This video below shows that striations in rocks, normally cited by evolutionist goofs as proof of long ice ages that never took place, can be formed even in modern times in soft sediments. Creations, who've been duped into ice-age "science," claim rightly that, immediately after Noah's Flood, the proto-rocks were all soft "mud." At that time, what you see taking place in this video's desert region could have taken place immediately after the flood. Admit it goofball evolutionists, you're chronic-lying goofballs, inventors of false "scientific" conclusions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFhD5HeByM

Did you know that light filaments release electrons into a space? The goofs admit it, but only because the founder of the electron proved it. Otherwise, modern goofs might still be denying that filaments emit electrons that never come back to the filament. The wicked, the evolutionists, were so opposed to the idea of electrons defining heat that they deny electrons filling the air as a natural constituent. An electrical wire that emits electrons must re-load with them, and so they get them from the air, duh.

Imagine a sealed copper box with inner space possessing a filament. We turn on the electricity, and keep it on for an entire year. Surely, by this time, the space inside the box will be filled with solid electrons if they can't get through the copper box. Right? The ding-dong dingbats know that the only thing getting past the space, and through the copper, is heat. And even when the space is essentially a pure vacuum, they refuse to define the electrons as the cause for the heat. Why don't they when it's so obvious? Because the scientific establishment was seized by evolutionists, decade after decade, who needed atoms-in-motion to be the cause of heat. I've shown why they needed that false, "kinetic theory of heat" for their big-bang evolution of the cosmos.

The goofs have no choice but to admit that the electrons enter the copper, and move through it. However, these are the same goofs who claim that free electrons ever-moving about, in a copper wire, or in anything made of copper, aluminum, or iron, cannot escape the wire unless moving fast enough. In a larger-diameter electric wire, electrons move as electric current without producing heat; only in the very-thin filament wire do they leak out into a space or gas due to insufficient atoms to hold them captured. They run in the wire as captured electrons, then become free in the space. If the electric current is small enough, or if the wire is large enough in diameter, no electrons leak off of that wire because the protons are able to keep them captured as they flow.

We need only imagine a copper box with six walls so thick that its outer edges are at room temperature even though there is a bright-hot filament in a small, 1-cubic-inch space at its center. There's no electricity running through atoms of the copper box; there's electricity run only to the filament at the central space. We might imagine that this filament is run through with 100 watts of electricity, quite hot, but, by the time the heat gets to the outer edges of the copper box, it's spread out enough to essentially match the temperature of the outer air. It's going to be minimally warmer than the air.

The problem for the goofball is his claim that free electrons in copper cannot escape the copper at room temperature, especially when there is no electricity running through the copper. He's the only goof here who thinks that there's a special class of electrons in the free state in copper and other electrical conductors. BUT, if we keep the filament going for an entire year, surely the one-inch space will fill with electrons if they haven't the ability to get out of the copper. Surely, this experiment makes super goofballs of the goofballs, so much fun.

The copper's going to become saturated with electrons because they are not going to remain in the space if they can get through the atomic spaces of the copper atoms. It predicts that the copper will expand in size because electrons repel each other in all directions, and they will push copper atoms apart as far as they are able. But, their problem is, a material that expands is a heated material. It therefore appears that the physical presence of free electrons, between atoms, define the heat.

Their problem is that, as they say that free electrons in copper can't get away from the copper when it's at room temperature, the copper that makes up the box must continually expand to a larger degree for as long as we release electrons from the filament. But that's not what will happen. The reality is that the copper will expand to a maximum because the box will also reach a maximum temperature. It appears that temperature is defined as the density of electrons in the copper. Where the box is hottest, it expands the most, because heat should be defined as the presence of electrons, or, better yet, the inter-repulsion force of the electrons.

The box will remain hottest nearest the inner space because heat spreads out toward the outer copper edges. There's fewer copper atoms on the inner edges of the box, the edges surrounding the space, than on the outer edges. Therefore, there's progressively more copper atoms (or more copper volume) available as electrons flow toward the outer edges, wherefore temperature needs to be redefined as the density of free electrons per atom, which is the same as free electrons per unit of material volume.

The small space will never become filled with electrons beyond a certain density depending on how much the copper restricts the flow of electrons across its atoms. The better a material restricts the passage of heat, the hotter the space at its center when reaching maximum temperature. As copper is a better conductor of heat than iron, it means that heat passes through copper easier, wherefore the space at the center of the box will become hotter if our box were made of iron. See that? This can prove to the goofs that electrons from a filament in the inner space of any object is due to the electrons released from the filament.

The maximum temperature in the space is predicted to be proportional to the ability of heat to pass through the material. They can easily conduct an experiment by making the same object identical in shape and inner-space size, but each made of a different material. They must admit that electrons exit the box regardless of it's material type, because, if they do not exit, the material is expected to grow in size. Yet they know it will not grow in size once it has reached its maximum temperature. Therefore, they either need to admit that electrons do escape continually from the box, even when they arrange a box thick enough that its outer edges reach room temperature at its maximum. Once you get these imposters to admit that, it kills their theory of electrical current as a special class of free electrons in the metal.

As they teach that free electrons running as electricity do not exit a large-diameter wire when it's at room temperature, they MUST teach that no electrons exit the metal at room temperature when zero electric current is running through it, for the commotion and electron-to-proton collisions existing in electric flow makes it easier for the free electrons to escape the metal's outer edges, into the outer air. If they want to keep to this definition of electric flow, they will need to teach that electrons exiting a filament cannot exit a box having edges at room temperature. That's what I'm talking about.

Again, if they teach that electrons cannot exit the box in an attempt to protect their free-electron explanation of electric current, they must teach that the box becomes filled progressively with more electrons. In that picture, they will predict that the box progressively increases in temperature until the electrons have enough energy to escape their protons, into the outer air. Yet, they cannot teach that unless the outer edges become significantly higher in temperature than room temperature. That's why I'm saying that the experiment needs to arrange a box thick enough to get the outer edges to a maximum of room temperature. It will prove that electrons do exit the box, do get away from the metal protons, even when it's at room temperature.

What I'm saying is that, regardless of the fact that the goofs do not define heat fundamentally as the mere existence of free electrons, they cannot but admit that a material filled progressively with free electrons MUST grow in volume. They cannot claim that a metal object becomes saturated with free electrons apart from expanding in size, especially as they admit that electrons repel much-more strongly, as they come nearer to one another, than twice the repulsion force per twice their nearness.

They're either in need of claiming, with an explanation, that a copper box, increasingly loaded with electrons, does not expand in size, or that the heat leaking out the outer edges of that box are the electrons leaking out. They know for a fact that heat and free electrons are continually added to the copper box so long as the filament is run through with electricity. So, take your choice, stupids, but surprise the world: make the right choice and cease to be a stupid. Move onward toward the truth provided by the Creator, the creator of electromagnetic force, the mechanism of which nobody has yet been able to explain.

There's no magic coating on a bare electric wire, no brick wall at its outer edges, no guard dogs, to keep their imaginary free, ever-moving electrons from escaping the wire, but it's to be expected that they escape whether or not they are flowing as electricity. The goofball claims that the positive charge of copper-atom protons keep the electrons from escaping into the air, but this claim is only due to the goofball not understanding electric current. It forms from stationary, captured electrons, not from free, ever-moving electrons. There's a reason that the goofs do not see stationary, captured electrons, due either to self-blinding, or blinding by brainwashing from their teachers.

The goofball knows that orbiting electrons cannot explain electric current. When you flip the light switch on, the orbiting electrons cannot begin to rush linearly down the wire, only to resume orbits the instant you shut off the light switch. And so they invented "free electrons" inside of copper that never stop bouncing around between protons, sometimes striking protons and bouncing off. As per free electrons at the outer edges of a wire, when they move toward the air, the goofs insist that the protons pull them back into the wire, over and over, refusing to let them escape...what a bunch of easily-deceived morons. The copper box above says, no, goof, that can't happen, because free electrons easily slip out of a metal at much less than room temperature, at any temperature in fact. All materials decrease in temperature precisely due to escaping electrons.

Put it this way, that when he watches a ball bounce off the ground less high with every bounce, he ought to know that part of the reason is due to the pull of gravity. He knows that a small piece of iron moves toward a magnet but does not bounce off. The magnet absorbs the entire motion-energy of the piece of iron, and does not allow it to bounce off at the speed by which is came to it. Why not? Because the magnet has attractive, electromagnetic force. If it did not, or if the attractive force were very weak, the piece of iron would bounce away at some velocity. We therefore conclude that gravity attraction plays a role in making a rubber ball bounce less high, per bounce. Why shouldn't the same apply to electrons that bounce off of protons which are in turn attracting the electrons? In other words, electrons cannot go bouncing away from protons without slowing in speed, and therefore it's a fantasy of the deluded physicist when he think that free electrons ever-bounce to and fro inside metals.

The goof is such a colossal goof that he teaches for a fact that electrons orbit protons, as if he's totally oblivious to the impossibility of orbit formation by unintelligent electrons. Electrons have no clue how fast they need to go, or at what direction / angle they need to go, to form an orbit. But neither do electrons have eyes or radar to see how far they are from a proton at any given time, needing just the right speed and direction to succeed in forming a perfect orbit. Still, zillions upon zillions of electrons, the goofs teach, are orbiting happily inside of everything. What a bunch of cursed liars they are for the evolutionist cause.

If all materials have orbiting electrons today, they had to get into orbit at some time in their history. How did they do it? But it gets worse, for the stupids need to admit that electrons escape orbits at times, for example when light shines on the outer edges of some materials. And so, rather than looking for another way by which electrons could be in-capture to protons, the goofs imagine that electrons can re-enter orbits as if it's the natural thing to do. Is there not even one wise physicist today who realizes that, for every one electron that manages to enter a stable orbit, a zillion of them would be attracted to the proton in the ordinary way such that it becomes dead-motionless on the protonic surface?

Why are physicists incapable of believing that electrons are attracted to a stationary condition on a protonic surface? If they would only allow that condition to be their theory for a few minutes, they might come to realize what the true atom looks like.

In the midst of electrons orbiting metal protons, the goofs introduce a special class of free electrons, not defining heat, but defining electric current. See that? Where electric current proves that electrons don't orbit, they just invent ever-moving free electrons in the midst of orbiting electrons, as if oblivious to the destructiveness of that picture. They envision the free electrons ever-moving in random directions, when there's no electricity flow, yet never spoiling electron orbits when colliding with orbiting electrons. They form this non-viable model of the metal atom because they refuse to see electrons attracted to a stationary, captured condition upon protons. But why? What is it about stationary electrons that they despise, or reject as non-viable?

When the electricity is turned on, they see ever-moving, free electrons moving down the wire like pigeons that never strike the trees when flying through endless forest, as if the free electrons have eyes to see in order to evade the orbiting electrons. Wicked evolutionists see things this way because they are willing to play a special class of morons in the name of super-intelligent scientists.

In reality, unless something moves electrons inside of a material, whether free or captured electrons, protonic attraction holds them motionless, like a nail to a magnet. I don't need to prove this theory because it's proven by a nail to a magnet. A tiny electron in the face of a bare proton is robbed of its motion, and is forced to stick to the proton like an iron filing to a magnet. If any physicist argues against this, he/she must is a nut preferring the moronic, orbiting electron, because there's only two ways for electrons to be in-capture, either in orbit, or stationary. A physicist can't have something in-between. Either the speed of the orbiting electron keeps the proton from landing stationary upon its surface, or it collides with, and comes to rest upon, the surface. Take your pick, gamblers, I'm sure that ordinary people are not as moronic as evolutionist finks, traitors to logic and common sense.

The captured electrons do not wish to form a solid crust of electrons upon the protonic surface, for they repel each other. They wish distance between each other. The first layer, or the first few layers, of captured electrons may form a solid crust, where all electrons are forced into contact with each other, but only because the relatively giant attraction force of the proton forces them to make contact against their wills. A proton may attract them so strongly that they end up back-to-back upon it.

Due to electrons repelling each other, they will, at a higher layer, eventually HOVER in pure space above the protonic surface. When there are a sufficient number of fellow, captured electrons between they and the proton, they will form the first layer of hovering electrons. This is what the physicist needs to grasp, for atoms cannot bond with each other unless they have hovering, captured electrons. Suddenly, when the physicist realizes that upper-layer electrons hover, they can begin to abandon the orbiting electron for a logic-obedient and physics-lawful atomic model.

When the specific protonic attraction force upon any one electron equals the repulsion force upon the same electron from the body electrons closer to the proton, that one electron is not only able, but forced, to hover in space. Then, every electron further outward from that one in-balance electron will likewise hover in the space. The further away from the proton, the more space / distance there will be between hovering electrons. The number of captured electrons, per proton, depends on how small and electromagnetically weak they are in comparison to a proton. The hovering electrons are to be viewed as the literal atmosphere of the proton. There is absolutely no need of clustered protons in this atomic model. Each atom has only one proton for its nucleus. Every element is made of one, but different, kind of proton, each one covered in its own, but different, electron atmosphere. It's going to be different in size, and in electron density.

When someone turns the light switch on, the magnet at the electric plant is able to repel the outer-most, hovering, captured electrons down the wire, atom-to-atom. That's right, the hovering electrons on one copper atom jump aboard the neighboring atom, and so on, until they reach the filament. They form trains down the wire, always piggy-backing upon the outer edges of atoms. They flow where they flow easiest, and as the outer electrons are held to protons the most weakly, the flow is at the outer edges of atoms. As the atoms on the outer edges of the wire have air to their outer halves, it's likely that electric flow occurs only at the outer edges of the wire.

As soon as the light switch is turned off, they stop flowing. Duh. They stop moving. They do not move forever in the midst of the protons, or crash into protons repeatedly, while the light switch is turned off, for only a total buffoon thinks so, meaning that all the world's physicists are absolute buffoons. They don't known enough, or haven't the courage enough, to claim openly that electrons do not orbit, do not move constantly. CLOWNS.

But, if any physicist repents, abandoning the orbiting electron for the stationary electron, then congratulations, you've ceased to be a moron, ceased to be a goof, and are onward toward the logical realities. Just don't make any foolish mistakes as you go onward. Don't attempt to keep to the multi-protonic atomic nucleus. Don't try to retain neutrons in the nucleus. Start from scratch, when going onward, with a single proton covered in hovering electrons. Nothing more is needed to explain nuclear power. The captured electrons, once freed, are the source of nuclear power, the source of heat.

For decades, light bulbs had vacuums within in efforts to make their filaments last longer. At that time, the goofs could see with their own eyes, and understand with their own minds, that gravity repelled the electrons to the top of the bulb, which is why it's always hotter at the top, by far, as compared to the sides and bottom of the glass. Leaders of evolutionism, who had seized science departments by hook and by crook, would do their darndest to not permit recognition of any material as repelled by gravity, even if the fact stared them in the face with the light bulb.

Moreover, they were married hard to the kinetic theory of heat just as much as they were married to the orbiting electron. They stupidly taught that all atoms are constantly in motion, which they knew to be impossible so far as simple laws of physics apply. They knew, and still know, that colliding objects always slow down in total velocity, per collision.

But, stupidly, they chose to believe that all motion-energy absorbed by an atom would come out of the atom as motion energy equal to what went in. They faked ignorance, as if not knowing that energy is USED UP to slow all objects, and that, once used up, it's no longer in the object as motion energy. They refused to make a law: absorbed motion energy = motion gone. Instead, they made a law: absorbed motion energy fully comes out as motion energy. LAW BREAKERS.

When items collide, depending on the angle of collision, they absorb some of each others' motion energy. The more dead-on they collide, the more they absorb each others' energy, the energy that placed them into motion in the first place. This absorption causes a slow down. It is not destroyed energy just because a collision causes a slow-down. Just because two balls colliding head-on can both stop dead in their tracks does not mean the energy has been destroyed. That's the trick of the goof who wishes to convince you that colliding atoms will bounce away from each other losing zero velocity. When two atoms strike head on and stop in their tracks, it's energy used up to slow things down.

Used-up energy is not destroyed energy, when you think about it. It is the cancellation of energy. But if you wish to call it the destruction of energy, I'm not opposed. I'm not going to feel like a quack if I violate the kinetic theory of atoms. I'm okay with the concept of destroyed motion energy.

Some of the energy that causes motion disappears during collisions, yet in a sense it continues to exist as slowed velocity. We shouldn't think that energy can only speed objects, for it can slow them too. Motion energy disappears into atomic material. It never disappears into pure space as poof-gone, for that would indeed be the truest sense of destroyed energy. Rather, it disappears into atomic material. It's still there, existing, we could say, but it has done its work to slow the original motion.

The goofball wishes for you to believe that energy and velocity are one and the same, where less velocity is less energy, and no velocity is the total destruction of the atom's energy. He then claims that energy cannot be destroyed in an effort to convince you that atoms always keep moving, never losing any total velocity. RAPE OF THE MIND. He violates us with this trick, but shame on you if you allow him to rape you gladly. Don't advertise your stupidity, physicists everywhere, but admit that energy slows things down too. Motion gives birth to motion. Energy gives birth to motion, but moving objects birth slow-downs in other objects. What don't the morons understand about that? The morons view atoms as perpetual-motion machines, never slowing down due to atom-to-atom transfers of energy, which is the definition of friction.

In a head-on collision, the energy that causes one item to move at y speed will be absorbed by the other item such that it's speed will decrease by y speed. If the second item is moving at y speed too, it will stop dead. Both will stop dead, therefore. If the second item is moving at less than y speed, at z speed, it will be knocked backward by a velocity of y - z speed when the two collide head-on. The second item has no choice but to absorb the full y speed in a head-on collision. It can't be knocked backward at y speed because that involves a complete stop to begin with, followed by speed in the opposite direction when there is insufficient energy to send it in that backward direction at any velocity.

Yet, the goofball teaches you exactly that, but only when it comes to atoms, not car accidents, because he's sold-out to the kinetic theory of atoms like a really good stooge who passed his university exams when the university demanded he think that way. He teaches that an atom with y energy first stops another atom having y energy, then sends it backward with y energy. He thus includes twice as much energy in his illustration than the original striker-atom possesses. He knows better, but if he sees that students buy his trick, that's why he's a wicked imposter, a quack.

The quack goof teaches that, when two atoms collide dead-on at y speed, they both go backward at y speed. NO STUPIDS, but if 10 units of force was needed to get the one item moving at 10 units of force, and if the same is true of a second item in a head-on collision, then the 10 units of force striking each item will merely counter the original 10 units that brought them from stationary to moving. The collision will therefore return each ball to stationary. THIS IS THE LAW. Violators should be prosecuted as demented quacks. Great shame is to them because they have continued with this hoax for over a century. Snap out of it, people. Atoms are not in continual motion, meaning that heat is in reality defined as electron material.

For this discussion, the atomic property of bounce is being ignored. Various materials bounce away from each other at various speeds due to the specifics of their material make-up, but for this discussion, we are not talking rubber balls, for example. We are talking materials having zero-bounce potential. They will stop motionless if they weigh the same, and move toward each other at the same velocity in a perfect, head-on collision.

Materials with zero-bounce potential, striking head-on, can be made to "bounce" away from each other, but it's not true bounce. It's just one item having more energy of motion than the other. There is true spring-away bounce due to the atomic make-up of a material, and then there is bang-away "bounce" due to the varying speeds of the items. Allow for that distinction.

Even rubber balls will come to a dead stop if permitted to collide continually with each other in empty space. Even rubber balls absorb each other's energy per collision, and they obviously absorb more motion energy than they give off due to true bounce. You can prove that when watching a rubber ball bounce less high with each impact upon the ground. It slows down per bounce due PARTIALLY to gravity pull, and partially due to giving some of its energy, per bounce, to the ground.

Yes, gravity slows the ball on the up-bounce, but also speeds the ball during the fall-back, yet there is a slow-down regardless, because attraction force by nature slows things down. Don't let the goof deceive you into thinking that, apart from energy absorption into the ground, a ball will bounce forever to the same height after each bounce. The bounce has nothing integral to do with the ball speed (speed determines only height of bounce), but rather with the repulsion of its particles.

In a tennis ball, air atoms and free electrons (its heat) within it all move closer to the ground as the ball lands, wherefore both particles move closer to each other as the ball lands, and because they repel each other, they fling each other in the opposite, upward direction, forcing the ball to bounce up. The faster the ball lands, the closer the particles come, the harder they push back up as a result.

The bouncing tennis ball is proof that gas atoms repel each other. The kineticist does not believe that gas atoms repel, and so how does he explain the bounce of a tennis ball? Why should the air in the ball force the ball upward if all the air atoms do is speed about in all directions randomly? I don't see any answer.

There is no air in an Indian-rubber ball, yet it bounces higher than a tennis ball. Clearly, the atoms of Indian rubber are forced to move closer to each other at the collision with the ground, and thus they repel each other upward to form the upward bounce. Why should the atoms of a solid ball form an upward bounce if the atoms do not repel each other, if all they are doing in vibrating in all directions?

I claim that solid and liquid atoms attract each other into a merger. Their electron atmospheres merge because there is space between their hovering electrons. However, all atomic mergers are self-regulated as per depth of merger, and thus they go to a maximum depth of merger. I've got to assume that the thing preventing deeper merger is electromagnetic repulsion, probably the proton-to-proton repulsion. A ball landing on the ground forces the atoms to merge more deeply, but the built-in repulsion forces spring the ball back upward when they force the atoms to unmerge a little, i.e. back to their maximum merger depth.

Atoms cannot forever collide with each other in the so-called "kinetic theory of atoms," even if atoms have bounce capability. They must slow down in total velocity per each collision. This is a huge piece of understanding because it exposes the goofs as misunderstanding the true nature of gas atoms. They claim that gas pressure is due to gas atoms forever colliding, never losing total motion energy as long as the gas remains at the same temperature. As continual speeds cannot in reality be maintained, and as loss of all motion is assured eventually, there is only ONE ALTERNATIVE theory for explaining gas pressure, and it must therefore not be a mere theory, but a fact: all gas atoms repel each other. Wow, what a no-brainer, yet you never hear a physicist mention the possibility.

As all gases increase in pressure when heat alone is added to them, we learn AS A FACT that atoms repel each other more strongly when heat is added to them. As free electrons define heat, it can explain why gas atoms repel each other more strongly with increased temperature, for electrons repel each other. More free electrons between gas atoms means higher temperature, and so more free electrons in the gas means stronger repulsion (pressure) between atoms, and thus more material expansion too. We are learning here that free electrons must somehow impute their repulsion forces to gas atoms.

We can know that electrons are the true definition of heat / temperature because the goofs think it's defined as ever-colliding atoms. STUPID UNREPENTANT REBELS deserve to be talked down to. Most everything they peddled as dogma, in their erroneous atomic model, had been specially attuned to their false theory of Godless evolution, and so God will jail them, without question, unless they repent. Their big bang fantasy is the beginning, and crux, of their kinetic models of atomic particles

There is a huge fact monster staring them in the face in air atoms, known to weigh down on the bottom of a sealed container. The atmosphere is known to weigh 14.7 pounds per square inch on the ground, but as they say that all gas atoms are either neutral in charge, or inter-attractive in order to form liquids, or inter-attractive in order to form stars from a big-bang explosion, there's NO WAY for air atoms to weigh down to a bottom surface.

That is, if air atoms are racing about under their own steam, and if only a miniscule percentage of them are striking the ground at any one time, they CANNOT collectively weigh down on the ground. FINISHED. CASE CLOSED. The goofs are in gross error, yet as they will not admit it, they are far worse than goofs. They are wicked slimes who will never mention what I've just told you, even though they can plainly see that it's bare-fact true.

The only way for atoms to collectively weigh on the ground is when they repel each other. Gravity pulls them all down, but the atoms resist coming into contact with each other view their repulsion forces, meaning that they are in non-physical contact. They are in electromagnetic contact with each other, and so the weight of any one atom high in the sky transfers to the ones immediately beneath it, and then all the way to the ground. CASE CLOSED. The fact monster has sent the goofs running for cover.

Admit it, cowards. There's no chance at all that the air pressure you envision (wrongly), as a miniscule percentage of air atoms smacking the ground (at any one time), is going to coincidentally tally to 14.7 pounds per square inch while it's known by all that a column of the atmosphere, one-inch square, also weighs 14.7 pounds. It's obvious that this 14.7 figure is from weight, not air pressure as the kineticist defines it. Air pressure and weight are identical, when it comes to the open atmosphere, only when atoms repel each other. Only via inter-repulsion can the full weight of the air transfer in all directions as air pressure, for atoms repel each other in all directions.

I'll walk you through it. The kineticist teaches that air atoms are flying about under their own steam that never runs out. If they don't repel each other, the weight of any atom in flight cannot get down to the ground. And when atoms supposedly crash into each other, high in the sky, or an inch off the ground, they still can't transfer their weights downward, or in any direction, for they are in space as they collide, and there's NOTHING to transfer their weights in any direction. CASE CLOSED. The goofs are indeed wicked slimes for not addressing this critical problem.

The same problem applies with a gas in a sealed container that weighs the container's weight plus the gas weight. How do the atoms in the container transfer their weight to a weight scale under the container unless they repel each other's weights to the bottom of the container? CASE CLOSED, kineticism is a fantasy, and was invented to square with the big-bang fantasy.

It's a terrible fantasy, a nightmare, because it has no God, no Savior, no hope of eternal life, no hope of eradicating evil powers, both human and angelic, in this universe. Evolutionists don't mind sending their own children to Hell, and have striven to send yours there. That's not a mere goof.

Gravity Boobs

Imagine a physicist who prides himself in his understanding of the laws of physics, who says that there's no evidence that gas atoms inter-repel, even though gas pressure is super evidence. Imagine a physicist who prides himself saying that there's no evidence that heat is made of electrons when he knows that a flame can cause electrons to run down a wire as genuine / normal electricity (not much, but it's known to exist). He can't explain how electrons in a wire are pushed by kinetic atoms (without inventing a desperado theory), but he can acknowledge freed electrons in the flame that logically explain the flow of electrons in a wire. He's got a choice on whether to define heat as those freed electrons, or as the motion of the gas atoms in the flame. He chooses the wrong.

If he's going to say that atoms in motion can send free electrons in motion down a wire, he needs to explain why connecting a wire end to any material doesn't also send electrons down the wire, since he thinks that all materials have atoms in motion. Safe to say, you will end up agreeing with me that atoms in motion are not what cause electrons to move in metal.

Every flame from combustion includes captured electrons freed from atoms because combustion requires merging atoms. Combustion always needs oxygen atoms, and always forces them to bond with another type of atom, which is when captured electrons are released, i.e. during EVERY merger of two or more atoms. Atoms cannot merge without half the electrons in the merged regions going free into the air. Merger roughly doubles the density of captured electrons in the merged regions, but the respective protons of the merged atoms cannot hold that many electrons.

The protons can hold only the density that existed prior to merger. That's maximum density. If they could hold more, prior to merger, they would, but as they can't, neither can they hold a double density after merger. The electrons themselves, within the merged regions, instantly inter-repel the extra electrons away until original / maximum density resumes.

Had the goofs chosen the correct understanding when seeing that heat creates electrical flow, their fathers in physics would have realized a century ago that the heat in the planet forms a gigantic, negative charge that could explain the gravity force. In my opinion, there were some physicists who did realize it, but they were suppressed if they spoke out about it. The evolutionist boobs wanted electromagnetic gravity like they wanted the black plague upon their cherished big bang, and that was the crux of their problem for which they chose a boob-onic plague instead, Newtonian gravity, the concept that every atom attracts every atom via a built-in gravity force.

Nobody can explain, however, how every atom possesses this inter-attraction gravity force that isn't electromagnetic, and, even if it is electromagnetic, air atoms could not weigh down on the ground using it. Air atoms need to repel each other to form air weight. Therefore, Newtonian gravity is incorrect. It helps the goofs to explain how stars formed from the big bang, but as atom-based gravity force turns out to be a fool's game, it really doesn't help at all.

How does anyone set out to prove whether gravity is from electromagnetic versus some other attractive force? In my mind, there isn't a way to disprove electromagnetic gravity, and I'm somewhat an inventor of the theory. I've done all the thinking, over three decades and counting, that brings you the ideas you are now reading. If I could see a way to assail electromagnetic gravity, I would tell you about it.

Nobody knows of Newtonian gravity acting in anything under the sun, and as electromagnetic force is a common force that can explain the earth's attraction of all atoms, and as it can be shown that something in the earth repels electrons, duh, boobs, what's your problem? Newtonian gravity claims to attract electrons, but then prove it, boobs. Why can't you prove it? Where's the experiment showing that electrons are attracted by gravity? If anyone offers the world of physics the evidence I present that gravity repels electrons, will anyone listen? Electrons are weightless because they are not attracted by gravity. There's nothing at all weird or difficult about it, though it is strange to science.

google AI, which doesn't tend to think or know anything aside from what it's programmed to know, apes some standard writings when I ask it for proof of electron weight, giving an excuse as to why the proof doesn't exist: "While electrons are affected by gravity because they have mass, no specific, direct, and conclusive experiment has isolated and measured the minuscule gravitational attraction on an individual electron. The gravitational force on an electron is extremely weak [excuse] and is completely dwarfed by the much stronger electromagnetic force, making direct measurement incredibly difficult." How can AI imply that electrons are attracted by gravity if it then admits that there's no proof? That's a boob speaking, protecting the big bang by protecting Newtonian gravity.

As the light bulb teaches us that gravity repels electrons, it's only too logical to realize that gravity force is sourced in earth-internal, free electrons, duh. Gravity is thus a negative, electromagnetic force that repels some captured electrons from the outer layers of ALL atoms such that ALL atoms are made net-positive, explaining why gravity attracts ALL atoms. AND, when gas atoms are net-positive in charge, they will repel each other, disproving the kinetic theory of atoms that requires them to inter-attract in order to form liquids from gas atoms.

However, when heat is added to a gas, negatively-charged electrons invade the outer layers of gas atoms. At one time, I figured that these invaders would make gas atoms less net-positive until, with sufficient temperature, they become neutral in charge. Then, with higher temperatures still, I figured that gas atoms / molecules become net-negative, and so they would repel each other even then. My problem was that, if gas atoms become truly net-negative, they would cease to be attracted to gravity. This problem has been difficult to deal with because the free electrons that constitute heat crush themselves upon the outer atom such as to potentially become an integral part of it.

To simplify, I'd like to think, or I'd hope to find true, that all atoms remain net-positive even while negative bitties surround them and express net-negative charge outward from the atoms. The electrons don't merely surround atoms, don't only press in on their electron atmospheres, but exist as wall-to-wall electrons throughout the full spaces between atoms. The atoms are buried in a sea of free electrons. Therefore, as the electrons repel each other, they force the atoms to behave as if they too inter-repel by the negative forces...on top of their own inter-repulsion from their net-positive charges (thanks to gravity blowing some of their captured electrons away).

Imagine a sealed box with vacuum, filled with 100 plastic balls hanging on threads (attached to the top of the box). None of the balls touch one another, all are separated by some space. View these balls as gas atoms. When we fill the box with 100 psi of air pressure, we fill it with a sea of air atoms. View these air atoms as free electrons in the midst of atoms.

The balls are now under 100 psi of pressure, and so they all become positioned at equal distances from each other because air-atom pressure pushes them apart as far as possible from each other. That's what free electrons do to gases, make atoms position themselves at equal distances apart.

For this illustration, view the balls as having zero electromagnetic force. Once at equal distances by no force of their own, by the inter-repulsion force of air atoms alone, the balls do not continue to get further away from each other, even though the air pressure could easily send them further away, because the box can't grow in size. But if we instantly make the box disappear, the air atoms would explode the balls outward in all directions, by which I mean to show that the air atoms under pressure make the balls act as if they inter-repel by the same force level as the inter-repulsion force of the air atoms.

Ditto with air atoms surrounded by free electrons; the air atoms thus ADOPT the inter-repulsion forces of the free electrons, but without becoming net-negative themselves because there remains a distinction between the captured electrons and the free electrons. Gravity can attract only the small net-protonic force that reaches beyond the extreme-outer layer of captured electrons, which is where the free electrons begin but may not turn the atom into a net-negative entity.

I suggest that all electrons in a gas that can slip away from the atom, as gravity repels them upward, are classified as free. Only those that remain on tight to the proton are classified as captured. When one electron slips free from an atom, it goes up to the next atom in its path, and is replaced by a rising electron coming from the atom immediately beneath where it slips away. Generally speaking, the situation remains the same, and only gravity knows the difference between free and captured electrons. If we were to see a still snapshot of the situation with our eyes, we might not be able to tell where the free ones begin from the captured ones.

Therefore, even if gas atoms do not POSSESS the inter-repulsion of the free electrons while ADOPTing it by force, they can behave as if they do possess it. I'd like to think that all gas atoms are in reality net-positive toward each other to explain why gravity attracts all atoms, yet behave progressively as though they were net-negative with increasing gas temperature. I feel confident that this is the best way to express the reality.

If you don't like "adopt" because it seems to be identical with "possess," then use "foist." The free electrons, as foreign invaders, foist either negativity itself, or at least the PUSH EFFECT of their negativity, upon the net-positive atoms. If pure negativity is granted to gas atoms, then they must become less net-positive with increasing temperature. So solve this choice problem, let's go back to the sealed box with vacuum, filled with 100 plastic balls hanging on threads, but imagine them not hanging, but hovering equa-distant in a sea of free electrons.

Imagine the balls with zero electromagnetism. Can they transfer their weights to the bottom of the container via only the free electrons in their midst? The balls certainly cannot transfer weights if they themselves have no inter-repulsion, yet the electrons do have inter-repulsion acting in every direction upon every ball. The problem is, if all of this inter-repulsion force gets transferred to the bottom of the container, it's no longer the weight force of the balls. Therefore, as all gas atoms transfer their weights, all atoms must inter-repel on their own aside from the repulsion forces adopted from free electrons. The ball analogy teaches us this thing. If you push a ball against the bottom of the container, it's not the weight of the ball that registers there, but rather the pressure from your arm and hand. Therefore, all gas atoms inter-repel.

Again, the collective inter-repulsion forces from electrons, acting on the bottom of the container, is not weight at all, for electrons weigh zero. Plus, this collective force from electrons acts equally on every container wall, and thus it's part of the gas pressure. However, things get hairy here, because it's possible to create a situation where repulsion force from the electrons registers as zero pressure, even though it fully exists.

A container filled with a vacuum weighs only the weight of the materials that make up the container, and the vacuum, though filled with free-electron pressure, registers zero pressure because the force of the electrons act not only on the container walls, not only on the atomic item within the pressure gauge that registers pressure levels, but also against the free electrons in the atomic spaces of those solids. The pressure from the vacuum's electrons goes both against the free electrons in the atomic spaces of the container walls, and in the atomic spaces of the pressure gauge, but also clear through the container walls to the electrons outside of the container. You need to figure in this situation.

The pressure entering the atomic spaces gets re-routed in all directions within the solids, and therefore presses solid atoms inward toward the vacuum such that it exactly counters the pressure from the opposite direction, from the electrons in the vacuum. In other words, the electrons in the atomic spaces, and those outside the container, are pushing the container walls inward toward the vacuum by exactly as much pressure as the vacuums electrons are pushing the walls outward. Ditto for both sides of the thing in the pressure gauge that registers pressure levels. If the pressure is equal upon it from both opposing sides, the pressure level registers as zero, even though there is existing electron-repulsion pressure.

But when there are gas atoms in the container, the free electrons push against them too, seeking to spread them out as best as possible. Thus, when there are gas atoms in the container, the free electrons contribute to gas pressure against the container walls and against the pressure gauge, because there are gas atoms in contact with the both solids to which all the collective pressures transfer...that originate from both electrons and atoms hovering in the vacuum.

Unlike in the kinetic theory, the gas pressure does not originate from atoms solely beside the container walls. Every particle in the container contributes to the pressure, and the specific/registered pressure will be: accumulative repulsion pressures plus weight of the gas, for gas weight contributes to gas pressure in all directions.

The ball analogy teaches the necessity of gas atoms possessing their own, innate inter-repulsion forces, otherwise they could not register their weight to the bottom of the container. I'm trying my best to set out new rules for gas pressure and gas weight. These comments tend to reveal the true goings-on in a gas.

If the temperature in and out of a sealed container of gas is identical, then the inter-repulsion force/pressure from the electrons in the container will equal net-zero, even though there is real, electrons pressure on the container walls. As the temperature is equal on both sides of the container walls, the electron pressure inside will be exactly countered by the electron pressure on the outside, and thus the physics establishment calls this zero pressure on the walls. But if the gas temperature is increased to more than on the outside, the electron pressure on this inside contributes to register-able gas pressure. If the only thing added into a container of gas is heat, the resulting extra gas pressure must be due solely to the extra electron-repulsion pressure.

If one cools a gas enough, gravity will be able to force gas atoms into contact, and thus they become liquid, when newly-devised inter-attraction forces set in due to physical contact. Dew formation is an example of this gravity process. When gas atoms merge to form liquid droplets, the protons of each attract the electrons of the others, and thus they bond by new-found attraction forces that do not exist while they are in the gas state. The goofs wish for you to believe that gas atoms always possess inter-attraction force in order to bond into liquids, but they are too mentally hijacked by their kinetic theory to realize that something else, besides themselves, must force gas atoms into contact. Heat in their midst makes it harder for them to make contact. Remove enough heat, and they can be forced easily into contact, proving that free-electron repulsion is partly what keep atoms apart. As I wish to believe that all gas atoms are net-positive, I would say that they cannot form liquids until some power overcomes their positive-to-positive repulsion forces. When compressing a gas enough, the atoms are forced to build up onto the container walls until they are forced to make contact, which explains why liquid formation in a compressed gas occurs on all container walls. In this method of liquid formation, the cause is not gas pressure alone, but the container walls that forces them to accumulate there. If there could be gas pressure without solid material to block the gas, the gas atoms would not make contact at the pressure where liquid forms in a sealed container. That's why most of the atoms in the container are not yet in contact when liquid begins to form on the walls.

The goof thinks and teaches that the racing atoms attract each other into liquid molecules, from a distance, when brought close enough by force of deep piston compression, as if he's too stupid to realize that the greater pressures at that time signals that atoms want to get away from each other much more than prior to gas compression. If they don't attract and form liquid at normal atmospheric pressure, they are not going to attract and bond at 10 times or more the pressure just because they are closer to each other. The morons are too evolution-wicked to admit that the gas atoms are being pressed against the container walls against their wills, so to speak.

NO MORONS, gas atoms do not attract each other, get over it. Abandon your big-bang need for inter-attracting gas atoms, and get real. The longer these imposters continue this deception, the harder they will fall...unless they haven't the conscience enough to feel the pain.

As far as I've heard, adding heat to gases never makes them shrink in size or go down in pressure, which is the expectation if the atoms go from net-positive toward neutral with added free electrons (with added temperature) in their midst. That's why I think that the atoms should remain net-positive even to super-high temperatures. So far as I know, hot gases in a container do weigh down on a weight scale, showing a total weight of the box weight plus the gas weight. I've never heard differently, but then the goons might be hiding it from us if they've discovered hot gases losing weight, hiding it in order to protect their view of gravity. (Einsteinian gravity theory is a farce.)

I don't think gas atoms can lose any weight unless they are rising. If rising fast enough, with a force equal to gravity force, the atoms will not weigh anything, even though they are yet attracted by gravity. I think I have that right, for if their downward force is countered by upward force, there's no weight to be registered. But as long as gases are in a container, no matter how hot, they ought to register their full weights, for no matter how much lift the highly-dense electrons provide for them, the container doesn't allow the atoms to rise. They yet repel each other and thus transfer downward weight.

As I've shown how gravity can attract all atoms; there's nothing anyone can say to disprove electromagnetic gravity. It logically works in theory, and so how can anyone discredit it? Gravity force is invisible. You can't put it onto a table to inspect it. But you can test to see whether it repels or attracts electrons. The AI statement above is false, leading you to think that science cannot discover whether gravity affects electrons just because science has found no evidence that gravity attracts electrons. What about evidence for gravity repulsion on electrons? Crickets.

I asked google: "is there evidence that gravity repels electrons?" Obviously, google AI is brainwashed by Newtonian gravity, for it responds: "There is no evidence that gravity repels electrons. Gravity is an exclusively attractive force between any objects that have mass or energy, and it affects electrons just as it affects all other matter." AI is as stupid as the evolutionists who program it, as best they can, to respect only certain viewpoints to which they adhere.

Science knows that heat goes up a metal rod more than it goes down, but the goofs will not allow AI to admit it. I asked: "why does heat go up metal more than it goes down?" The response is the typical lie that physicists have been lying for a century: "Heat transfer by conduction within a solid metal is not faster in one vertical direction than the other. The perception that 'heat goes up metal more than it goes down' is due to the effects of convection in the surrounding air." BALONEY.

You can cover a metal rod with a non-combustible material (like concrete) to keep the air off of it, and when the middle of the rod is heated, heat transfer goes mainly up, which cannot be explained by kinetic atoms because they are predicted to speed up (heat up) equally in the downward and upward directions. Why doesn't AI admit to this situation, when air is not permitted to touch the metal? Because, wicked, truth-denying imposters control google AI.

I've heard that google AI gets most of its data from Wikipedia, and that beast is known to be tightly controlled by atheists, by claw and by tooth and by horn. Go try to add to a Wikipedia article with some Creationism science, and you will immediately see claws, teeth and devil's horns delete what you've added.

Therefore, as heat goes up metal more than it goes down, gravity is repelling the heat upward, and the downward heat transfer is from the inter-repelling forces of the electrons that define the heat in the metal rod. How, then, does AI not report this evidence for potential gravitation effects on electrons?

So, I've just asked google: "why does heat go up metal more than it goes down when the metal is protected from the air?". The response is enlightening: "Heat travels up a vertical metal rod faster than it travels down only when air is present, due to a process called natural convection. If the metal is protected from the air (e.g., in a vacuum), heat will travel at the same speed in both directions because convection is eliminated." The wicked are vehement to protect the lie. AI gave the same response when asking, "why does heat go up metal more than it goes down when the metal is protected from the air by solid concrete?"

I challenge any physics podcaster to do a careful metal-rod experiment, for heat may not rise up a solid metal rod very fast, or very far before it cools too much to melt wax. Use of thermometers imbedded in the metal rod, and in the concrete, is probably the best way to experiment. As heat rises in a vacuum, it's a no-brainer that it should rise in everything.

To test a vacuum for significant air, break the glass of a light bulb that holds a filament within, and then place the broken bulb with filament in the vacuum (with electrical-wire set-up, of course). If the filament burns up in a few seconds, as it did for Action Lab, there's significant oxygen in the vacuum. I used a 25-watt Sylvania light bulb, with vacuum, to learn that most of the heat of the filament rises STRAIGHT UP. As I assume that Action Lab turned the filament on only when his pressure gauge read, zero, imagine how much better Sylvania got nearly a perfect vacuum.

The combination of all heat sources in the earth, combined into one gravitational body, repels heat upward in gases, liquids or solids. We cannot explain heat rise in a solid substance via the kinetic theory of heat. It can be explained only by the huge heat source in the earth repelling heat within the solid. As there's nothing between a metal rod and the earth to cause heat to rise in the rod, something in the earth must be accomplishing that thing. Duh. What do you know of that's in the earth with the potential to repel electrons? Duh, more electrons.

Asking google, "can electricity be made to flow with any type of heat source?" The response: "Yes, electricity can be generated from virtually any heat source, provided there is a sufficient temperature difference (gradient) between a hot area and a cold area. This temperature difference, not just the heat itself, is what allows for the extraction of useful energy..." No, it's not due to temperature difference. The only reason AI tells us this is because the goofballs don't want to acknowledge that the free electrons from any heat source repel captured electrons in a wire.

The only thing temperature difference does is to force more free electrons into the wire, and only near the heat source, not fully down the wire if it's a long wire. The boobs wish for you to believe that there's no electrons coming out of a stove element, showing that they have no instrument that can detect the free electrons as they exit. The truth is, heat formation is evidence of electron exit. It's just that the boobs are too big-bang wicked to admit it.

Don't be deceived by kineticists when they tell you that hotter air rises due to buoyancy, for there is no buoyancy principle applicable to single atoms. Hotter air rises because it's got more density of free electrons than colder air. Nobody can claim that buoyancy is active where heat rises inside of a solid more than moving downward or sideways. Therefore, if heat rises in a solid more than it moves sideways or downward, the same reason for it must apply to rising hot air. Gravity repels heat because gravity is sourced in heat. Heat repels heat. We can watch heat rise in the smoke of a fire, for the freed electrons from the burning material become one entity together with the smoke. The heat in one half the smoke repels the heat in the other half, and so the smoke spreads out because the electrons spread out. The smoke rises because the electrons push the smoke's atoms upward.

AI lies above where it says that temperature difference causes a voltage in an electrical wire. False. Colder air at any part of the wire creates no electric flow. Hotter air surrounding the entire wire causes no electric flow. Flow is created when one heats one end of the wire only, for example with a flame, because the high concentration of free electrons in the flame are able to push captured electrons down the wire. A temperature difference of one degree cannot do that, nor even of 100 degrees. Therefore, it's not temperature difference, but high free-electron density, that does the pushing.

It doesn't matter how many free electrons are in the air, per cubic unit of space, they all get the same upward force level, if they are all at the same distance from the gravity source, or all at the same distance from the ground. But where there are more electrons forced upward per any given space, they contribute more upward lift on the bottom side of every air atom. As numbers of particles per cubic space is defined as density, and as more-dense free electrons defines higher temperature, the higher the temperature, the more forceful the lift imputed to air atoms, or to water molecules in the air.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that, the hotter the air, the higher the clouds form, because the density of water molecules / water droplets also figures into how high water goes toward the sky. The more dense the water per given volume of air, the thicker the "jungle" for the free electrons to penetrate. The thicker the jungle, the more the upward motion of the electrons slows, and slower electrons result in less lift force. Plus, the more dense the water molecules / droplets, the fewer free electrons there are to give lift per water molecule / droplet.

The point above the ground at which the lift force equals downward gravity force upon airborne water is where clouds will form. When there are thick storm clouds, i.e. high density of water molecules / droplets, the clouds are lower because the water slows the upward electrons more than thinner clouds do. Everyone knows that clouds are heat insulation. Water in the air slows heat rise.

The situation is due to simple principles of common physics of force and speed. When it cools at night, there are fewer, and therefore slower, upward electrons, wherefore the water comes down to the ground to form dew. How can you prove that this is not the correct mechanism of cloud-height and dew formation? If the expectations from the theory work in every way expected, how can one disprove the theory?

When the sun shines on top of clouds, why do the clouds puff UPWARD? Obviously, the water in the clouds are mushrooming away from gravity because the sun releases some of the electrons in the water. It's known that the sun releases captured electrons from materials for as long as it shines upon them. The higher density of free electrons formed, while the sun shines, gives more lift to the water at the tops of clouds than the lift at the bottom of clouds.

When we fill a sealed balloon with air, it has more air atoms per unit space than the outer air. This means that the balloon weighs more than the outer air, because gravity pulls more atoms per unit of space in the balloon, explaining why the balloon falls to the floor. But if we heat the balloon, and even if we use a balloon that can't get any larger when heated, it can be made hot enough to rise. We haven't changed the number of atoms per unit space within the balloon; all we've done is added free electrons into the balloon. That's why it rises.

You might say that the balloon rises due to the buoyancy principle, but that requires a sea of air. I will claim that a balloon will rise even in a vacuum if the skin of the balloon could handle the temperatures needed. The free-electron density in the balloon needs to overcome gravity's pull on the balloon skin. I can't find a youtube experiment showing a heated balloon in a vacuum.

google's AI claims that a heated balloon will not rise in a vacuum, but that's because it's trained to say that nothing can rise in a gasless space, because the goofballs program AI, not to think for itself, but to repeat what it's taught, that the only lift factor acting on a balloon is buoyancy.

To heat the balloon, we put it into air hotter than the air within the balloon. This means the outer air's electrons are more dense and therefore closer together. When electromagnetic particles are closer together, they repel each other more strongly, and consequently the electrons outside the balloon push each other more strongly than the electrons inside the balloon, and thus they push their way through the skin of the balloon to the inside. With time, the density on the inside will equal the density on the outside, at which time the outer and inner air will be at the same temperature, at which time there is no longer transfer of electrons in either direction.

In the atmosphere, warmer air is what starts the winds. In warmer air, electrons repel each other more strongly, and thus they push air atoms along wherever they (the electrons) go. That's wind. Moreover, as electrons rise, they push air upward such that air needs to come in to replace it (underneath the rising air). That's wind too.

If there's enough electrons rising, tornadoes form. Lots of cloud water is needed to form tornadoes, in combination with lots of sunshine. The less humid the upper air, and the colder it is, the higher the potential for maximum sunlight striking the cloud tops to form upward-moving air. The lower the clouds, the more concentrated the water, and the higher the number of captured electrons (upon water molecules) released by sunlight. The lower the clouds, the more dense the air, the stronger the upward draft. Tornadoes don't form in high clouds. The colder the upper air, the faster electrons rise, for heat transfer is fastest when the temperature differences are greatest between the hot and cold regions.

When you take a can of frozen orange juice out of the freezer, heat invades the can faster, and with more electrons per unit time to boot, as compared to the same can of juice out of the refrigerator. The can forms more "dew" the colder it is when placed into ordinary air. This is because the free electrons (the heat) push more water molecules against the can, per unit time, the colder the can is. It's a common-physics no-brainer, but the goofballs haven't figured it out yet, because they have been stupid-ified by the kinetic theory of heat. If they were truly intelligent, they would have abandoned kinetic atoms a century ago. Alas, they chose to be stupid stooges of the evolution-controlled system. Nobody told them that heat is the substance of electrons.

Once a physicist is convinced that heat is the substance of electrons, he's going to figure out, sooner or later, that gravity repels electrons. This, in a nutshell, destroys the theory of cosmic evolution.

Once a physicist realizes that gas pressure is due to free electrons in the midst of gas atoms, he's going to abandon the kinetic theory of atoms altogether. Good-bye big-bang theory, for the evolutionists absolutely need atoms NOT to repel each other in order to form the proto-stars they envision. It's as simple as that.

The wicked evolutionists needed big-bang-sourced atoms to attract each other to form proto-stars, and they therefore did not follow true science when declaring that gas atoms attract each other. Instead, they created false science by declaring that gas pressure is due to inter-attracting gas atoms all striking each other constantly. WICKED FALSIFYING FOOLS.

As earth gravity cannot pull air or hydrogen atoms together to pool at the earth's surface, how did some pocket of cosmic gravity pull hydrogen atoms together to form a star against the will of the atoms to come together? The only way is for that pocket of gravity to be stronger than the earth gravity, and much-much stronger because hydrogen atoms near the time of the big bang are thought to have been much-more furious in kinetic energy than very-mild gas atoms now in the earth's cold atmosphere. The hotter the gas atoms, the less-easily they can be brought together to form something such as a star.

Plus, if gravity is sourced in free electrons, now you know why the evolutionists rejected that idea, for they cannot explain how a pool of free electrons could congregate in space to form their needed pocket of gravity force that then becomes the center of a star. Free electrons repel each other, they cannot form a pool or pocket. Big-bang evolution, dead.

The headache they try their darndest not to inform you about is that, their definition of gravity needs atoms. They don't tell you that gravity pockets could not have formed in the cosmos because atoms could not come together into pockets in the cosmos. They say that atoms came together in the cosmos because gravity pulled them together, but then don't tell you that gravity could not pool anywhere without the atoms first congregating there. It's obvious as to why they don't mention this, hoping that this chicken-egg problem won't occur to you. WICKED DECEIVERS.

It should come as no surprise that deceivers will also trick us with false experiments claiming to prove that objects have gravity force. Other will admit that they see no such proof, especially as materials have some electromagnetic charge that could look just like gravity-attraction force when two objects are brought very close to each other. No matter what they say, even atoms at the relatively cold temperature of atmospheric temperature refuse to attract each other into a bond due to any true gravity force that they may possess. This is true even when the atoms are brought a small fraction of an inch apart. In fact, the closer the gas atoms are brought to each other, for example when compressing a sealed gas, the more strongly they seek to get away from each other...just as if they repelled each other.

Therefore, how possibly could hotter gases, billions of years ago, when the atoms were miles apart, have come together to form stars? Big-bang cosmos, dead. The further out from the big-bang point, the further apart the protons and electrons would sail away from each other continuously. What's going to bring them together to form hydrogen atoms in the first place? But even if some atoms managed to form where protons and electrons were doing crazy loop-de-loops as they flew away from the big-bang point, how would those atoms come together when, with each passing year, they were more distant apart?

You really need to conclude that evolutionists are wackos, for this is where your mental healing begins, once you give credit to Whom the credit is due, once you make peace with Him. Accept the Sacrifice that He provided, and call on Him to give you His Spirit within you.

Free electrons are free to roam between atoms, through the atomic spaces. No material can hold free electrons back from travelling through them. Every material swamped with free electrons expands in size because the electrons repel each other in the outward direction. The greater the number of free electrons, the higher the temperature, the greater the material expansion. Electron-material heat makes so much sense as fulfilling the "caloric" of over a century ago that a physicist is an ignoramus not to entertain it seriously on behalf of correcting modern science. The old objections to caloric no longer apply. Caloric, the old name of heat material, was the going scientific theory prior to the discovery of the electron.

The caloricists knew that heat was a material-impregnating material, like a gas, but they didn't know that it was made of free electrons. The kineticists did their darndest to deny the existence of free electrons everywhere in the air. They confessed to captured electrons in every atom, but they deny free, atmospheric electrons to this day for obvious reason that they don't want physicists to realize that they are the old caloric, even the aether that caloricists stood by. Caloricists were hard-pressed to proliferate the concept of weightless electrons against the tides of Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity, but that was their key for explaining caloric as the reality.

Physics Videos

The stupids, in order to make their electron-orbit theory appear less problematic, tell us that liquid and solid atoms barely touch each other. They say this because they don't want to teach that the orbiting electrons of one liquid atom cross the orbital paths of neighboring liquid toms, for that's going to assure collisions of orbiting electrons. And so they want us to believe that atoms are "bonded" electromagnetically with a small distance between each atom, such that their orbital paths do not cross, but this means that atoms have zero merger into one another.

However, the video below shows that warmed water can expand enormously in a vacuum such that there would develop such significant space between water molecules that they should become gases, if the molecules were not merged at all prior to placing the water body in the vacuum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3RU1AHhWFI

The video teaches that liquid atoms are merged deeply enough that they continue to be merged even when the water volume expands by what looks like nearly twice as much. The experiment uses hot water (without telling the audience) in the balloons in order to create the space filled with water vapor. That space is what grows the balloon to the point of exploding, otherwise the water does not expand if placed cold in the balloons.

The bubble formation of the "boiling" water is not evidence of high heat whatsoever. The water in the balloons does not increase in temperature. I'll show below, in other video, that the experiment above uses hot water.

The reason that water forms bubbles in a vacuum is that the water body expands in size, causing water molecules to be less-deeply merged, making the atomic spaces between atoms larger. Less-deeply-merged atoms means more-weakly merged, making it easier for free electrons to run through the atomic spaces. These electrons, which constitute a free-electron gas, contribute to the formation of the bubbles. There cannot be only water vapor in the bubbles; there are some free electrons too.

To put this another way, when air pressure is removed from the liquid surface, free electrons find it easier to pass through the liquid, for air pressure keeps the water molecules more-deeply merged. In other words, removing air pressure from the liquid surface is what allows the water molecules to unmerge a little.

Water molecules NATURALLY merge (via electromagnetic forces) only as deeply as they do when the water has zero air pressure; adding air pressure forces them to merge more deeply than they naturally do.

The video also exposes that there is sufficient heat in the vacuum to cause boiling, yet the stupids claim zero heat in a vacuum. In order for a liquid to boil in a perfect vacuum, it needs heat from outside of the liquid to enter the liquid, meaning that there is heat in a vacuum. But of course, for vacuums are filled with free electrons. A liquid cannot boil continuously from merely the heat within the liquid. It needs to be fed heat from outside the liquid. Ask any pot of water on a heating element about that. As soon as the heat is turned off from a pot of boiling water, the bubbles disappear.

If water in a vacuum were in a bowl or vial barely touching a wall of the container holding the vacuum, the water would yet boil away from the heat within the vacuum, i.e. not solely from heat entering through the container walls.

The bubbles in the vacuum's water are evidence of heat in the vacuum, but the video owner doesn't think it's worthy of mention. He has no explanation for it if he doesn't know, or if he's too uninclined to admit, that heat is defined as free electrons.

Water will continue to "boil" in a vacuum until fully evaporated (if the vacuum chamber is large enough to hold the evaporation). Even before the boiling point, there's free-electron EROSION at the water surface, what we call, evaporation. As the electrons race through the water, they knock out surface molecules into the space above the liquid. That's true erosion.

Only a fool claims that heat cannot exist in a vacuum when it's so easy to use a thermometer to show that vacuums have heat. Your local physicist is a fool who doesn't think for himself even when he witnesses the errors of what he's been taught. This boob-foolery has been going on long enough; it's well past the time to topple them with true atomic physics. Being wrong doesn't make someone the sort of fool I'm referring to; being wrong and staying wrong in the face of contrary evidence is the bread and butter, the bells and whistles, the smoke and mirrors, of a proper, evolutionist fool.

As liquids are generally incompressible at normal atmospheric pressures, we learn that, if they could be compressed a little more, air pressure would have done it. Air pressure takes liquids, water at least, to roughly their maximum atomic-merger depth. google AI is a weasel on behalf of the weasels:

"No, not all liquids are incompressible; all liquids are slightly compressible, but they are often treated as incompressible fluids because their volume changes very little under pressure, unlike gases. This is because the molecules in a liquid are packed much more closely together than in a gas, leaving VERY LITTLE SPACE to be squeezed" (caps mine).

Hahaha, when needed for a logical explanation, liquids are suddenly packed too tight to be squeezed smaller, yet the goofs not only have their liquid atoms barely touching at their outer edges, they claim that atoms are 99.99999 percent pure space! Time for an insurrection.

The video below shows a balloon filled with cold water together in a vacuum with a balloon filled with hot water. The one with cold water expands a little, I feel sure, but the one with hot water expands greatly due only to the heat in the water. The balloon expands almost wholly due to the expansion of the space that develops above the water. What do you think is in that space?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7br6KkT7qg

There's no way for us to measure how much the water body expands in the balloon with hot water. The thing we learn is that the evaporation rate, the free electrons streaming out of the liquid, is faster as the air pressure in the container drops. If we ask the kineticists about this fact, they would say that the water molecules are jumping out the liquid surface apart from being knocked out by rising free electrons. But why should the water molecules jump out faster -- more numerous per unit time -- if the water temperature hasn't been increased? Luckily, this experiment gives them a way to answer it, but something else crops up in the meantime that doesn't favor the kinetic model.

They will claim that, on your stove, evaporation gets more rapid with increasing temperature because increased temperature is defined as faster-vibrating water molecules. In vibrating faster, they leap out of the water in greater numbers. Okay, the theory works thus far.

The vacuum does not increase the water temperature. All it does is increase the sizes of the spaces between water molecules, and in the meantime it weakens the atomic bonds. The kineticist can now say that evaporation rate is expected to go up, with lower air pressure, because vibrating water molecules can leap out of the water surface easier when the molecules are more-weakly bonded. Okay, fine. But how do vibrating water molecules form the bubbles we see in the vacuum?

Kineticists teach that the bubbles in the water of your pot upon your stove are filled with water vapor only. You can watch the bubbles grow in size steadily with increasing temperature. But the water does not rise in temperature in the vacuum, yet the bubbles achieve maximum size anyway. The problem in both situations is that the bubbles form under water. How can water molecules jump out of the water while under water? I can understand water molecules flung out at the water surface, but if they disconnect from each other under water due to harsher vibrations in the case of increased temperature, or due to easier disbonding due to less air pressure on the water surface, why should they form whole and giant bubbles?

The kineticist will answer the latter question by saying that the disbonded water molecules, loners, beat back the water body by repeatedly banging against it. They bang the water body away such as to keep the bubble from being flooded by the water body. Do you think this is a credible argument? There are far fewer lone molecules banging around within the bubble to keep the water body from pouring in. Does that sound right to you? The loners do not have more motion energy than do the vibrating water molecules that make up the water body.

The kineticist will claim that the maximum bubble size is when as many loners go back to bond with the water body as the water body sends more loners into the bubble. But the fact remains that there's big open gates for the water body to flood into the bubble. The loners are spaced apart further than the diameter of a water molecule, and gravity wants to make th water flood the bubble. How can the bars of a jail cell keep the prisoner from entering the sheriff's office if the bars are further apart than a human body?

To the contrary, the reality is that the free electrons in the bubble form a barrier to keep the water body from flooding the bubble. Instead of the odd-loner water molecule per many water molecules in the water body, there's a chain of free electrons forming the bubble perimeter. These electrons are not bashing around, each striking the water body only intermittently, but are always in place at the bubble perimeter because they are repelled there. We glean that the spaces between electrons are too small for the water molecules to squeeze through in order to flood the bubble. The more the water body squeezes the bubble smaller, the closer the bubble electrons become, the stronger they fight back with stronger inter-repulsion. The bubble size is at maximum when the water pressure on the bubble equals the electron pressure pushing outward against the water.

Plus, as we know that kinetic atoms are a farce, that's why you should fight back by claiming free electrons as the cause of boil bubbles.

The video owner in the video directly above has a strange explanation for the explosion that is not correct. The only thing happening is that the water vapor in the balloon is able to expand increasingly more as the air pressure outside the balloon decreases. I have no idea why the video owner didn't just say this obvious thing. You have the choice of believing that vapor pressure is due to ever-speedy vapor molecules repeatedly banging against the balloon, or vapor molecules constantly repelling each other against the balloon. Be an insurrectionist today.

The video below is by action lab, a very-unreliable physics channel. He shows two helium balloons falling to the bottom of a sealed container once the pressure within the container drops to a certain level, but he's too stingy or unreliable to show the viewer the exact pressure and temperature within the container. I wonder why. He thinks that a balloon falls when upward lift from buoyancy is diminished as air pressure drops, but I can't be convinced of it partly because the lower pressure is expected to drop the container's temperature too, for the moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BYVIS7ARek

My claim is that part of the reason for the upward motion of a helium-filled balloon, in the open atmosphere, is due to free electrons in the balloon, and partly due to buoyancy. As there is less atomic weight in the balloon than the atomic weight of an equal volume of air, there's going to be more room for free electrons, and therefore a higher number of electrons, in the balloon, which should contribute to the rising effect on the balloon.

If we had a balloon filled with air of the same size as a balloon filled with helium, we would say that the one filled with air is going to drop because its heavier, yet it also has fewer free electrons within due to having more atomic material within. The battle is gravity versus the balloon, and so we shouldn't neglect the free-electron numbers in the balloons because gravity against them counters gravity pull on atoms.

Buoyancy is defined as slightly more air pressure squeezing against the bottom half of the balloon, pushing upward, than on the top half pushing downward. I'm agreeable to that definition, without going into the possible mechanics. I'm wondering whether buoyancy applies at all in a sealed chamber because I half-expect the air pressure within it to be identical throughout, both top and bottom. I think it could be the nature of the beast that, as a container is filled with air, its TRAPPED condition assures that pressure is equal throughout the container. Therefore, no buoyancy may be available, in which case a helium balloon in a sealed container may go to the top of the container by free-electron lift alone.

Did you notice in the video above that, after the owner allowed air to re-fill the container, the balloon filled with helium would no longer rise so long as it was inside the container. He claimed that it was due to balloon-skin static with the container walls, but I'm not so sure. The balloon did rise once he brought it out of the container, but things are different outside the container, where free electrons rise more freely and thus give the balloon more lift.

In the container, when sealed, free electrons within it have trouble flowing through the top and bottom sides of the container, and so free-electron flow in the upward direction is slowed to almost zero. The slower the flow, the weaker the upward lift on anything. Still, it's expected that gravity acting in an upward direction on in-container electrons gives some lift to anything in the container, if not by flow speed of the electrons, then by repulsion force upon them. When the container's air is removed, some of the free electrons also go with it such that the balloon is expected to get less lift, and so that alone may explain why both balloons fell to the floor of the container.

As you saw, the video owner allowed air from the outside to blow on the balloon for several seconds. That air, when entering the vacuum, became colder than it was on the outside, because all gases entering a lower-pressure area go colder. Therefore, free electrons inside the balloon were coming out through the balloon for as long as that colder air was blowing on it. That too can explain part of the reason that the balloon didn't momentarily rise after being bathed with that colder air. Good conclusions and good experiments can't always be made in vacuums unless everyone knows that there's free electrons everywhere. We need to account for them.

Action lab has a video where he shows a vacuum at zero psi. He has a small air fan in the vacuum, and setting it on a high speed, it can be seen blowing around some small Styrofoam balls. He thinks it's because his vacuum pump can't get all of the air out, but I don't see why a fan can't blow free electrons around. They have some mass, and thus can be expected to move objects when they are forced to speed toward them.

I claim that, when an object is sped toward free electrons alone, for example the wings of a bird toward free electrons alone, the bird can't fly because the electrons move easily out of the way of the wing. There's nothing tying the electrons down to the floor, as there is with air atoms to the ground, in order to allow solid work to be done. But, apparently, sending free electrons alone toward a stationary object, such as a Styrofoam ball, can do work. It can push the ball to move it.

Is this correct? Is there a difference between sending an object against stationary free electrons versus sending free electrons against a stationary object? Does the first do no work while the second does some significant work? I think it is correct. It's a new realization for me right here and now. The stationary electrons struck by a moving object easily get out of its way, but if the electrons come against your hand that does not move out of the way, then the electrons will do work against your hand. They will push your hand. Makes sense. Wind consists of moving air atoms and free electrons.

Here's a video showing a small force, from a small fan, still active in a vacuum that's probably 99.5 percent true, or better. This computer fan is much smaller than the one used by Action Lab on Styrofoam balls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtJT5gFwNjg

Here's Action Lab's video; I think this video owner is self-deceived when thinking that the wee bit of air is causing the motion of the Styrofoam balls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRqZsHt0fAw

Quite a few video comments seek an excuse as to why the fan could move objects. None of those making comments know that there's electrons in the vacuum.

If ever you'd like to delve into this and related topics, I have a slew of articles all on one page at:
http://www.tribwatch.com/art3Physics.htm

NEWS

I'm not buying the claim that Charlie's shirt went upward on his chest to the tune of four inches due to "capitation" (explosive) pressure from the bullet entry. I therefore think that the plotters had some one dozen cameras on Charlie in order to doctor them at will before public release, and there is solid evidence that the government seized or otherwise controlled camera footage from those who captured the true scene. This was not the first false-flag event conducted by the government where unwanted camera footage needs to be controlled, even after it makes it to a podcast show. Within an hour of the shooting, the government can threaten media and video channels, using ad hoc excuses, if they dare release any footage not authorized by the FBI.

I think that the strange behavior of Charlie's shirt was not the true scene, but doctored to show a capitation event in order to "prove" that the bullet did not exit the neck. That bullet-version was the official storyline from the beginning. If a bullet exits the neck with most of its pre-entry velocity, it's a fact that most of the bullet's energy does not remain in the neck. But if the bullet remains in the neck, it's a fact that ALL of the bullet energy remains in the neck. Thus, they planned on there not being a bullet exit, for which reason they planned on showing the public a capitation event, in Charlie's neck and upper chest, by leaking it to an original podcaster.

If that's true, it was easy to hide a squib on the neck by doctoring out any fake-flesh lump on the neck that was at the real scene to hide the squib (under the fake-flesh lump). The squib explodes with fake blood. Or, they had AI replace a man who was truly shot in the neck, while sitting, with Charlie sitting, explaining why what we saw of Charlie looks absolutely real. It may not have looked as real (timing the fakery with the bullet shot and getting the appropriate motion of the body) to on-site people when they saw a squib at work, but what people saw online could have been an AI version of a real man getting shot but replaced with Charlie's body.

Mikey McCoy: "Hello, hello, Erika, Erika, Charlie's been shot."

Erika: "What, oh no, is he hurt?"

Mikey: "I don't know."

"Can you see him, is he talking?"

"Can't see him from here, I've got no idea what he's doing."

"What's that? Aren't you there, with him? How's he doing??"

"Don't know, but he's been shot. Just want you to know."

Erika: "Where are you?"

Mikey: "I'm walking away; have no idea how he's doing."

"Why are you walking away?"

"Because I'm the amazing Mikey McCoy. Gotta call my dad now, I'll talk to you soon..."

"No, wait, wait, go see how he's doing..."

"Click."

That's a ridiculous phone call that's roughly how Candace Owens and others think it went. The call may have gone something like that, as a protective measure only, because phone calls can be discovered by spy systems. If there was no chance of the call being discovered, it would have gone something like this:

Mikey: "It's a go. Just heard the shot. Did you hear it?

Erika: "Ya, so loud. How's everyone taking it?"

"Perfect, everyone's running around like headless chickens."

"Perfect. All going to plan with the guys?"

"SUV door is in position; they'll be lifting him in any minute, as planned."

Call your dad and tell him the good news, I'll see you soon.

Charlie is still alive. He was pushed out of Turning Point. Erika has condemned herself as part of the fakery, there's probably no turning back now. She'll be doing Israel's will by going after the anti-Israeli, woke leftists. That's been the other part of the plan.

By the time you get to the 12th minute of Candace, you'll see the possibility that Rob McCoy may have been part of, or involved with, a pedophilia organization. Put that together with Erika Kirk's Romanian Angels orphanage. Without saying it, Candace is making Erika look like she ought to be part of the pedophilia that Candace is connecting McCoy to. However, Candace hasn't whatsoever proven that McCoy is part of such a thing. She's only pointed out some circumstantial evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIb-NuUh_U

The video below shows, via Charlie Kirk's income and other funny business, that, when Jesus speaks to him, He's possibly going to say, "I don't know you." Much of the material in this video MIGHT be partially bogus / inaccurate, as per the leftist source that could tend to be biased against Turning Point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdbPGHwABuc

The extravagant insurance policy that the Kirks took out in 2023 goes some way to explaining why Charlie opted to fake his death. He could go to jail for that, for a long time. His insurance company should dig up his grave, make sure he's there. What grave?

Someone else claims that three of the four Turning-Point companies failed to report their earnings, etc, for 2025 (fiscal year ends on June 30).

Charlie seemingly warned against company-money corruption soon before the shooting event. It makes Charlie look like he's not responsible for any corruption, and this may explain why he warned against it, merely to make himself look innocent when in fact he could have been the chief driver of the corruption.

The woman in the video below is with the government agency that oversaw, and demanded, the murder of the ostriches. When asked if her food-inspection administration is going to label store products when from cloned animals, she not only fails to explain why it hasn't yet, but punts the issue to Health canada, saying that the Health department is what decides whether cloned meats should be revealed to the buyer. This video goes to show how canada is a cursed control-freak country that doesn't care what its citizens want even when it comes to putting things in their bodies. Absolutely, canada would like to mix cricket meat with all sorts of other meats and grains without informing the public. These are detestable traitors, who do the WEF bidding in return for their pay and "respectable" political positions. They will act just like the Nazi collaborators and police did, if their bosses demand it of them; we have already learned this from the murderous COVID-vaccine project...Christians in canada beware and do what you think is best for your near future. The cursed-of-God rule over us and are moving very fast under the radar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y6n6mVFewI

The second woman in the video above, with Agriculture, pretends that she doesn't know what to do with complaints from the public concerning the non-labeling of cloned meat. Both women of course know that they can send copies of the complaints to Health. But, both women are showing that they could care less about the issue. Normally, women are the biggest safety freaks to the point of granting communistic powers their levers for enforcing harsh measures on the masses, on a ridiculous basis of over-reaching safety, but, now, these women could care less for safety when it comes to keeping their "respectable" jobs, the aim of all career-driven feminists, of course. OF COURSE.

Men should have argued against helmets for riders of pedal bikes, because where does this safety-freak law end? If more people die of head injuries in cars, should we now be forced to wear helmets when driving cars? The WEFers would love to do this to us because they love to spoil our lives in every way possible. Feminists are by control-freak nature for the communist nanny state. They get offended if you say, "nanny state." They think men use that phrase to ridicule women, but in fact it's an insult to the male leaders who've created the nanny states, to be followed now by female leaders who create them. These feminists have turned even their husbands and children into nanny-state adherents. I say, life is full of risks, making life exciting. Even as a kid, I demand to ride a pedal bike fast and furious without a helmet, face and hair in the wind, and NOBODY should be able to force the head cap upon me.

Rebel News' founder is intent on embarrassing canada, as it deserves. He teaches that the public is permitted to YELL police officers, "cowards" (8th minute), to their faces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkgXissuXc

Chris Dacey of Dacey Media, who's been covering the ostrich story while on-site, claims that there's nowhere near the number of dead ostriches that were once alive, insinuating that the government stole many female ostriches especially, and eggs. This puts a whole new level of criminal atrocity on the event.

The people who owned these ostriches, most of them decades old, knew every ostrich by name. They were not being farmed for food. To the family, each murdered ostrich was precious. The goons came by night, with anonymous RCMP police who were looking to mix things up for their own enjoyment, because they love throwing their authority around in canada, I will attest to that. They did their best to hurt those who were hoping the hope of hopes. But the supreme court rubber stamped the Liberal government's agenda, a sign of the times that the courts are not truly for the people, and that the courts are owned by the Liberal government. The destroyers are here, in power.

Apparently, Dacey Media was the only media that captured photos of the massacred ostriches on-site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qUwWmKFM2c

Look at how embarrassing crime fighting is in world-order, WEF-canada:

Last week, I read that Trump is only thinking of suing the BBC on an open-shut case. He doesn't need to lift a finger for this law suit. His lawyers will do all the work, and will make a lot of money from the punishment meted to the BBC. Trump should then grant that money to his supporters who were jailed for sticking up for him at January 6. Trump owes those voters their crushed in-jail souls. It is an awful thing to spend months and years in prison even when guilty of a crime, but his supporters were guilty of nothing, or next to nothing. The FBI, in the meantime, with hundreds of on-site people who provoked a would-be insurrection at the congress, has not arrested even a dozen of the guilty FBI agents, even though Trump's people now run the FBI. GREAT SHAME hypocritical snakes.

Alas, it was only Monday of early this week when Trump caved, and said he wouldn't sue the BBC if it said, "sorry." Trump Junk in full view. But by Wednesday, he changed his tune to saying he had an obligation to sue. I assume that his advisors / supporters had a talk with him.

Somebody was apparently able to identify the "pipe bomber" of January 6 as a female Capital-Police officer (Shauni Kerkhoff) who, a half-year after January 6, went to the CIA. But the latter is now run by Trump-picked John Ratcliffe, and so if he's a straight-shooter, he should assist in getting her arrested where other CIA people were involved with her. Nobody's holding their breath.

Hahaha, right in the middle of the pipe-bomber identification, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino of the FBI are pretending to care for the people via more than two dozen subpoenas. I say these subpoenas are time wasters and mere teasers to make the team look good on behalf of Trump's concerns for the 2026 congressional elections. The questions are: will Pam Bondi give a green light to the FBI to investigate Kerkhoff, and will Trump's DoJ show some real integrity amid the lack thereof thus far? All sorts of red-meat offerings seem to be coming from the Trump administration to deflect from, or quell, the "civil war" over the Epstein-and-Kirk scandals. This week, Epstein is like risen from the dead in Trump's nightmares all over again, after thinking that the elongated Kirk-shooting stories would just about kill the Epstein monster for good.

Thomas Massie put out an Internet message scolding whoever it was that exposed, or was poised to expose, the whistle-blower in the Shauni Kerkhoff disclosure. Massie seemed rightly upset because exposing whistleblowers could allow the FBI managers to persecute the whistleblower. Dan Bongino (deputy FBI chief) than blasted Massie by Thursday in his own Internet-wide message, accusing Massie of accusing the FBI leadership of possible illegal acts such as threatening / manipulating the whistle-blower. I don't think Massie concretely accused anyone, but laid out the reason as to why exposing a whistle-blower is against the law in case Kash Patel chooses to take the opportunity to persecute the whistle-blower. Yes, that is an accusation of sorts, yet it's part-warning too, perhaps warranted to prevent a tempting illegality from Kash. I'm getting this message from Robert Gouveia Esq., Thursday. Gouveia is a little nauseating to me, in the way he presents his shows, much a motor-mouth, and I think he uses two zoom settings and two volume/mic settings, going repeatedly, every few seconds, from one to the other for some form of needless effect that I assume he thinks will net him more money. I'd watch him more often otherwise. If you wish, he's easier to follow at 85-percent normal speed.

Bongino's problem is that, if he and Kash have one or two primary suspects as per the pipe-bomber, they aren't going to reveal who they are, EVER, because the good guys will do a gait comparison and make Bongino and Kash look criminally liable of obstructing justice and/or spying on and framing an innocent person(s). If the gait don't nearly match, the FBI has no business prosecuting / investigating that person. We the public can now do our own investigations, and drive the deep state crazy, exposing it at every turn. So much fun. Pooh-pooh Kash is repeatedly smearing the private investigators as louses, fakes, etc., if they don't share the same sentiments as the official FBI narratives. DRIVING THEM CRAZY. By the looks of Kash's eyeballs, he can't afford to go too much crazier.

Bongino told the public that he and his team are doing all they can to find the identity of the pipe bomber, but Bongino did not say anything on whether Kerkhoff is the pipe-bomber, and by the sounds of Bongino's words to Massie, the FBI boss is definitely set to deny that Kerkhoff is the guilty party...totally expected when a deep-state police force protects its own.

It's now getting on several months after Kash promised some spectacular pipe-bomber news. So far, nothing. The voter base is exactly thinking that Trump wants Kash and company to merely waste time, stall, play games. Kash has started a new FBI PR program, "Rabid Response," to clarify the sort of foam drooling from his mouth when he gets upset at the Trump base. This week's Rabid Response included the claim that pedophile arrests by the FBI are up 10-percent from Biden's time, which is a testamant that the FBI under Trump is protecting pedophiles. I expect pedophile arrests to quadruple, at least, under an administration that truly cares for curing the country.

The first couple of minutes of the video below is good education for anyone who still doesn't know that American Intelligence and the DoJ set up staged, false-flag events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe0hIyXQUQ

I thought that Kim Iverson was a logical, level-headed person, but she said months ago, on her own show, that she doesn't know whether Jesus was Jewish. She also says she doesn't know whether He was a Palestinian. Kim comes across like a bimbo here. She should lay off of Christian topics if those perspectives are a clue to the extent of her understanding. The Bible says that His mother descended from the tribe of Judah, which named the Jews. The Old Testament claims / insinuates in multiple places that the Messiah would be a descendant of king David, and thus descended from Judah.

Then, in some recent videos by Kim on the Gaza situation, she seems to favor Palestinians for more reason than Israel now abusing Gaza. We must never forget that Palestinians have many in their numbers who would revive Nazi tactics all over again, or worse. We must not forget that the land of "Palestine" belongs to Jesus by Special Inheritance. Kim may not agree because, I think, she doesn't respect the Bible. She and Candace Owens are giving some impression that the bulk of Christians are supporting the Gaza genocide due to holding to God's promise to Abraham. I think these ladies would be surprised to find that most Bible-respecting Christians are not supporting Israel's attitude in Gaza. I don't, but I would not cry for a Palestinian state either.

I've never heard Candace referring to the promise of God to Abraham, to restore Israel. This is what Zionist Christians stand for, not modern Israel. There are so many differences in how much each Christian values modern Israel that I'm not going to paint all Christian Zionists with the same brush. Some Christians value modern Israel way too much for my liking, but not all. Candace and the others need to make that distinction clear. Israel will be Forever, once the wickedness in modern Israel is purged by God Himself. He too opposes modern Israel; ancient prophecy says so of end-time Israel.

Modern Israel is a stepping stone, however, to fulfilled prophecy, to fulfill the Promise to Abraham. When the Israeli remnant enters the Church of Jesus, at Armageddon, it won't be the vatican "church" it enters, the organization led by pompous extravangants, which Candace loves. Her position tempts me view her more a witch than an obedient Christian. On her Wednesday show this week, she said that she wanted to be friends with Dave Rubin, whose married to a man and has, with him, an adopted child. This is how oblivious Candace is to the ways of Jesus. Charlie Kirk wanted to be friends of faggots too, not in efforts to get them to repent, but because he accepted Sodomy as God-acceptable.

Do we think that all 12 apostles wore scarlet-red robes, as vatican "cardinals" wear? Why do they all wear the same robes when they gather, to make an exotic show of themselves, hypocrites? Why are those woolen robes mixed with silk and what looks like satin? What do they think they are, royalty? Why does every pope wear the same papal suit? What kind of phony-baloney act is this? Come out of your palace, clown, and get to work helping the poor. Be the chief example of Christian service, fool, or what kind of a father are you? To be highly honored or worshiped? PHARISEE!

I don't know of one pope who demanded to live normal, act normal, dress normal. They have all taken the Hell-bound way of worshipful father, and if catholics don't understand why this is wrong, which is why they're vaticanites, I assume. Both of my parents were; I know what a strong hold the phony act had upon them.

Candace is all about herself. Lately, all she does is protect herself against those who criticize her. It's making me sick, her celebrating how correct she is, the self-honor. In the meantime, she goes over old points ad-naseum.

I somewhat support Trump's check of $2,000 per American because it's not very often that workers get direct tax money. Usually, it's the big corporations and tax thieves that get it first. He should give more than $2,000 each to fewer than all American workers, only to those making $50,000 or less, because this is how I think God would do it, to those on the poor side only. The rest of workers generally are not hurting too much. But, it should not be printed/borrowed. It should be acquired from tariffs, as that would be the fair thing to do because tariffs increase product costs for everyone.

Until Trump can show a plan to cut the housing prices in half, he's got nothing to brag about concerning a mere $2,000 gift. It's easy for a willing government to cut housing costs in half, and too bad for all the tycoons who buy many homes hoping to cash in on higher prices a decade or more later. These people should never have been permitted to buy many homes for the sheer purpose of cashing in later, because, in the meantime, the poor need to rent those homes at way-too high prices. It's the rich feeding off of the poor to the point where the youth cannot all afford to buy even a small house. Trump knows it, but what's he doing about it? No use asking that question for canada because carney doesn't care to get prices down. The thing is, though, Ontario housing has nose-dived recently, and I hope it continues for the sake of new-home buyers.

A journalist claimed this week that he caught wind of plans for a new U.S. military base just outside of Gaza that will cost roughly the same as those $2,000 gifts, or a half-trillion dollars, not including on-going annual costs. We need to consider that as president Macron is for a Palestinian state, it signals that WEF is too. Then, as we are hearing that Trump is sympathetic to that state within a state, we could guess that he absolutely doesn't want it on the west side of Gaza's "yellow line," which is the beach-front half. Instead, the thinking is that Trump wants to make the beaches a playland for billionaires globally, which can explain why Trump was vehement against Netanyahu's hopes to take the West Bank of the Jordan river from the Palestinians too. That is, Trump may be seeking to keep the Gaza beaches out of Palestinian statehood but seeking to reserve the West Bank to that state within a state.

Here's Marjory telling that Trump is fumbling like a promise-breaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mfYDoQ0Kg

A couple of weeks ago, I heard Thomas Massie say that he has the 218 House votes to force out some version of some Epstein files. However, days ago, I heard that the number fell to 217. But, on Wednesday of this week, the following story came out that could get the number up to 218 again (217 is not enough). Note the connotation of blackmail where an email to Epstein says that he could "generate a dept":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYBoi5mtUic

In the video above, a new House member from Arizona will become the 218th vote, which, I think explains why it's been 217 until now. This new member is to be sworn in at any time as I write here on Wednesday, and thus this makes her the 218th vote if she's still willing to put in her vote.

However, in the video below, where Steve Bannon is exposed in taking part with an illegal meeting discussing an illegal cover-up (obstruction of justice) of Epstein's pedophilia, Megyn Kelly tells that the 218-vote passing will not get past the senate, and even if it does, it will be vetoed by Trump, though to the Senate's / Trump's further ruin. The Democrats may have released the Epstein emails as soon as they saw that Massie's bill was about to win the House vote (should happen next week), in order to better pressure some four or five Senate Republicans to vote for the bill too, otherwise it won't get to Trump's desk. It's such a shameful look on Republicans to oppose this bill. This video holds details I've not heard before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvgu1PR0KTw

In the video above, we see a clip of Bannon interviewing Epstein. I don't think we should automatically believe that Bannon was opposed to Epstein because, if the whole interview were available to us, we might be able to glean that Bannon was "attacking" Epstein to give him a choreographer opportunity to enhance his public / judical image. In other words, the entire interview may have been a staged production, with rehearsals by both Bannon and Epstein.

Bannon was the "architect" of Trump's first election win, suggesting that Trump chose a man whom he could trust on Epstein-issue threats to his election win. It now makes sense where Trump abruptly unloaded Bannon from his team as soon as the election was won, giving him no government post, that is if Bannon had Epstein "blood on his hands" that could come round to bite Trump. The United States is in an obvious crisis, and Trump is not only the man not to solve it, but is the compromised fraud causing it. His demise will greatly embolden the Democrats, who could easily roar back to power.

There is something to be said about the distinct possibility that any emails beyond mid-2016, after Trump became a presidential contender, could have been faked between Epstein and others for the sheer purpose of tricking the public into thinking that Trump was at least feasibly guilty of child abuse. It's even possible that some of the emails were created this year but dated in 2016 or afterward. As Megyn says, with a very good point, if Michael Wolff (in Megyn's video above) had any damning thing against Trump in 2016, he would have publicized it in 2016 to assure that Hillary would be the next president. Or, he could have publicized damning things at any time during Trump's first term, but as he did not, it seems he had nothing. Therefore, if suddenly Michael Wolff's emails are showing some damning things now, those emails could be construed as faked. Such things could indeed be deemed, "a Democrat hoax," Trump's phrase, but Trump and his DoJ are now lumping virtually every illegal act by Epstein as part of the Democrat hoax...which is why I want to see Trump's demise. Pro-Trumpers need to re-group, the earlier the better, around another presidential candidate for 2028, and they need to condemn Trump, in the meantime, in order that the party doesn't appear as criminally biased as hard-nosed Biden supporters were.

Trump sees that, possibly, the Massie bill will come to his desk for the final act of release, to get his signature, but rather than risking such a terrible look for refusing to sign, he has the option of secretly ordering Pam Bondi to start an investigation into Epstein's past crimes such that Pam can then use the excuse of "ongoing investigation" to keep any files from becoming public. However, this tactic is what Trump's base despised when used by Wray, Barr, and Biden's DoJ. It gets worse for Trump because Bondi has already claimed that Epstein is NOT guilty of any prostitution of minors, meaning she needs to justify opening an investigation suddenly, just as the Massie bill is being dealt with in Congress.

Podcasters beating up on Bondi, but not on Trump, are delusional in their support for Trump. These podcasters are the ones who fuel Trump's tricks rather than forcing him to do the right things when he refuses to. Better podcasters sense that Trump is protecting pedophiles in high office, with the bulk of House and Senate Republicans in support, a disgusting situation to say the least that threatens to give the House and Senate back to Democrats in just one year from now. The threat is so thick that Trump posted a message to Republican lawmakers to support the release of the Epstein files, but this is, in my opinion, his shifting the blame to them in order to clean up his own filthy image.

The voters do not only want the files released from all court cases that involved the Epstein empire, but serious prosecutions against the pedophiles. This is not going to happen just because the files are released. Something more needs to happen, but even if Bondi is forced to prosecute one or more men, she can yet arrange faked attempts to get sentencing against them. This will send Trump to his grave as a pedophile-protecting monster. His base will see him that way. If he thinks his leading podcasters truly support him, he should consider that they all support him because they think the money intake, and other potential podcaster-related rewards, are better by doing so. If it no longer becomes remotely true, they will desert him. However, there's a lot of podcast money being tossed about by the "Israeli lobby," and most of the podcasters supporting Trump on the Gaza issue are on the pro-Netanyahu side.

This week, Tucker Carlson claimed he's found online posts from Thomas Crooks that the FBI claimed didn't exist. Tucker's not reliable, trust me. Even if he secretly knows that the online posts of Crooks incriminating himself were fabricated by the FBI and/or other deep agency, in case needed for public consumption, he's keeping it a secret because he's very uninclined to come off as a conspiracy theorist in certain ways. I suggest that the FBI denied it knew of these incriminating posts because they were not needed after all, by the plotters, to convince the public that Crooks was the would-be assassin.

I feel very sure that Trump faked his own assassination, but Tucker and most others will not touch that theory, of course. Trust me, Trump's a fraud. He's very comfortable with deep-state elites if they work with him on his pet projects. He's in the throes of re-defining "RINO," now defined as anyone who opposes him. In the meantime, he schmoozes with traditional RINOs: war hawks, coup plotters, tax-thieving corruptocrats, and lusty porn addicts.

What are the chances that a rifle bullet struck Trump in the ear, making it gush with blood (i.e. not from a mere graze of the bullet) without leaving any sign of injury as little as a few days later? Get a life people, follow clues to a logical conclusion: you are being played by a system of crisis actors that involve whole police forces in conjunction with the FBI and other Intelligence agencies. Ask January 6 about that, which was a criminal fraud conducted by the Capitol Police and FBI together.

The video below can reveal that entire nations can pay phone and computer companies to spy on anyone purchasing their phones / computers. After Israel gets spyware into Samsung phones, Israel can sell the information to other national spy agencies. See how terrible this is? Consider using your smart phone minimally, maybe for emergencies only, no banking, and go back to the land line, or to a dumb phone, for most of your conversations, in order to assure privacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNYEZdGxD30

Look at how canadian Intelligence has become a sick and provocative bully of a criminal type, though I've known this from long before we get to the 6th minute. The problem is, canadian courts rubber stamp these fiends because they have two personalities, their Godless, everyday-working attitude, and their saintly facade when before the courts. Starting at the 14th minute there's her secret recording of one conversation with a play-friendly but sent-to-intimidate Intelligence snake. Every citizen needs to spy on the spies, otherwise it's not fair ball. They take their political enemies to court with top-of-the-line spy machinery at their disposal, yet the people have only basic spy capabilities for discovering how the snakes in the grass truly conduct themselves during work hours. Not fair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29kz9mxWCI4

Here's new evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with an Israeli Intelligence operative himself in close touch with Obama's Intelligence operatives, not necessarily to help Obama (he was anti-Israel). This video exposes why Dana Bash of CNN became such an outspoken stickler for the evil side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8wUxlpzcno

Trump's DoJ is fighting against election fraud going back to the 2020 election, but would he be doing so if it wasn't for his own personal political concerns? Here's a telling clip from some of the Fulton-county fraudsters who stole Georgia from Trump after midnight, still trying to muffle investigations into the methods of fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSOigo6iPjA

It's been months since DOGE discovered tax dollars going illegally to untold millions, some of them dead, but thus far I've not heard of the arrest of anyone who knew not be receive tax dollars but banked them anyway. What kind of scam has Trump ordered his DoJ to procure in the name of faking dismay over these illegal payments, but then not arresting a massive number of offenders to set the example, to set fear in those who continue to bank payments without snitching on the agencies that grant them? These extra payments go a long way to causing inflation for all. The money needs to be put into more DoJ lawyers, more courts and judges to handle the great swell of corruption.

The real how is Are you , I'm walking away If ever you need to change a tire, or clean rust off rims, in a tribulation situation, with just a rope and small pry bar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWd5vwUeYno

To get the tire unseated to begin with, lay a 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 plank up to the top of the tire as it lays flat on the ground. Locate the end of the plank roughly a half-inch before the steel rim. Make sure all air is out of the tire. Drive up the plank with a heavy car until the tire unseats; you may need to drive up more than once. Sand and clean the inner rims at the seats, and around the air valve, to minimize air leaking, before putting a tire back on.

This week's Highwire starts with a section featuring the/an owner of the BC ostrich farm. She tells that the government not only stole some of her ostriches, but also the business plans and the related science. These ostriches were being used to find anti-bodies that successfully fight bird viruses / diseases, exactly what globalist / leftist governments do not want at this time. It signals that the canadian government has a sick, pathological desire to re-visit vaccine mandates on people.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xbZNMslHyPyM

When Trump hosted the Syrian leader, al-Julani, in the White House this week, it comes soon after Netanyahu crashed Trump's beloved peace treaty with Hamas. Perhaps Trump invited Julani to Washington as a deliberate affront to Netanyahu.

Tucker Carlson criticized Julani's visit, showing that Tucker is not anti-Israel, for if he was, he'd love Julani, hoping that he'll one day assist Israel's enemies in an invasion of Israel. Tucker has never claimed to be anti-Israel. Instead, he claims to be against Netanyahu's treatment of Gazans. I've not heard him mention God's promise to Abraham, and he literally lies, for a self-interested reason(s), about planes flown by al-Qaeda on 9-11.

It's maybe crazy to ask, but what motive might Trump have for paying Julani to muster Sunni fighters in Syria and Iraq, or even some Turks and Iraqis, to invade Israel? If Netanyahu becomes thorny enough in blocking Trump's Gaza dreams. I'm keeping a crazy eye on that far-fetched possibility, and sharing it with you, just in case.

Some are saying that Susan Wiles, Trump's White-House Chief of staff, has underhanded or invisible-government authority over agency heads such as RFK and his Health department. Note that the Wiles Crest shares five, bunched arrows with the Arms of Rothschild. But that's not all, because Wiles-like Velis', who are in the motto of Griffins, share the Tromp eagle while the Acorns, in the Tromp Coat, are first known in Sussex with Wiles'. Trumps are first known in Pomerania, and as the House of Griffin had mastery there, it explains why the Arms of Pomerania uses a giant griffin. Both Wills' surnames (not "Wiles") use griffins too, and Scottish Wills use a red one, the colors of the Pomerania griffin.

Lauders and Letters use a white-on-red, giant griffin in the colors of the giant goose of German gas', the latter first known in Hamburg, near the first-known Trumps of Mecklenburg. Letters have another goose, and Scottish Lauderdale's, in Trump colors and format, and first known in Galloway with the Hanna's who in turn have the Trump stag head in colors reversed.