascle. Pitts and Petts share the stork with Croce's/Cross'.

"PoeniTET" can be also for the Teet variation of Tate's sharing the Chief-saltire combo of Annandale's. Poe's/Pough's (Devon with Darlene's) can be in the same motto term, and they share flames with the Bully heart.

Petts are first known in Kent with the Masons/Massins whose motto is incorporated by Darlingtons and Croce's/Cross. The latter are first known in Lincolnshire with the Armys/Ermine's sharing the Chief-saltire combo to Teets/Tate's and Annandale's. Darlene's are first known in Devon with the Trebys sharing the Chief of Withens suspect in the Withenshaws married by Tattons. English Tate's are first known in Suffolk with the Crane's/Crauns whose annulets I link to the ones of Bulls/Bule's. DENhams (Berwickshire with Teets/Tate's) love the Crane's. The shark that swallows Trump has nasty TEETH, and Toot-like Tooths (London, near first-known Orne's/Horns) share the Leather griffin (Heron / Orne/Horn colors). Denham-like Dunhams can be linked to Trump-connectable Downs/Douns. We will wait to see how deceptive Trump deals with Danielle Smith. His "art of the deal" always involves deception, where he pretends to like the one he's planning to rob. He says he likes carney.

Daniels/Danier's use a "Nec" motto term while Dutch Necks are listed with Neckers. Then, German Neckers share the pale bar of Crutch's/Crooch's. See that? "Nec" is also with Roddens/Rodhams, first known in Northumberland with Smith-beloved Herons. See that? "Nec" is also with Rutherfords sharing the goose on a rock with leathers, and I bought two leather Coats at Danier leathers!

Pale's/Palys share the camel head with Irish Pattersons, and Scottish Pattersons are the pelican with Pullys. The Patterson pelicans come with nests, as does the giant pelican of Carne's. Irish Pattersons share the gold-on-black drops of English Smiths, which, in colors reversed, are black, poix = tar drops. Irish Pattersons add "blood drops" while Bloods/Bluds and Powers of poix-like Pois have another stag. Powers and Poors are first known in Devon with Staggs/Stage's.

Italian Fortune's have a giant "dog" (Leather / Gas colors and format) while DOGs/Doags/DOCKs are first known in Perthshire with Rollo's. DOUGlas-connectable James', sharing a blue lion with English Docks, are first known in Surrey with Salome-like Salmons. German Fortune's/Fortuna's share the giant lion of German Smiths. English Docks are first known in Staffordshire with the Duce's sharing the Coat of Smith-beloved Sempers/St. Pierre's. German Smiths share the lion of Pierre's.

Along with the "Victor" motto of James', It's then interesting that Denhams have a "victorium" motto term while Victor(ia)'s have a black pale bar, the color of the pale bar by lozenges of Daniels/Danier's. Is this to say that Ms. Smith will be victorius? Her foe is Liberal Quebec, the traitorous francophones who despise English Canada, and so it's interesting that Coffee's/Coffers have a "victoria" motto term while sharing a green dolphin in Crest with French's. James' have a dolphin too. French's are first known in Devon with the Ballot-branch Billets in the Dummer Coat, and with the Hazels who share the Dummer crescent.

Passe's/Pascals (Essex with Sledge's/Slice's and Brocks), sharing the Toothill/Tottehull lion, can get us to Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels, first known in Bologna with the Pane's/Panico's who incorporate the Chief of Chesterfields (both share the Masci fleur-de-lys). Slate's, with the Coat almost of Cheshire's Blundville's (known to be direct Meschins), were first at Chesterfield (beside Cheshire). Meschins ruled at Cheshire's Chester. English Pace's (Cheshire) use a purple Shield while Purple's/Purpuls are first known in Norfolk with Grimaldi elements, and then the Grimaldi prince's of Monaco use a purple throne (I had read this) as apparent code for the Purple/Purpul surname. We can wonder whether the purple color of the robe of the Revelation-17 harlot applies here.

While Panico's were at the Setta valley (Bologna with Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels) that drains into the Reno river, Payne's (Somerset with Montacute's and Cocks) have the lozenges of Montacute's, Reno's and Panico-branch Pincs (Yorkshire with Panico-branch Pings/Pagans) in colors reversed, and together these are the Grimaldi and Cock lozenges. Pasi's/Pace's show a Pasini variation while Pasins/Pasi's/Pace's share the "GREEN tree" with Pane's/Panico's. Greens are also GREEMs/Greme's.

Pane's/Panico's (share Roet tree) share the "bird" with French Pepins, and Birds/Burds are first known in Cheshire. English Payne's, kin of Rollo-related Roets, use a BROKen SPEAR as a possible pointer to Brookfield because the puck from Tarr's slap shot could have ROLLed to the goal line, and while I speared the puck across the line, Scottish Line's, with a version of the crossed Spear and Pasi/Pace spears, are first known in Ayrshire with Wallis'/Wallace's while Valais canton, connectable to Valois, is also "Wallis." The Wallis/Wallace lion now becomes suspect as the Payne lion, in the colors of the Monk/Moyne lion heads.

As PULLys/Pullens (Yorkshire with Touts/Toots and Hulls) almost have the COTISed Shield of Toothills/TotteHULLs, it appears that PurPULs were named partly after the Pullys (share pelican with Welsh Carne's). In fact, Pully is a location in Switzerland not far from its VALAIS canton. Rollo married Poppa of Valois, and Valois' are listed with Valais'. Coats'/COTIS' share the PALE bars of TRUDE's/Trots, and Tout-branch Tattons (Cheshire), said to have married Massys, share the white greyhound in Crest with Masci-connectable Chesterfields. Right now (since the days of Grace Kelly, wife of Mr. Grimaldi of Monaco), some Grimaldi's of Monaco are styled, "baron of Massy."

That link between Rollo's and Purple's/Purpuls tends to prove again that Mr. Grimaldus of Monaco did marry Crispina, daughter of king Rollo (many think that the Grimaldi made that claim up as false). In fact, while French Crispins share the "POMEgranate" with CARLs, and while Grimaldi's claim to descend from Charles Martel (a Merovingian Pepin who could have named Poppa), the HeathCOTES' use green roundels ordinarily called, "POMEls," though Heathcotes' call it a "pomei." The term means "apple." These Pomei have crosses within them in the colors of the giant cross of Irish Burys while English Burys (Devon with pineAPPLE Pine's) share the Chesterfield fleur-de-lys.

POMroys, with almost a Rollo motto term, love the Conte's/Comitissa's (branch of Cone's), first known in Durham with Heaths. Pomroys (look like Talbot kin) share the "fir cone" with Allison-branch Alis', both connectable to the Truth variation of Trude's/Trots. Allisons are even first known in Lanarkshire with Scottish Roys! PomROY. German Role's share the Roy lion, yet it's also the Brins/Brin lion.

Again, the Coats'/Cotes' (Staffordshire, beside Derbyshire's Chesterfield) share the six pale bars of Trude's/Trots. Chesterfields are said to have been at Heathcotes, and then the English Cotys'/Archdeacons (Devon with Ash's and Monks/Moyne's) almost have the Coat of Ash's while the Sleigh variation of Sledge's/Slice's were at Derbyshire's Ash. This tends to peg French Cotys'/Cottons/Cottards with a version of the Grimaldi Shield for a related reason. It looks like a pointer to justin trudeau. The English version of the Slate motto, "Virtue thrives under oppression," even looks like a pointer to trudeau's tyranny, to be half-expected under carney's government.

English Cotys'/Archdeacons almost have the Coat of French Levi's/Levins (Ile-de-France with Trudeau's) while Jewish Levi's/Levins share the Passe/Pascal lion while Chesters look related to the Coat of Levins, the latter first known on Westmorland with Trot-like Trouts and Avranches-suspect Branch's. The Brins'/Brins above are suspect from Avranches elements who birthed the Meschin earls.

OLIPHANTs (Perthshire with Rollo's) share "Tout" with Rollo's, and ELEPHANT-head Levens (not "Levin") are first known in Shropshire (beside Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire) with Plows who in turn share the dancetty-fesse of Chesterfields. Pillows/Pilotte's can take us to Pilate's/Pilots/Pilotte's sharing the Carney pheons. Chesters almost have the Coat of Irish Powers, first known in Devon with Poe's/Pough's and Poors. Poe's could be in the Sandy motto.

Repeat from above: "There is the "coincidence" that Lievre's, expected in "PoiLIEVRE," almost have the Pace Coat. Poe's/Pough's look like they may have been off of the Puck-like Pughs/Pews." The latter share the Passe'/Pascal and Jewish Levi lion. Poe's/Pough's (share flames with Monaco's) are first known in Devon with Monks/Moyne's, and Pughs/Pews have most of the Fisc motto.

Moreover, Pughs/Pews share the triple fleur-de-lys of English Fabians while Italian Fabians share the Grimaldi Shield. The same triple fleur are with Comines-beloved Courage's, first known in Essex with Passe's/Pascals (share Pugh/Pew lion). They are also the fleur of English Smiths for a potential pointer to Alberta's premier, for Irish Smiths/Gows use "An arm holding a dagger." Dagger-using Comines' are first known in Norfolk with Pilgrims and Purple's. Pilgrims are in the purple "pilgrims' staves" of Hawks (Hampshire with Smith- / Heron-connectable Dummers), and the Strike's in the latter's motto share the Coat of POYs/DuPuys (Languedoc with Grimaldi-connectable Cotys'/Cottons/Cottards). POIlievre. He now has a parliamentary seat in Alberta.

The trudeau-beloved Nazi, Mr. Hunka, can be pointed to by the "hanks of cotton" of English Cottons. The latter are first known in Huntingdonshire with ADa of Warenne, suspect in the "ad" motto term of Pughs/Pews and Fiscs. Hunkins share the giant mascle of Faux's, the latter first known in Essex with Passe's/Pascals.

Hunkins (Cornwall with Ministers/Minsters) share the Minister/Minster fesse, and the latter may have named Sturminster Newton as a pointer to PRIME Minister carney. Prime's are first known in Lincolnshire with Trude-connectable Prays/PRETers, and with the Miles' who in turn share the millrind of Ministers/Minsters and English Mills ("PRETium" motto term). Prets/Prettys are first known in Staffordshire with the Coats'/Cotes' sharing the six pale bars of Irish Prays and Trude's ...which are in the colors of the 10 pale bars of Tarrs, BY THE WAY! Almost missed that.

The Leo's in the Poy/DuPuy motto share the fesse of French Payne's suspect with lion the of Monks/Moyne's (Puck/PUCKELL colors) and Baths (Somerset with English Payne's). Baths share the cross of Face's/Fessys, a branch of Genova's Fieschi (see google). This makes Poe's/Pough's look like a line from Payne Roet where Payne's may have named Poys/DuPuys. Pays are listed with Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels/PACELLi's (Bologna with Pane's/Panico's). Pans are listed with Payens/Pagans, first known in Dauphine with French Page's (see also LePage's, same place as Trudeau's) while English Page's (Monk/Moyne colors and format) are first known in Devon with Monks/Moyne's and Poe's/Pough's. The Panico-branch Pings/Pagans almost have the Coat of Poe-beloved Cressents/Crests.

Hiedlers/HITLERs are first known in Munich, a city in Bavaria along with DACHau. The latter was the headquarters for Hitler's Bavarian concentration camps. trudeau loved the Ukraine Nazi, Yaroslav Hunka, and there is a Ukraine Munich/Mink surname. As Bauers/Bowers are first known in Bavaria with Rothes'/Rothchilds, it's notable that the Burleys/Bourleys (Somerset with Payne's and Shins/Chine's/Chings) have boar heads in the colors of Irish Munich's sharing the "deer" with Trudeau's.

I can trace Tarr's SLAP SHOT to the sling shot in the Arms of Dachau, for Tax's/Dachs/Dacks share the crossed swords of Borders, the latter first known in Somerset with Ducks/Dacks (share Border star). These crossed swords are not only in the colors of the crossed spears of Scottish Line's (Ayrshire with Skate-branch Skits, and with Pike's/Pickens sharing the Duck/Dack stars), but those swords are in the colors of the same of SHOTs/Shute's/Shitts/SCHUTE's (Wiltshire with Stars) while Sitlers/Schitners (same place as BROCuffs) share the trefoil of English Pike's (beside Somerset). I was wearing Johnny BAUER SKATES when spearing the puck across the line.

It's important to keep in mind that while Steve Tarr's slap shot failed to score the win, such that it could be a pointer to Alberta's separation plots, our team's very next goal came in the championship match, where Tarr slipped a nice PASS of the PUCK to me in front of the net, and I scored with that pass. Pass/Pascals are first known beside Greens/Greems, and while Pucks are listed with Puckells, Pasi's/Pace's/Pascels are also Pacelli's. In heraldry, black TAR drops are also "poix," a potential pointer to Poe's/Pough's and Pughs/Pews. Black drops are with Drops/Trope's, first known in Norfolk with PilGRIMs. Plus, the POWers (Devon with Poe's/Pough's and Poors) are said to be from Pois, and then English Powers almost have the Irish Munich Coat. The Drop/Trope Chief is shared by Irish Prays sharing the Trude/Trot pale bars.

The point is, Tarr got FOUR goals in the final game, suggesting a big win for the tar sands of Alberta coming after carney's election win. We can even take this to the "TOUT travers" motto of FORE's/Forez's, for while Rollo's have a "passe PAR tout" motto phrase, Travers, with the Rollo boar feasibly in colors reversed, are said to have been of the Meschins. Parrs (Lancashire with Travers) have the double fesses of German Munichs, in the colors of the lone fesse of Poe's/Pough's and Poors.

The Travers write-up may have the Newton-beloved Prince's: "'In the time of the Conqueror, Robert de Travers or d'Estrivers, Baron of Burgh-upon-SANDs, married the daughter of Ranulph de Meschines, Lord of Cumberland, and the sister of Ranulph Bricasard, who succeeded his cousin Richard d'ABRINCis as Earl of Chester in 1119." That is, Ranulph le Meschin succeeded Richard d'Abrincis, a term like "Prince," and then Meschin ruled in Cheshire, where Newtons (Irish Munich colors) are first known. BRINS'/Brins are first known in Lancashire with Travers. Prince's are first known in Yorkshire with Touts. Massys married Tout-branch Tattons while English Tate's are first known in Suffolk with Travers-beloved Tigers and Owls/Howls.

Tattons (compare with Tuits/Tute's, Norfolk with Shaw-connectable Comines' and Withers) are said to have married "WITHENshaw, alias Massy," and Withens/Whittens have an owl, as do Sledge's/Slice's, the latter first known in Essex with the Comines-beloved Courage's sharing the SMITH fleur-de-lys. Whitten-like English White's are first known in Gloucestershire with Daniels/Danier's. Danielle SMITH. The other English White's are first known in Durham with English Smiths. Scottish White's are first known in Berwickshire with Scottish Tate's.

In canada, it's legal for provinces to separate from the country by a majority vote of more than 50-percent. Quebec tried it twice, and lost once by only a half-percent. After that, Liberals paid the separatists off so that they wouldn't try separation again.

Perhaps the cut-to-pieces theme refers less dramatically to the fact that practically all of canada west of Ottawa and Quebec, not including much of southern Ontario, has gone Conservative, in combat with Liberals that seek to starve western provinces into submission, so to speak. The western-most province, the one closest to China, had gone Conservative in the 2024 provincial election except that the NDP communists cheated to get their 47-44 (seats). It's a no brainer that the NDP would cheat as much as possible with China helping out.

Then, in this past federal election, the NDP managed to get just 13-percent of the vote. The Conservatives won this vote handily, yet, with the provincial government still under the thumb of the NDP, separation doesn't look easy because the NDP blowhorn is as deceptively brash and bullish as the Liberal party. Virtually everything in BC, aside from Vancouver and Victoria, went Conservative early this week.

According to polls, about 30-percent of people in both Alberta and British Columbia say they want separation...which doesn't necessarily mean to the United States. If they don't want to become Americans, then Trump will hate them, and punish them, just as a tyrant would against those who disagree with his will. He gave this country over to WEFers due to his desire to take canada to the United States. What a sick lunatic.

youtube doesn't allow any channel to talk about election fraud unless one opposes it. Therefore, take the video owner below with a grain of salt as he carefully reveals the same election fraud that was taking place in the United States, denying some people a vote who showed up to vote, and then entering faked votes for others who did not show up, who don't know that the faked votes were arranged in their names:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opSd8SZRcUM

Have the Conservatives checked to see whether Elections Canada is pro-Liberal? Duh, why not? Why waste all the work that goes into elections if you're just going to let the cheats rob you and make that work in vain?

Should Christians start preparing a move to Alberta, out of the reach of eastern anti-Christ governments?

Here's the premier of Alberta, where she discusses persecuted pipelines, and then separation at the 6th minute"
https://www.youtube.com

NEWS

If you hate watching canadian news stations as much as I do, partly because they don't explain what they are talking about, as if they only talk to the elite who already know the issues, you are bang-on right for despising them.

canada now needs to put up with tax thieves yet again. The only good news is that the Poilievre Conservatives gained 16 seats on Liberals and their NDP and Green partners such that the latter three parties can't pass legislation without a few votes from other parties.

Still, the fact that God allowed the Liberal machine to "win" this election tells that God let canadians have what they deserve, wicked rulers. Poilievre even openly said that his government would not attempt to save aborted people with some much-needed legislation. He even said that it was a woman's right to choose, which shows us that the PROGRESSIVE Conservatives are studded with liberals in the sense of people who wish to live FREE FROM GOD in humanitarianism.

I didn't hear any of his media podcasters breath a word on behalf of Jesus. I didn't hear any of his media podcasters say that the country has been in turmoil due to shoving Jesus out of the arena. Why should Jesus come to their rescue? I didn't see one Christian guest on a podcaster's show complaining that canadians are settled in their policy of not mentioning "Jesus" in an election fight. Who made the anti-Christs the rule makers?

When is it a good time for a mother to murder her child in the womb? Should the child be cut to pieces when it can't feel pain? Does that make it okay? Using that slippery-slope argument, mothers can start to kill their born children if only they use a drug to cut off the pain. Kill them while they're "asleep" on pain killers, and canadians will eventually be OKAY with that? This is where the trajectory is going in liberalism.

Is a fetus not a child at three months just because it's not fully developed? Neither is a child fully developed at nine months. Nor a child of 10 years. We can't use this argument because a fetus at one month WILL BECOME an adult, if only we don't allow the abortionists' tools to slice or rip he/her to pieces.

When Poilievre said he wasn't bothered by abortion, the situation was this: "In Canada, abortion is legal and publicly funded as a medical procedure, without any criminal restrictions or gestational limits. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that existing abortion laws were unconstitutional, and the criminal code provisions were repealed in 2019." Apparently, Poilievre sees nothing wrong with this law vacuum. A woman can kill her child at nine months in this country. No political body has crusaded to fix this horrendous situation. canadians live with this without a qualm. I walk amongst murderers, one in every two people.

The good news is that God is going to abort liberal Westerners. He's going to slice them to pieces. He's going to tell them, "sorry, but I have the free choice to abort you from eternal life." He's going to tell them, "it's My Body, and you aren't welcome to be a part of it."

canadians may soon have another chance to get rid of the Liberals if the latter cannot function as a government by failing to form a majority pact. If the Quebec Party refuses to form a government with the Liberals, it may tend to side with the Conservatives in blocking Liberal legislation.

Until the other parties keep tabs on election houses to discover how they procure election fraud, the Liberals will continue to eke out "wins." Early election allows the cheats to trash Conservative ballots, but why not add in fake carney ballots while they're at it? They have the people brainwashed into not contesting elections unless they want to be called names. On Friday, three days before election day, it was discovered, by a media blogger, that Elections Canada allows election houses to take bags of early-voted ballots out of the election houses, only to be returned on election day. Why do you suppose that ballots are taken elsewhere? And why didn't Conservatives keep eyes on this situation to expose it?

The Conservatives together with the Quebec party may block climate-change taxes, and demand less taxation all around so that people can have better buying power. The big problem in canada now is the small value of the dollar since the trudeau government allowed real-estate prices to rocket. It causes everything to rise in cost that goes into building a house. It causes rents to rise. This high-price situations is what Liberals perceive to be a "good economy," yes, when home prices are high. It's exactly what WEF globalism wants, exactly what banks want, and too many dastardly canadians voted for this yet again.

Though he proclaimed to be a Christian, even prime minister Harper (preceded justin trudeau) didn't stand up against abortion for fear of pro-abortion voters, and for fear of CBC propaganda against him. And when the globalists came to canada for a meeting, Harper treated them like the gods. "The Prime Minister [Harper] reminded his MPs he made a pledge to Canadians during the 2011 election: that his government would not reopen the abortion debate and that Conservatives wouldn’t bring forward legislation on the topic." Good one, Judas, traitor. Instead of taking up the Jesus flag upon your platform, you betrayed Him for fear merely of anti-Christs. You didn't give Jesus a chance to change the country. Ditto for Poilievre and his podcaster supporters.

A disillusioned Poilievre betrayed the people with wild abandonment, thinking he was a shoe-in to beat carney. And so, now, Christians need to live more time under anti-Christ rule. This has been the groan situation all my adult-life long. Why is me, why is me? The Liberals gloat over people like me. They celebrated their abortion landslide, and they celebrate their political wins too like misbehaved bulls who do not know they are being led by God to the slaughter house.

When Trump failed God such that Bidenites tricked him out of an election win, Bidenites got exposed as the snakes that they were. I expect the same to happen to carney's insiders, gangsters. The thing is, the Liberals were badly exposed for all sorts of tax-related corruption from more than a year before the election, but Poilievre barely mentioned those things in his rallies, and Liberal voters were thus made to forget them, or to treat them lightly as an election issue.

The FEDERAL, Quebec party is an illegitimate provincial party that hates canada unless canada is French, and thus it despises the Conservative Party for being the Anglo base. The bastion of Liberal voters are in Quebec and the neighboring maritime, and thus they hold to similar ideas, similar to how liberals in the United States despise traditional people in favor of the immigrants who can be sucked into voting Liberal. This country is thus a trash can with rot all up and down its sides, but add to this situation that EU globalists, bankers, as well as Trump, are coming in to take advantage, unashamed if they can squash the trash can flat to lick up whatever rotting meat might be squeezed out, in broad daylight. The Liberals who claim to be afraid of Trump are yet happily in bed with WEF, because they are destructive hypocrites, always trying to justify their hypocrisy, and their bad choices, with well-dressed, well-groomed, and bought-off CBC and CTV "journalists." Woe is me, why is me? They want mostly to torment us as we groan under their thumbs. That's what they live for, the gloating over our losses.

At one point after midnight (Eastern Time), the forecast score count was about 150 seats for Poilievre verses about 160 for carney, with only about half the ballots counted from Western Canada. I was hearing that the early ballots would be counted last for western Canada, and the score then went down to 144 - 168 after counting them. It mirrors the goings-on after midnight in the last two American elections. Western Canada is mainly Conservative. Ballots were being trashed by the Liberal cheat machine, it's certain, to give carney the bigger win to minimize the lameness of a minority government. There are many ridings with very few people, easy to cheat-out wins by trashing / disqualifying ballots.

To put this another way, with many state media on the Liberal side -- and with some 25-percent of voters either ignorant of pro-Conservative media, who hear only what state media says -- the Liberals would be a fringe party without these state media. If all the Liberals had were podcasters, they would be a party netting about 10-percent of the vote. State media makes the goofs of this country afraid to be found voting Conservative. State media makes Conservative politicians afraid to go further "right." This is a sickening situation. Licking rot makes the people sick, and they spread that sickness to neighbors. One of Poilievre's best promises is to defund the CBC of $Bs of tax gifts. When Liberal voters have no qualms with state media receiving Liberal tax dollars, it's called people unashamed of cheating.

Liberal voters know that carney is a tax dodger for his corporate profits, and also on behalf of company(s) he oversaw, though state media tried to hide it as best they could. This is the rot, and God has forced it down the throats of Christ-less Conservatives. Shame Poilievre, great shame. Eat it up, you deserve it. You didn't speak up enough against carney's corruption. You played it too safe, and allowed the CBC to portray carney as a good guy until Liberal voters were no longer ashamed to vote for him.

To be fair, Poilievre lost also because people 60 and over were more concerned for their government handouts in pensions and health care, and, with most of this age bracket owning homes, they were less concerned about housing / rent costs. There's no "better" government to vote for, when wanting hand-outs, than Liberals. The aged thus betrayed the youth. The "baby-boomer" elderly betrayed their own children, therefore, and their grandchildren too, just to entertain and agree to a little extra bribery from the Liberal hand-outs. Shame, great shame, backstabbers.

But, regardless of the obstacles, Poilievre could have been Helped to a win by God had he honored the God of Jesus rather than seek to bring in leftist / sinful voters to his camp while offending his base. Here's Ezra's assessment, where he thinks that the Trump interference gave carney 5 or 6 percent, meaning that, if correct, Trump became the factor that ultimately gave carney the win, the very thing that Trump said he wanted to see. Trump lost many friends in canada, and Trump's friends around the world are hearing of this...which is considered perfect divisiveness if you are the WEF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IcjadlxRGI

Instead of going on a Rebel News show, Poilievre distanced himself from Rebel News and other supporting podcasters, as if, maybe, he thought he was too good to appear on a "lowly" podcaster's show. His rallies were packed with voters who got their news from pro-Poilievre podcasters. Poilievre snubbed the anti-vax "bloc," and, in like manner, he ignored the truckers who were of the stuff at the charge of excitement over Poileivre's movement. The trucker and anti-vaxer movements wanted to be on Poilievre's platform in order to finish what they had started against the Liberals. And Poilievre ignored them, showing that he was instead for the pro-vax and elitist voters (i.e. he thinks the "lowly" truckers give him a bad reputation).

Some good news is that, having lost the government, Conservatives can work more earnestly to expose Liberal corruption more than they did with fewer seats under the previous government.

Looking back in hindsight, Poilievre would had done much better had he not pushed trudeau out. It would have meant waiting for the election until this autumn, but at least he could have won a majority government with more certainty, without the need to appeal to pro-abortionist leftists and pro-vax ignoramususes.

The final tally was so close that the blame can go to several things alone. If not for Easterners, Conservatives would have won. If not for foreigners in Toronto, same ending. If not for Ottawa, same thing. If not for the creep of communism and lovers of government hand-outs, same thing. But God could have interfered to beat the anti-Christs by exposing the corruption, if God cared for Poilievre's team. It did not pay respects to God nor His people, and thus the Conservatives went it alone against the cheat machine. The only thing remaining now are the prayers of God's people, and God will hear them, answering in a way that most hurts the vain enemy because that's what it deserves. God will allow the bankers their dark hour, but afterward, God will win the "game" by laying the enemy bare and defenseless upon a hard rock in the sun. carney was likely part of the threat to seize / freeze the bank accounts of those who oppose key liberal programs. One way or the other, the program is to shut the mouths of anti-globalists until state media has the over-powering voice on "truth."

I suppose that Trumpers will now seek to justify Trump's call for a carney win by saying that canadian resources are now more obtainable with a carney government. Ya-but, Trump was/is willing to put the entire country (canada), including those who admired Trumpism, under the thumb of WEF fascists. If Trumpers continue to celebrate this situation just because it strokes Trump's ego, the newly developing divisiveness will hand globalism a substantial win in both countries. People need to be united against WEFers and similar globalist plotters.

A video comment says: "57% of Canadian voters, those who voted on election day, DID NOT vote for Mark Carney Trudeau-Liberals..." If that's a correct figure for election-day ballots, it tends to affirm that there was much cheating on early-ballot counts. Do away with early voting in all Western countries, for this is the cheating way forward.

I agree with Viva on Poilievre's omissions. Conservative parliamentarians spent more than a year, week-after week, exposing the dire corruption of the trudeau cabinet, in spite of Liberals and state media seeking all the while to cover up the literal crimes. But Poilievre acted as though none of it happened, which must have offended the Parliamentarian. It's as though Poilievre didn't want to enter the "conspiracy theory" zone when the accusations were not at all theoretical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEuuZWO3hvg

The establishment party in Britain lost elections this week like when the people slap it in the face, but the tyrants in Australia won their election this week. I feel so sorry for Australians, who are exactly under the same sort of boot as canada is under with trudeau and carney. Both countries are going to weaken under a British government under their Reform party. Clay and iron don't mix to make a strong club. Check out the similarity between the canada and Australia election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81dol_oaB0

The video above tells that native Canadians oppose separation, but the reason is obvious: they get lots of handouts (bribes) from Liberal governments.

Romania's people have voted the EUers out in the first round of voting. But the establishment tyrants are doing all they can, even illegally, to spoil the path to victory.

Although Spain is yet in the EU-establishment fold, things should be changing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaCqHz9Kj3c

Perhaps the globalists want to scare the people, to show what life can be made like, with no electricity, if the masses don't get with the EU program. Ya-but, what will the cruel deaths of globalists look like when the masses charge into their homes? There aren't enough police to protect the 1-percent rich class, and when the police have no electricity either, for their homes, their fridges, they too will start going after the globalists, fast, because, without operable grocery stores, they'll have a few weeks only to deal with the fat-rats, as they deserve to be dealt with. I see a slaughter. Therefore, globalists probably won't try a mass electrical failure. The people are awake now, to the ploy of blaming such an event on China or Russia.

NEWS

There was lots of talk about the faked Blue Horizon flight, but the video below is perhaps the best evidence for the fakery. All we need to do is ask: how much more fakery is there with NASA and SpaceX?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/J2x5e8y7Qxki

This weeks High Wire starts off pretty good, and promises a huge (not clickbait) strike against Trump's "Warp Speed" for this coming Tuesday:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MZmWsFwKdjtd

Moose on the Loose revealed, some weeks before the election, Trump's likely reasons for siding with mark carney. I didn't see one other podcaster share what Moose was sharing then, and Poilievre himself failed to stress it, how unwise, really. Here's Moose with a back-up on that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpVKTIQSMdk

Depending on how deeply in business cahoots carney and trump are, or hope to be soon, they will give public appearances of being at each others' throats. Every once in a while, trump drops some red meat publicly, for his base, to make it think he's still fighting for it. It's a sham. They're duped by pro-Trump podcasters.

If you're sick of perusing the news (I've always hated it), and if you ask youtube for "clean movie" to pass some time, sorry, youtube acts like it doesn't know what you're tasking about, because it deliberately avoids giving you a long list of clean movies. Instead, it chooses movies for you with liberal slants, even liberalized Christian movies with worldly themes that Jesus wants us to shun / avoid. I'll even bet that there are websites offering clean movies that are not fully clean by design. Certainly, there are many clean movies with worldly themes, meaning they are subtly dirty. You're probably better off with some clean, light comedy as part of the plots.

Paradym Shift in Physics

If you are interested in background information to what's being said below, see my home page, and find the sub-title, "Real Gravity, Real Heat, Real Atom, Real Energy".

Under normal circumstances where chemical reactions are not in process, I haven't seen any evidence to show that gas atoms electrically attract each other from a distance. That's the claim of modern physics, that while gas atoms are ever-racing about while attracting each other, they at times come close enough, slow enough, to attract into a bond. But where's the explanation for the attraction of ALL gas atoms?

The fools completely ignore the free electrons in all of space. What do these electrons do to gas atoms? Are the electrons racing around too? I don't know what they think about them, for I've never read anyone who talks about them. These bitties must be problematic for the fool theories. They are an atmosphere all to themselves. There are two atmospheres, if you want to view it that way, one made of air atoms, and the other of free electrons; both particles inter-repel, in which case free electrons obstruct and influence the air atoms. Isn't this something to talk about? YES. But then why don't the fools include them into their discussions on atmosphere and the nature of gases and vacuums? DUH, because they are fools who happily deceive themselves for fear of bucking against the arrogant establishment.

In my view, attraction between gas atoms doesn't begin until physical contact is made by atoms, because it's logical that they must repel, no matter how near to each other, until contact is forced by gravity or free-electron wind. Once contact is made, attraction is set up between the proton of one atom and the captured electrons of another atom. If that attraction is stronger than the atom-to-atom repulsion, the gas atoms will become liquid; otherwise, if contact is made when the atom-to-atom repulsion is stronger, the atoms will separate and become gas again.

If the gas is above its so-called "critical temperature," its atoms cannot bond even if forced to make contact. What kineticists do not realize, thanks to their commitment to bang-bang error, is that critical temperature is the point where the atom-to-atom attraction is overcome by atom-to-atom repulsion...because increasing heat in the midst of gas atoms makes them repel progressively more. That's free electrons at work in the midst of gas atoms. As the temperature of a gas increases to a certain point, the atoms will not bond even if one forces them to bond by compressing a gas into a "liquid." Remove the compression piston, and the "liquid" disintegrates quickly into a gas. That's repulsion at work, not atoms undergoing high vibrations.

One insists on being a law breaker if one claims that atoms never lose energy and velocity when colliding. In the real world, items that collide suffer loss of total energy. Therefore, ever-colliding atoms are imaginary, impossible. There's no reason whatsoever to claim that atoms behave differently than all other items during crashes. As atoms are said to crash millions of times per second, they are predicted to become motionless in less than a second, even if one first speeds them to thousands of mph hour. The only alternative to ever-crashing atoms is atoms under repulsion. That's one way to know that "my" gas / liquid model is the reality.

Six things that cause gas atoms to merge are: 1) gravity in cooling conditions such that produce dew; 2) heat flow INTO cooled surfaces pushing condensation ONTO the cooled surfaces; 3) up-lifted atoms in air until they reach maximum height and collide there; 4) wind; 5) mechanical compression in a sealed container; 6) atom-to-atom repulsion under gas compression in a sealed container. A 7th is "chemical reactions" that create ions such that they attract each other (ions can also repel each other).

Air atoms, even if wind forces them to collide, will not bond because they are above their critical temperatures. That is, heat in the air influences air atoms to separate when momentarily merged by winds. But water molecules in the air are below their critical temperatures, and so water formation can take place.

Dew on a horizontal leaf top is evidence that heat particles give lift by day to water droplets and molecules, and that, with a reduction of atmospheric heat density by night, gravity takes the upper hand to bring water molecules and droplets back down. The quacks who hide atmospheric electrons from you have no viable way to explain dew. The most they can say is that the body of air shrinks a little at night. Quack-quack, big deal.

The atmosphere doesn't shrink so much in a 10-degree temperature difference that water way up comes way down to a leaf. The one foot of air above the leaf barely shrinks at all. "Shrink" means that air atoms come closer to each other and therefore the atmospheric ceiling moves closer to the ground, but this shrinking is happening from ground to atmospheric ceiling; the effect hardly shrinks the one foot of air above a leaf.

It's not as though ten miles thick of air shrinks to five miles, but even then, the one foot of air above a leaf shrinks to six inches, yet there's isn't enough water in six inches of air to form visible water on the leaf. Therefore, something else is happening to form that liquid dew besides the coming nearer to one another of water molecules.

The kineticist will claim further that the reduction in water-molecule speeds, due to a lower temperature on the order of 10-15 degrees F, causes gaseous water molecules to bond into droplets. But then why don't air atoms likewise bond into liquid when they are slowed in cooler temperatures by night? Why must temperatures reach far beneath the freezing point of water before air atoms can merge and stay merged as liquid?

Dew forms only on top surfaces, yet cooled air shrinks in all directions, and the bang-bang theory has water molecules crashing in all directions. The quack theory therefore predicts dew on all sides of leaves, and tree trunks, etc. Dew forming only on the tops of things means that plenty of water is coming straight down ONLY. WHY? Why don't the fools introduce that question to you? Why don't they point out the impossibility of kinetic atoms to explain dew?

More water can form on a leaf by night than the little you see on it in the morning. In some cases, it's dripping off by night. But as the sunlight comes out, it starts to break away as evaporation, and thus it disappears from the leaf top. What's causing the water molecules to rise? That's a loaded question, and it shoots kineticists between the eyes.

Gravity repels free electrons in the air. When they are concentrated enough by day, they give lift to air atoms and atmospheric water molecules, in spite of gravity's pull on them. But just a little less electron density by night allows gravity to get the upper hand, to bring the molecules down to upper surfaces. Thus, water molecules go up thanks to gravity, and they came back down thanks to gravity. Gravity has two functions, and the second one, unknown by humanity, is from gravity repulsion of electrons. Electrons in the earth repelling electrons in the air, how logical and unassailable.

Yes, unassailable, for the goofs know that free electrons exist at every heat source, and the biggest heat source on earth is in the earth's rocks. BIG DUH. The fools are asleep at the wheel. What's to be expected from such a grand source of free electrons? DUH, they are going to repel electrons right in front of the goof's eyes. STUPIDS.

Therefore, whether or not you wish to define the free electrons in molten rocks as gravity, those molten rocks are expected to repel atmospheric electrons. You can't deny it, for electron-to-electron repulsion is respected and settled science. It's known that electromagnetic force goes right through objects, meaning that the repulsion force sourced in molten rocks acts through the crust's cold rocks, and finally into the atmosphere. Where's my science prize for discovering the true nature of gravity?

If I knew of an experiment proving that gravity attracts electrons, I'd share it with you. There's isn't such an experiment. You can't make a bowl of free electrons, because gravity doesn't attract them to the lowest points possible. You can't make a magnet strong enough to repel a jar of free electrons onto a jar's wall/floor to form visible, free-electron dust. The jar's glass would melt before you packed enough into the jar to see how they look in the "solid" condition. Instead, free electrons turn to "plasma" when highly concentrated, and that's not yet packed enough to form a "solid." They GLOW when highly concentrated because they are heat.

Besides, high heat ruins magnets because heat is free electrons i.e. that electrically alter the atoms of magnets, shifting the captured electrons of the magnet's atoms to the side of the atoms opposite the heat source, and thus ruining the magnet's negative force.

To prove that electrons pass through a jar's walls, you place a small heat source in the jar, such as a bright filament through which one passes electricity. Just leave that heat source on continuously until there is a blue moon, but you will never get a high concentration of electrons in the jar such that they become visible. They do not settle mainly at the bottom of the jar as though attracted by gravity. Instead, if you place a filament in a "vacuum" in a jar, you can prove that they rise in the jar, and escape mainly out the jar's top side. Go ahead, cover a jar with a wax coating, then note the wax melting only at the top of the jar directly above the filament. Why do think that is? Why don't the electrons go out the bottom of the jar? Tinker about it. Challenge the goofballs with your results.

It's known that compressed gases form liquid, stage by stage, during mechanical compression. In the first stage, they appear slightly visible on the container walls, where else? On the sides as well as on the bottom and top. Compression therefore makes gas atoms push gas atoms against the walls, and thus forces gas atoms to merge there.

Kineticists see air atoms forever bouncing off the walls, unless they come close enough to grab one another by attractive forces, to form a two-atom droplet, then a three-atom droplet, and so on until they become visible. If we say, ya-but, the droplet will break apart on the next collision just one-millionth of a second after merger, they will conveniently say that another droplet is forming while one is breaking up, and so they will argue that the same amount of liquid should show (on the jar's walls) at any given time. All of this is taking place aside from cooling the gas in the jar, and, moreover, compression of the gas actually raises its temperature.

Therefore, the kineticist needs to explain why gas atoms should merge into liquid just because they are colliding while flying closer together? What's the difference if they collide from a thousand miles apart versus one atomic-diameter of distance? Why should they form liquid under the latter scenario but not if the atoms are three or four atomic-diameters apart? MAKES NO SENSE.

If there's zero water before compression, the fool says there's no air atoms slow enough to form water then, yet he should expect the same inability when the gas is compressed, for gas compression can't slow gas atoms. It can only increase the number of collisions per unit time, both with each other and upon the container walls. The fool is a rotten fool who, even though he reads what I'm putting on the table, remains a fool.

As the gas pressure is higher after compression, the quacks will need to admit that the atoms strike the walls with more force after compression to 1/10th or less the original volume (when droplets appear), such that this situation is not more conducive to forming droplets, but less. As mechanical compression results in more gas-atom collisions per unit area of the walls, and because the gas-temperature rate doesn't increase anywhere near as much as the rate increase in the collisions per unit area of walls, the conclusion was that atomic SPEED of collisions, not DENSITY of collisions, is the definition of temperature.

Ya-but, when high atmospheric winds collide with a brick wall, oye, the wall's temperature goes down, not up. Why don't kineticists tell you this part? They can spray air at 1,000 mph against a surface, but instead of becoming warmer due to the added atomic energy, the surface gets cooler...whether the wind strikes it head-on or sideways. When wind strikes your face head-on, you face gets cooler. If wind strikes a surface head-on, the air is forced to travel sideways across the surface. What's really happening to cool this surface?

I know exactly why wind cools things down: it decreases free-electron pressure on a surface, causing free electrons in the atomic spaces of that surface to flow out, into the air.

When wind flows across the top of a chimney, air comes out of the chimney because flowing wind has less air pressure in a direction perpendicular to the flow i.e. less pressure downward, in the chimney. The atomic spaces of atoms are a part of the atmosphere. The latter has flowing free electrons, in the wind, that therefore radiate less free-electron pressure into the atomic spaces of surfaces, when the wind flows across surfaces. The electrons in the atomic spaces therefore flow out, cooling the surface. This is simple to understand, and it works as a valid / unavoidable explanation of cooling by wind.

For as long as the free-electron density (true definition of temperature) in the air outside of a surface is equal to the free-electron density in the atomic spaces of the surface, no free electrons flow out, for the inward free-electron pressure equals the outward pressure. But if wind blows across the surface, electrons flow out (into the wind).

The only thing the fool has working for his model is the inter-attraction of ALL gas atoms (his fantasy), for if he claims that all gas atoms inter-repel, not only does he undermine kineticism altogether with another explanation for gas pressure, but it makes it even harder to explain why mechanical compression forms a liquid.

God-despising lunatics decided to adopt the kinetic theory of atoms because it dances better with a cosmological creation from the big bang. NEVER FORGET THAT. This is their unspoken motive for kineticism.

The big-bang creation of stars is impossible if gas atoms repel each other thanks to electrons in their midst. Big-bang creation needs atoms to attract each other, and that's why, the only reason why, they chose the kinetic theory, for the only alternative for explaining gas pressure is inter-repelling particles that cause atoms to inter-repel. Instead of going with gas-atom repulsion, they went with gas-atom speed...in order to have the option of gas-atom attraction. Atomic attraction is vital for cosmic evolution, and atomic speed was invented in an attempt to explain how gas atoms can keep apart in spite of their inter-attraction. That's all there is to it: A BIG TRICK.

Compression of a gas is not predicted to speed gas atoms, but is predicted (without question) to increase the density of free electrons in the container. It predicts much-higher heat after compression, and yet the temperature does not go up as much as expected. Why do the heat particles seem to disappear? If we compress the heat particles such that they are twice as dense, shouldn't we get twice the temperature?

Hopefully, the following online statement is experimentally accurate, an not merely a "fact" derived from the prediction of the kinetic theory: "If the temperature of the gas is measured on the Kelvin scale. we find that the pressure is directly proportional. As temperature increases, the pressure would also increase proportionally. (If the temperature doubled, the pressure would double)." Others say the same.

So, if we leave the gas volume the same, but heat it to twice the temperature to provide twice the gas pressure, then I must conclude that the free electrons have been doubled in density at that point, for I can show that electromagnetic particles inter-repel with twice the force when they are twice as dense (twice as numerous per unit volume).

However, it seems indisputable that shrinking a gas to half its volume will double the density of its free electrons, yet the temperature does not go up by much when doing so. I therefore postulate that many of the free electrons have "disappeared" onto the atoms. That is, if free electrons did not inter-repel, there would be twice their density when cutting a gas to half its volume, but the fact is, they do push one another, and thus they push one another INTO the captured electrons of the gas and container atoms. In other words, they become part of the captured electrons, and therefore they increase in density only minimally between atoms.

If we pump all the gas atoms out from within the container, the remaining space doesn't go even nearly to absolute-zero temperature predicted by the kineticist. Look at the dishonesty of a google offering when I search for "measuring the temperature of a vacuum". The top of the page reads: "It is not possible to directly measure the temperature of a vacuum, as a vacuum, by definition, is empty space with no matter, and therefore no molecules to have kinetic energy and thus no temperature. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, and in a vacuum, there are no particles." Ya-but, stupid, did you stick a thermometer into the vacuum to check the veracity of that statement?

They are going to say that, if they stick a thermometer into a vacuum, it's not going to decrease in temperature because there are no atoms in the vacuum against which the thermometer's atoms can lose velocity. They are going to say that the thermometer will not change temperature, if for example, it was at 70 degrees F when they formed the vacuum. Ya-but, guaranteed, and the kineticists know this, that if the thermometer is suspended in the air (by magnets), it will increase in temperature as soon as the vacuum is placed into a hot oven. Clearly, oven heat enters the vacuum, and makes its way to the thermometer even though no part of the thermometer is touching the container walls. I haven't done the experiment, but, guaranteed, the vacuum will take on heat in an oven.

Or, guaranteed, if one heats up a vacuum with an electrical heater place inside the vacuum, the container's walls will soon get hot because heat is moving through the vacuum. I've done that experiment, and it checks out. Wax melts on top of a light bulb holding a vacuum just as soon as its filament gets electricity (I used a 25-watt Sylvania bulb said to have a vacuum at that time (roughly 1990).

I've got to conclude that a vacuum at room temperature has a very sparse atmosphere of free electrons, equal to the density of free electrons in the air outside of the vacuum. When compressing the vacuum space (with a piston) to zero space, the "few" electrons in that vacuum must all enter the container and piston walls, some of which join in with the captured electrons on atoms, the end result of which is a surprising small rise in the density of the free electrons (= temperature) in the atomic spaces. The container is filled with "tunnels" to the outside air, and the free electrons escape through those tunnels such as to return the container walls to a temperature equal to the cooler temperature in the outside air.

The vacuum's electrons thus piggy-back on the container's atoms. All captured electrons (captured by protonic attraction) are unable to act as heat. Unless electrons enter your finger or any other material, they are not heat particles. So long as they are captured by protons, they cannot enter another material as heat. However, by increasing the number of captured electrons, materials expand in size because their atoms increase in inter-repulsion thanks to increase in captured electrons. All materials expand in size when their temperatures are increased. Expanded materials, including the temperature-measuring material of a thermometer, is a fundamental part of the definition of heat.

It suggests that the outer captured electrons of air atoms are so weakly held to the protonic core that the free electrons can easily compress them inward (toward the protons) when the gas is compressed. In the meantime, the atoms adopt the extra negative charge of the invading free electrons, which increases gas pressure. That's my super-duper discovery, but nobody in this world will give me a prize for it, because the establishment doesn't want to see or hear this atomic model. The goofs will eventually need to admit their many errors. MANY.

This is a fundamental tenet of my atomic model: if not for surrounding free electrons, atoms could not repel each other, and, with increased free electrons, atoms repel each other more strongly. It is therefore a no-brainer that free electrons grant atoms their negative forces. It's the fact of nature that I freely lay on the table of the fool who rejects it. The fool is the one who has never ventured to treat kineticism critically, with honesty, like a man, like a wise man.

If we compress a gas at room temperature to half its volume, we are doubling the density of the free electrons in the remaining space, yet the free electrons simultaneously arrange a situation in which they end up not nearly at double density. Some disappear into atomic spaces, and others compress into the gas atoms such that the distances between the free electrons becomes greater than expected i.e. not the distances expected in a double-density situation.

One should not confuse the doubling in gas pressure by adding heat alone to a gas versus doubling gas pressure by cutting the gas volume in half, for the latter's pressure is due partially to increased atom-to-atom repulsion, whereas there is no such increase where atoms remain the same distance apart, in a unchanged volume of gas.

I've been able to find that, when gases are compressed to half their volume to produce twice the gas pressure and gas density, its atoms are brought 16.67-percent closer, meaning that they double in repulsion force when that much closer. Why 16.67? Let me explain further, and you'll see.

Cutting the gas volume in half a second time gets the atoms brought 33.3-percent nearer to each other, and thus they quadruple in repulsion force. Why 33.3? Because it's two-thirds the way to 50 percent...and 16.67 is one-third the way. Cutting a gas in half for a third time, to 1/8th the original volume, nets eight times the gas pressure and gas density, and the atoms are then forced 50-percent closer. The latter situation has them twice as close (as prior to gas-volume compression), which I think is the necessary distance to get 8 times the gas pressure.

I think I've got to correct myself when I argued that two magnets, such as atoms, are expected to affect each other more magnetically by 4 x 2 = 8 times when brought twice as close. I had reasoned from the fact that a magnet affects a piece of non-magnetic steel by four times the force when the two are twice as close. That's 4 x 1 magnet = 4 times the force. Therefore, I reasoned that two magnets brought twice as close should be affected by 4 x 2 magnets = 8 times.

However, there is this at google: "Bringing two magnets twice as close...won't double the force by a factor of four. That is, it doesn't get 4 x 2 = 8 due to two magnets involved. The statement goes on: "The force decreases [or increases] as the square of the distance, meaning a doubling of distance reduces the force by a factor of four. Therefore, halving the distance (bringing them twice as close) would increase the force by a factor of four." Actually, this is even better for my understanding of what goes on in compressed gases. It plays into the absolute need of my atomic model. That need is this claim: atoms repel each other more thanks to adopting negative charge from the free electrons that surround all atoms.

I think I can now announce correctly that, while atoms are expected to inter-repel four times more when brought twice as close, the fact that there's 8 times more gas pressure when atoms are twice as close means that atoms inter-repel an additional 2 times stronger due to the adoption of more free electrons during the compression of a gas. There's two things going on in gas compression to 1/8th volume: 1) atoms come twice as close to procure 4 times the gas pressure; 2) atoms load more free electrons to get 2 times more repulsion. The whole affect is therefore 2 x 4 = 8 times the inter-repulsion / gas pressure.

No matter how much a gas is compressed, the resulting inter-repulsion pressure is proportional to those two factors working in unison, tending to suggest that atoms have zero inter-repulsion (i.e. they are neutral toward each other) where there are zero free electrons in their midst, and that the addition of free electrons in their midst is the ONLY FACTOR causing atomic repulsion force. It explains why the two factors above work in unison to keep proportionality, because the first factor (atomic repulsion) is derived from the second factor (adoption of atomic repulsion) to begin with.

One can then announce that, when increasing the density of free electrons by 8 times, atoms adopt twice the repulsion force, whether or not the gas volume is compressed. That is, when increasing the density of free electrons by 8 times either by cutting a gas to 1/8th its volume, or increasing the temperature of a gas of steady volume, atoms adopt twice the repulsion force (thanks to the extra repulsion force from electrons forcing themselves into atomic spheres). When decreasing the gas volume to 1/8th, atoms adopt twice the repulsion ON TOP OF the increased repulsion of 4 times by atoms coming twice as close, but when atoms adopt twice the repulsion when remaining the same distance apart, the whole of the increased repulsion is from the addition of free electrons to the gas atoms.

To prove that gas and electron particles come twice as close after a volume is cut in half three times, just view them coming twice as close in the up-down direction in the first cut; then twice as close in the north-south direction for the second cut; then twice as close in the east-west direction in the third cut. They are now twice as close in ALL directions because we have exhausted all three dimensional directions; there isn't a fourth dimension. That is my only proof that objects eight times more dense have distances twice as close. Scientists could prove this by other methods, such as direct experimentation with objects in 3-dimensional space.

There's also the fact that the volume of space increases by eight times when space is twice as far from the sphere, meaning that objects twice as far from the sphere, it they all go out in straight lines from the center/core of the sphere, are eight times further apart. And vice-versa: eight times closer if we cut their distance from the sphere in half.

I wish to answer: how many times must the free-electron density be increased, in a gas at steady volume, to increase the temperature by two? Whatever the answer, it's said that doubling the temperature doubles the gas pressure, and this is key to deriving the answer.

"When gas pressure is reduced, the temperature typically decreases. A common rule of thumb is that for every 15 psi (1.03 bar) of pressure reduction, there's roughly a 1°F (-17°C) drop in temperature." In reverse, normal air at 14.7 psi goes up about 1 degree F when it's compressed to half its volume (i.e. when it doubles to 29.4 psi). Therefore, even though the density of free electrons is doubled when forcing a gas to half its volume, the temperature goes up by only about 1 degree.

When we compress normal air by eight times the original volume, it nets eight times the pressure, and thus, according to the quote above, increases about 8 degrees F = 5.5 C (or K). Not much, for room temperature at 70 F is about 330 degrees K, as compared to only 5.5 K. The problem for the calculation method is that there's an increase of only some 16 degrees F (I'm just guessing) when cutting the gas volume by 16, yet the gas is then on the verge of transitioning to a liquefied state (by force of compression), where we can no longer increase gas pressure to see how temperature rises further when doing so. In short, I don't think a gas ever doubles in temperature no matter that it's compressed to its maximum prior to the setting in of liquefaction. I need to find some other method for determining how much free-electron density makes for twice the temperature.

A gas at steady volume can be made twice as hot, at which time it's reportedly got twice the pressure (this could be approximate). If that's strictly true, without deviations at extreme temperatures, then the establishment is saying that a gas at 273 degree C (546 K) is twice as hot as the same gas at 0 degree C (273 K). One can easily glean, by putting a finger in a gas at 273 C, that there's going to be FAR MORE than merely double the free-electron density as opposed to a gas at the cold temperature of 0 C. While it may be true that one has doubled the temperature, the fact must be that there is far more than double the heat substance. What's the difference between heat substance and temperature? The latter has traditionally been defined as when a material expands to twice its size/volume. More than twice the heat density is needed to accomplish that doubling in material volume. You need to get out of your head the tricky idea that heat and temperature are synonymous.

Repeat from above: "One can then announce that, when increasing the density of free electrons by 8 times, atoms adopt twice the repulsion force, whether or not the gas volume is compressed." Twice the atomic repulsion force will make a mercury thermometer register twice the volume of the mercury. Right? Yes, where expansion is perfectly proportional to repulsion force, but even if it's not exactly proportional at any given temperature ranges, you can clearly see the logic in the claim that twice the atomic repulsion is going to get approximately twice the material expansion.

If you force atoms apart by 2x force, they are going to move apart by twice the distance, as compared to forcing them apart with 1x force, but only IF the thing resisting the atomic separation stays constant in force level. It doesn't stay constant. In a solid, the thing resisting the moving apart of the atoms is the atomic attraction that sets in as soon as atoms are forced to merge.

It is logical to conclude that, the further atoms separate, the easier it becomes for atomic inter-repulsion to separate them, for separation means that the atoms are unmerging, and the further outward they unmerge, the less stuff (captured electrons) there is for protons to pull atoms inward. Protons are what cause atomic mergers to begin with. Right?

In case I lost you there, just imagine two atoms where each proton is pulling a million of the other atom's electrons, when the atoms are deeply merged, as compared to each proton pulling a thousand electrons, when the atoms are merged much less deeply. The atomic bond force is going to be much weaker for the latter scenario, and thus a unit of added heat will cause a greater expansion rate as compared to the same unit of heat when each proton holds a million electrons tight.

Therefore, the higher the temperature of any material, the more unmerged its atoms, and the less heat is needed to double the expansion rate...meaning that a thermometer cannot be accurate when the doubling of temperature is strictly defined as the doubling of material expansion.

If scientists have recorded temperatures of certain processes using different materials for their thermometers, they probably don't have the correct temperatures recorded. It's all relative to how materials behave in heat, and they all behave differently as compared to one another, aside from each one behaving differently at different temperatures. What an uncertain mess. And then there are new thermometers that work on entirely different principles, yet are geared / set to register temperatures as do traditional thermometers. Maybe.

Sizing Gas Atoms Without Forming Gas Layers

There are combined ways to discover relative sizes of atoms. If two substances have the same evaporation-temperature point (not the same as boiling point), the one with smaller atom will have the least atom-to-atom bond force, and thus might be less-deeply merged. Unfortunately, the goofs have the smallest atoms claimed as the largest, and vice-versa, meaning that they can use that part of their science to "disprove" my atomic model. Sure, many of their errors can be used to "disprove" my atomic model if the errors are stuck to as indisputable facts not to be contested.

Liquid atoms at the liquid surface suffer no water pressure, and they all suffer the same air pressure. I've explained how gravity arranged all atoms to weigh the same regardless of their sizes and masses. Contrary to what the goofs claim, atomic mass is not equal to atomic weight. Regardless of protonic sizes (every element has a different proton), and regardless of the number of captured electrons per atom, gravity makes all atoms weigh the same by making the undersides of all atoms radiate the same net-positive force toward gravity. Thus, gravity attracts every atom by the same force level, and that force level is exactly the definition of weight.

Therefore, if all atoms weigh the same, and all liquid-surface atoms experience no liquid pressure to keep them bonded more tightly, and if all liquid-surface atoms receive the same experience from air pressure, the liquid atom having the greatest lift force, from free electrons rising through the liquid, can be the largest atom. It's duh-duh logical that, if a huge atom weighs as much as a small atom, the large one gets knocked upward by more rising electrons, at any given temperature.

To put this another way, the largest atom needs less heat density to reach evaporation point. That is, less rising free electrons are needed to rip the largest atom away from the liquid surface, into the air as a gas atom. Therefore, the hydrogen atom is the largest of all atoms, because it has the lowest boiling point, and probably the lowest evaporation point too. But the goofs will "prove" me wrong by saying that, uh-uh, you're wrong, because hydrogen has the smallest atom. Ya-but, where's you're evidence, goofer?

The hydrogen atom rises faster and higher into the sky precisely because it's the largest atom. When free electrons flow with some force toward outer space, there's more of them knocking the largest atom upward. Water molecules are larger than H atoms, but they are also heavier such that they don't get the same lift velocity and lift height.

Air has atoms at a distance apart, and therefore sits only on part of the water surface. All the liquid-surface atoms between sitting air atoms are free to fly off into the air, with zero air pressure affecting them.

Things get a little more complicated because there are two other factors resisting evaporation besides air pressure, water pressure, and gravity. There's also atomic-bond force, and atomic hooking as I call it, where the shapes of atoms can form physical hooks into each other. However, I have no idea whether there are anything but spherical or near-spherical atoms, in which case there is zero hooking.

As it's possible for a larger atom type to maintain a higher atomic bond than a smaller atom type, it could be that a list of evaporation points, from coldest to hottest, of all the elements is not proportional to a list, from largest to smallest, of the atomic sizes of those elements. If atomic bond force and/or atomic hooking did not exist, I would claim that ascending evaporation points (from coldest to hottest) perfectly reveal relative atomic sizes from largest to smallest. Even with the uncertainties due to atomic bonding and hooking, this rule stands as a pillar of insight into the nature of the various atoms. If they can't even get the relative sizes of atoms correctly figured, they are polluted in their understanding. All else in atomic physics will adjust toward mud on the eyes. GOOFS.

Where two substances have the same melting point, the one with smaller atom is more-likely to have a higher boiling point because the substance with smaller atoms weighs more per inch of liquid depth. That's because all atoms weigh the same while liquids with smaller atoms have more atoms per cubic-inch of liquid. In other words, the smaller the liquid atom, the greater the water-pressure push that works down against rising heat particles, and, therefore, the higher the temperature needed to combat the water weight i.e. the higher the boiling point will be. Metals have the smallest atoms, and consequently weigh more per cubic inch, and consequently have the higher boiling points.

Melting points are unrelated to evaporation and boiling points where the latter two involve rising heat overcoming atomic bonds. Yet metals tend to have the higher melting points too. I claim that melting points are wholly based on atomic-bond force...and hooking if it exists. The more strongly atoms bond or are hooked together, the more heat that's needed to separate atoms, and thus the higher the melting point. At melting points, atoms don't separate in the upward direction, but in the downward, as gravity pulls them. As metal atoms are generally the smallest, they are expected to have the weakest atomic-bond forces, and thus the metals are candidates for having the greatest levels of atomic hooking, meaning that they are the best candidates for possessing non-spherical protons such that the full atoms (captured electrons included) become non-spherical too.

Nitrogen and oxygen atoms are almost the same size, in my current opinion, because I agree with the backdrop that assigned the nitrogen atom an atomic weight of 14, and 16 for oxygen. While I do not agree that these numbers reflect the relative weights of those two atoms, the reasoning behind the obtainment of these numbers tells me that nitrogen and oxygen atoms are roughly the same in size, with nitrogen slightly larger.

Nitrogen and oxygen have nearly the same boiling points, -196 C verses -183 C respectively. The sea of heat particles in the liquids, at those temperatures, can't be far different in density. The density is a little higher at -183, which jibes with my independent assessment that oxygen has the smaller atom, for in being smaller, it gets less lift from heat at any temperature as compared to nitrogen at the same temperature. Thus, the lift force against the nitrogen atom at its evaporation point (below -196) is predicted to equal the lift force against the oxygen atom at it's evaporation point (below -183).

One can say: when gravity gets the upper hand over the free-electron lift force, that's the evaporation point. However, the definition can be changed to: when the free-electron lift force is greater than the gravity force, that's the evaporation point. The definition used depends on whether the temperature is going down or up past the evaporation point. Perhaps it can be defined best as when gravity force equals the heat-lift force.

I'm no expert on melting of the elements, not even close. I assume that, in most cases, melting point is when the forces holding atoms from motion (in a solid material) equals the force of gravity. From that point, a slight increase in temperature allows gravity to get the upper hand to pull atoms apart.

However, it's possible that some jelly-like substances exist that are liquids retaining the shape that the hard solid has. In such a case, I would say that gravity still has not enough force to pull the atoms apart, at the point that the substance turns into a liquid. In such a case, I would say that the atomic bond has been weakened to the point where one could stick a pin into the "jelly," yet it doesn't flow downward to the lowest-possible point due to gravity force until the temperature is increased further. Sooner or later, with enough heat to weaken atomic bonds, gravity is what makes, and partially defines, a conventional liquid.

Liquids (imagine waves of the sea) cannot move apart from atomic bonds fully broken, even while new bonds are made. Liquid atoms roll on each other, sometimes break away from each other, sometimes merge again with each other.

Boiling point is when the upward flow of heat through the liquid is at its maximum. For this point to be reached, the upward flow of heat needs to fully overcome: 1) the fundamental atomic bond from protonic force; 2) the facilitation to atomic bonding afforded by water pressure, air pressure, and gravity on the liquid atoms; 3) atomic hooking. The larger the atom, the less the water pressure per distance of depth, for water pressure is fully from the weight of the liquid atoms.

As the slight temperature differences between the boiling points of N and O can be explained by the small differences alone in atomic sizes, it suggests that liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen have roughly equal depths of atomic merger. It makes sense because atoms of equal size are predicted to get equal depths of merger at the points (evaporation point) where gas atoms revert to liquids.

Originally, I pegged oxygen as smaller than nitrogen because the quacks assign it a slightly heavier atomic weight, 16 versus 14. I realized that their atomic-weight figures could at times be a revelation of relative atomic sizes, only backward. So, where they have hydrogen with the least atomic weight of 1, it means that hydrogen is the largest atom. However, while they think the O atom weighs 16 times more than the H atom, I'm not of the rushed / automatic opinion that O atoms are 16 times smaller than H atoms. Not yet, anyway.

To discover the relative sizes between H and O atoms, one needs to know how much greater the heat density is between the evaporation points of H and O gases. I don't know where to begin unless I trust that they have accurately pegged -273 C (0 K) as absolute zero temperature. As the boiling and melting points of hydrogen is 20K and 14 K, I would guess that the evaporation point (when evaporation first begins) is about 18 K.

Oxygen has a melting point of 54 K and a boiling point of 90 K, and so all I can do is guess at the evaporation point, about 75 K. According to my findings above, that a doubling of temperature requires 8 times the free electrons, I would then guess that the temperature of 36 K (18 x 2) has 8 times the heat as opposed to the evaporation point (18) of hydrogen. Then, we double 36 to 72 K to say that there are now 8 x 8 times as much heat as compared to the evaporation point of hydrogen, and that gets us close to the evaporation point of oxygen such that we could suggest a difference of about 70 times the heat particles between the evaporation points of both H and O.

This would finally indicate that the H atom gets 70 times more lift than the O atom, when the temperature is at the evaporation point of oxygen. If that seems problematic, the problem could be in their figure for absolute zero, which can then throw off their figures for the melting and boiling points of both substances. If I need to work with a crippled man, I won't get very far.

If we view an H atom as 2 inches spherical, the O atom, in order to receive 70 times less lift, would be about .25 inches spherical. That size comparison doesn't strike me as being correct.

The melting versus boiling points of nitrogen are -210 C and -196, and for oxygen, -223 and -183. Why does oxygen have a lower melting point but higher boiling point? Therefore, there is a larger spread between oxygen's melting versus boiling than nitrogen's. I claim that both solids, at their melting temperatures, have the same atomic-bond force (all factors includes). Why is more additional heated needed, starting from O's melting point, to bring O atoms to the same boiling-point status as N atoms at their boiling point? In both cases, their boiling points have atoms with defacto zero bond force. It means that heat has a harder time plowing through oxygen liquid, in order to bring its atoms to defacto-zero bond force, than would be expected from merely their size differences. Something else is in play, such as oxygen atoms having deeper mergers than nitrogen atoms.

Oxygen is predicted by this model to be more dense as a liquid, due both to smaller atoms and deeper mergers. In fact, the density of liquid oxygen is 1.14 g/ml versus .81 g/ml for nitrogen. From these two factors together, I ought to conclude that, due to oxygen being more-deeply merged, the O atom is greater than .81 / 1.14 = .71 the size of nitrogen atom. If both atoms were identical in merger depth, I would say exactly .71, but with O more-deeply merged, it's size ought to be more than .71 the size of a nitrogen atom.

If we say that one nitrogen atom is 1.0 unit deep in its liquid, the oxygen atom would then be .71 units deep, side-by-side with the nitrogen atom. Then, when nitrogen atoms are end-to-end 100 atoms deep for its gas, we need 100 / 71 = 141 oxygen end-to-end atoms to get to that same depth, which is another way of saying that the oxygen liquid will be 1.41 times more dense than nitrogen liquid, if both have identical volumes of merged regions.

The way to find depths of mergers is to find the heat quantity released or absorbed (both are identical) when gases turn to liquid or vice-versa. At mapoweb.com, the so-called "enthalpy of vaporization at normal boiling temperature" for oxygen is said to be: "213.1 J/g [or] 91.68 BTU/lb". From the same website, for nitrogen, it's 198.8 J/g or 85.54 BTU/lb. We can see that oxygen provides or absorbs more heat than nitrogen when atoms merge or unmerge. In my model, it means O atoms are more-deeply merged than nitrogen atoms. Deeper merger releases more captured electrons = more heat. All atomic mergers release some captured electrons as freed electrons = heat.

When two, same atoms merge, the mutually-merged region doubles in electron density, but neither proton can hold those extra electrons. The atom is as fully-loaded with electrons as possible, prior to merger, and so exactly half of the electrons in the merged region will leak off the atom as heat. The proton can't hold the electrons because the latter repel each other clear out of the atom until the fully-loaded condition resumes.

H and O atoms make water molecules, a mix producing more heat than probably any other atomic mix in forming a molecule. I think I may have found, after almost an hour of searching, that 286 kj/mol, the figure said to be the heat of water formation (from combusted hydrogen), converts to 141,800 j/g, which is about 666 times the vaporization heat of oxygen above. Keep that number in mind.

Only a quack claims that this enormous amount of heat is produced from two wee-wee H atoms merged with just one O atom, where the H atoms have only one electron each. MAD FEVER. Get rid of these quacks, the sooner the better. Who's going to start the take-over?

The quacks gambled when claiming that every equal volume of gas at STP has the same number of atoms. That gamble caused them to guess wrongly that H atoms weigh 16 times less than O atoms. The reality is that all atoms weigh the same, the natural and unassailable conclusion of which is that a volume of O gas at STP as 16 times as many atoms as H atoms in an equal volume of H gas at STP. The unassailable conclusion of the latter reality is that every water molecule consists of eight O atoms merged into one H atom. A water molecule is an HO8, not an H2O. That's the real reason that water (steam) at STP weighs nine times more than hydrogen gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure).

When trying to figure how deeply the eight O atoms are sunk into an H atom, keep in mind that ALL the O's electrons, no less and no more, which merge with the H atom, go free as heat. That's because, after merger, the merged region must return to the electron density existing prior to merger. Therefore, more simply put, all hydrogen-invading electrons will go free as heat, and with eight LARGE O atoms (relatively huge as compared to other atoms) merged into the gigantic H atom, that's a lot of heat.

When do H and O atoms merge? When burning hydrogen gas. No other chemical reaction churns out as much heat as this one.

The O atoms could, therefore, each be fully sunk into one H atom, because there's 666 times the heat produced by all eight being sunk, as compared to the heat made when one O atom merges slightly into another O atom to form one O-liquid molecule.

The way that water molecules are made is not in the soft way that gas atoms become liquids. Water forms by smashing electrical attractions when a spark or flame changes the charge of the H and/or O atom such that they then attract. O and H will not merge in normal air no matter than they make contact. Chances are, it's the O that changes charge, for O is the principal combustion-causing gas. It is wrong to say that hydrogen burns when in fact oxygen is likewise a part of the burn, and may be the principle part so that the combustible gases (and everything else causing oxides) may be nothing more than facilitators to combustion.

---

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

---