I was looking for my own math law to replace Kepler's, and began with Mercury. I started to show, in last week's update (link top of page), that Kepler's law is erroneous, yet still used today to distance the planets both from each other and to the sun. For my own law, I needed to guess at how much further Earth might be from Mercury. The only law I had thus far to work with, from compelling and unique reasoning in the last update, is that orbital speed of all planets is proportional to solar gravity force at their orbits.

I started with a guess, as that's all I can do in order to adjust the guess, as becomes necessary by the numbers involved. I found it interesting that the period of Mercury was roughly four times less than Earth's, and so I started on the guess that Mercury is twice as close to the sun as the Earth.

I needed a formula that works out the distance of all planets properly and compellingly. I chose to start with a formula, the square-root of the planet's period (Kepler started with the square of the period, and then found that result's cubed root), finding it possibly revolutionary. I don't have much to chose from in starting with a formula, because all we can really know about planets is the orbital periods. I now also know, I feel sure, that orbital speed is proportional to solar gravity force.

I need to elaborate on the formula because there's a potential law involved. I fact, I'll call it my tentative law for this discussion, that the square-root of a planet's period finds the distance to the sun in comparison to, 1, for the Earth. It's neat and tidy, and I was shocked with the results because Mercury, Venus and Mars all gave 365 days as part of the math's overflow. I'll show you, and we can then grapple on whether it's a math trick, or the real way to discover planetary distances.

Mercury's period of 88 days is 88/365 = .241 times the period of Earth. See how nice that number is, almost 1/4 shorter. That's why I started with the formula, ².241 = .491, almost 1/2, the solar distance as compared to Earth's. That is, Earth is being placed, tentatively, roughly twice as far from the sun. ².241 means the square-root of .241.

When doing the math for both Mercury, it gets the planets exactly two times too slow. It was a big let down after seeing "365" come up for both Mercury and Venus. I looked for a way to fix/adjust my law in order to get the speed doubled, but no luck. I therefore had to confront the possibility that we've been fed a false law as per gravity's "inverse-square law." My formula, for both Mercury and Venus, was telling that gravity force is inversely proportional to distance, not inversely proportional to distance-squared. The latter works better for a larger solar system, and the goofs have the solar system way too large thanks to Kepler's third law.

The inverse-square law is obtained, for example, with 1/.5² = 4 times more force, when the planet is .5 as far (or twice as close) from the sun as another planet. For novices, the "AI" in the following refers to "astronomical unit," defined in astronomy as the sun-Earth distance:

Mercury's period 88 days; 88/365 = .241 of Earth
My proposed law: ².241, which gives .491 AI for Mercury
Gravity force for Mercury: 1/.491² = 4.16 times more than Earth
Sun-Earth distance versus Mercury: 1 / .491 = 2.04 times further
Gravity force for Earth: 1/2.04² = .241 that of Mercury
Earth travels one Mercury orbit in 88 / .241 = 365 DAYS!!!

Those exclamation marks may not be warranted, because the top of that work starts with 88/365 = .241, wherefore there may be no cause for surprise to find that 88 / .241 = 365 days. However, I didn't just pick the latter out of a hat, but it was a necessary part of the math when launching from the proposed law. The very same thing happens when the same law is used from Venus particulars.

But before showing that, let me explain further to show the beauty of this math. Where 88/365 = .241, the .241 refers to the period of Mercury, BUT where 88 / .241 = 365 days, the .241 refers to the gravity force of Earth, apples and oranges. The latter .241 was obtained from, 1/2.04² = .241, having nothing to do with the period of either planet. The latter .241 is a result from the Earth being 2.04 times further from the sun. It's showing that there's some correlation between orbital period and gravity force, and in my law, gravity force levels makes orbital speed.

The problem is, the speed result is twice too fast. Where the result was: "Earth travels one Mercury orbit in 88 / .241 = 365 days. The problem is, the earth's orbit is twice as long as the Mercury orbit, when earth is twice as far from the sun. One orbit of Mercury's orbit is only half of what's needed. The only way to fix this, while incorporating the formula, is to change the speed to twice as fast, at which point the 365 days disappear to become half as many.

That the italicized sentence above exists at all is very fortuitous because it tells us how relatively large the earth's orbit will be by simply running the Earth around Mercury's orbit. Unfortunately, my law gets an Earth orbit four times longer than Mercury's orbit. I was after twice as long. To fix it, one can assume that astronomy is wrong to assign twice the distance from the sun as having four times less force, but who's going to take it seriously?

In the indented paragraph above, I had the following which gets two times too much speed:

Gravity force for Earth: 1/2.04² = .241 that of Mercury
Earth travels one Mercury orbit in 88 / .241 = 365 DAYS!!!

It needs to be changed to:

Gravity force for Earth: 1/2.04 = .49 that of Mercury
Earth travels one Mercury orbit in 88 / .49 = 179.6 days.

The 179.6 days is NOT exactly half of 365 days, which goes to show how "lucky" or not it was to see the 365 figure pop up. It had looked like confirmation that I was doing things right. The new 179.6 days to travel as far as one Mercury orbit means that the Earth orbit becomes a wee-bit larger than twice the diameter. That's what I was after in order to test the same law on Venus and Mars. It's nothing at all to create a math formula that works on paper with one planet only, but if the law works for all the planets, where the math starts off with a planet's period versus Earth period (not my number), that looks to me like a revolutionary discovery. And this is what I'm presenting this week.

Using 2.04 above instead of 2.04² violates the inverse-square law of gravity, and makes gravity simply proportional to distance. However, the inverse-square proportionality was made a law in the days of Isaac Newton, after Kepler's law was adopted by him. I'll claim with confidence, as per things found in last week's update, that Kepler used error in his 3rd law that then birthed error in establishing the rate of gravity loss with distance from the sun. Newton, with his erroneous definition of gravity, used Kepler's 3rd law. I asked google for the evidence, and its AI says:

The inverse square law of gravity was "proven" by Isaac Newton through a combination of mathematical reasoning [uh, not proof yet], observations of celestial bodies [uh, not proof yet], and a thought experiment [uh...] comparing the fall of an apple to the orbit of the Moon. Newton showed that the force of gravity must be proportional to 1/r² [prove it bucko] to explain the elliptical orbits of planets and the Moon's stable orbit around Earth,...

...Newton further demonstrated, using the method of fluxions, that for a planet to follow an elliptical orbit around the sun, the force must follow an inverse-square law

The last sentence involves circular reasoning, it figures, just a trick, because Newton was studying planetary orbits as per Kepler's relative planetary distances, and so where Kepler was wrong on that front, Newton's estimations on gravity force upon the planets must be wrong! Bingo. It's this easy to disprove the inverse-square law.

The more correct Newton was in finding that planets obeyed the square law, the more assuredly we can be that he was incorrect. Say what? Yes, the more he found that the gravity force was inversely-squared with doubling of distance, the more he's proven wrong due to Kepler's planetary distances being wrong. It's this easy to prove Newton wrong. One can be a genius and wrong, if there's a wrong ingredient in the math.

I'll now show details for Venus, where we once again get the 365 days:

Venus' period 225 days; 225/365 = .616 of Earth
My proposed law: ².616, which gives .785 AU for Venus
Gravity force for Venus: 1/.785² = 1.62 times more than Earth
Sun-Earth distance versus Venus: 1 / .785 = 1.27 times further
Gravity force for Earth: 1/1.27² = .616 that of Venus
Earth travels one Venus orbit in 225 / .616 = 365.26 DAYS!!!

It got the Earth year to perfection. But, drats, this math is no good because it gets an Earth too slow. Again, the top and bottom lines are similar, but the .616 on th top line is as per the Venus period, and the .616 on the bottom line if the force of gravity on the Earth. Apples and oranges, but there you see that the math got the same number in order to end up with 365.26 days.

You can see that where the earth travels one Venus orbit in 365 days, that's almost an Earth orbit because the Venus orbit is. 785 as large as the Earth orbit. The latter will therefore not work out to be twice as large, as it worked out with Mercury. Now for the big test. We need to change the number above as done below, and we want the Earth orbit to work out as expected, otherwise the math-law I'm using is NO GOOD.

Gravity force for Earth: 1/1.27² = .616 that of Venus
Earth travels one Venus orbit in 225 / .616 = 365.26 DAYS!!!

It needs to be changed to:

Gravity force for Earth: 1/1.27 = .785 that of Venus
Earth travels one Venus orbit in 225 / .785 = 286 days!!!

I still have the exclamation marks there because the Earth will orbit just a little more than Venus in its 1-year period, by the amount of 1.27 times, meaning that the Earth orbit has 1.27 times more circumference. We want to know the diameter of the earth circle, and the law above demands it to be 1 / .785 = 1.27 times greater in diameter. And yes, the increase in diameter of a circle is proportional to the increase of its circumference/diameter, and thus the law did work to get the expected numbers, both for Mercury and Venus, providing that gravity force decreases or increases proportionally to solar distance.

The correction above tells that the earth speed is .785 times that of Venus, or 1.27 times slower. I could make a third law because the period figure for Venus is also the orbital speed figure for Earth. Thus, to be expected, the period of any planet is the speed of the next planet furthest from the sun.

My first law now claims that orbital speed is exactly proportional to gravity-force change, and thus proportional also to solar distance. This is all so easy it could get confusing, because the same numbers apply to multiple things. Three things increase or decrease by the same levels.

Here's the math with all things correct i.e. without the inverse-square law of gravity, for both Mercury and Venus:

Mercury's period 88 days; 88/365 = .241 of Earth
My proposed law: ².241, which gives .491 AU for Mercury
Earth Speed expected: .491 of Mercury, or 1/.491 = 2.04 slower
Gravity force for Mercury: 1/.491 = 2.04 times more than Earth
Sun-Earth distance versus Mercury: 1 / .491 = 2.04 times further
Gravity force for Earth: 1/2.04 = .49 that of Mercury
Earth travels one Mercury orbit in 88 / .49 = 179.6 days.
Earth orbit 2.04 times longer and wider
Earth speed: 179.6/88 = 2.04 slower, or 88/179.6 = .49 of Mercury

Venus' period 225 days; 225/365 = .616 of Earth
My proposed law: ².616, which gives .785 AU for Venus
Earth Speed expected: .785 of Venus, or 1/.785 = 1.27 slower
Gravity force for Venus: 1/.785 = 1.27 times more than Earth
Sun-Earth distance versus Venus: 1 / .785 = 1.27 times further
Gravity force for Earth: 1/1.27 = .785 that of Venus
Earth travels one Venus orbit in 225 / .785 = 286 days
Earth orbit 1.27 times longer and wider
Earth speed: 286/225 = 1.27 times slower, or 225/286 = .785 of Venus

Who wants to do Mars? This time, the math changes. Instead of using days, we use years for Mars (and the rest of the planets). This time, when you get to the AU figure, it's not the true AU of Earth, because this figure is only a comparison between the planets. In the case below, the .782 AU means only that the earth orbit if .782 the way to the Mars orbit, To put it another way, Mars (the furthest planet from the sun, in the comparison) is now assigned the number, 1:

Earth's period 1/1.88 = .53 of Mars
My proposed law: ².53, which gives .728 "AU" for Earth
Mars speed expected: .728 of Earth, or 1/.728 = 1.37 slower
Gravity force for Earth: 1/.728 = 1.37 times more than Mars
Sun-Mars distance versus Earth: 1 / .728 = 1.37 times further
Gravity force for Mars: 1/1.37 = .73 that of Earth
Mars travels one Earth orbit in 1.0 / .73 = 1.37 years.
Mars orbit 1.37 times longer and wider
Mars speed: 1.37 / 1 = 1.37 times slower, or 1/1.37 = .73 of Earth

Note that 1.37 x 1.37 = 1.88.

The proposed law remains consistent when comparing Mars to both Mercury and Venus separately. The period of Mercury is .241 year, and so to first find how much smaller the period of Mercury is than that of Mars: .241/1.88 = .128 times. We then apply the proposed law: ².128, which gives .358, only this time, it's not .358 AU for Mercury, because that contradicts the .49 AU obtained when comparing Mercury's period with Earths. This time, the .358 means that Mercury is .358 the way to Mars (starting from the sun, of course).

We can prove it by the detail obtained above during the comparison of Earth to Mars, where it was found: "Mars orbit 1.37 larger than earth ". That is, Mars was assigned an AU of 1.37. Mercury was assigned an AU of .491, and so when we do .491 / 1.37, we get .358, same number as above exactly.

The period of Venus versus Mars is 225/365 = .62 year, and the period of Venus is .62/1.88 = .33 as long. We apply the proposed law: ².33, which gives .574 as the fraction of Venus' distance to Mars. Checking the math, we divide Venus' AU of .785 by 1.37 to find .573, close enough to .574 above.

Therefore, the proposed law works for comparing any planet to any planet. It doesn't mean that the law is necessarily accurate to the solar-system reality. But the proposed law is causing the planet spacing (distances apart) to be reasonable / acceptable, though there is nothing miraculous about it because orbital periods always increase, planet-by-planet with distance from the sun.

The establishment's AU's for Mercury through to Saturn: .39, .72, 1, 1.52, 5.2, 9.5. Mine: .49, .79, 1, 1.37, 3.45, 5.43. If, in every two-planet comparison, the difference between their orbital periods isn't square-rooted (which is what the math-law does), the math-law would fail by the time it gets to Mars by not assigning it a larger orbit than the Earth's. By square-rooting the periods, there's likewise nothing problematic in the findings of the orbital sizes of Uranus and Neptune. The reason my AU's are smaller is due to cutting gravity force in half.

Jupiter has a period of 11.86 years, where, in a comparison with Earth, we use 1/11.86 = .08 times the difference. We need to square-root .08 to find that Earth is .29 the way to Jupiter, which needs 3.45 times more distance to match it, wherefore Jupiter's AU is found as 1 x 3.45 = 3.45. When comparing the orbital period of Mars and Jupiter, the latter's AU worked out to 3.43, close enough. There's nothing off about that finding; the math-law is yet working fine into Jupiter.

The orbital speed of Jupiter, in my solar-system model, is 3.45 times faster than Earth, but in this model, we don't know the real speed of Earth in MPH. We know only the relative speed of, 1. Jupiter's orbit is therefore 3.45 times longer, and more wide, than Earth's.

Saturn's period, 29.5 year. Therefore, we do 1/29.5 = .034, the square-root it to find that earth is .184 the distance to Saturn, which needs 5.43 times more distance to match it, and so I see nothing off or impossible about assigning Saturn with an AU of 5.43.

Finding Planetary Distances in Miles

I need to find the logic in square-rooting the periods to find the AU figures. I think I realize the logic, and even the absolute need. To explain this, we take two planets, one twice as far from the sun, and that's almost exactly Mercury versus Earth. You have Mercury travelling twice as fast as earth, instead of the expected four times as fast as per the inverse-square law of gravity. It's got proportionality instead of squared proportionality.

Therefore, it seems we either need to double, square-root, or square the difference between the orbital periods in a two-planet comparison. I chose the square-rooting, and showed how that works to create an acceptable relative-distance system. It's easy to show that doubling the two-planet difference can't be the correct method, because the difference between Venus and Earth i 225/365 = .616, and when we double that we get an AU of well over 1 (which violates the fact the Earth must be assigned, 1.) We can't have Venus with an orbit wider than that of Earth.

If we squared the .616 instead of square-rooting, we get .38, acceptable. If we squared the Mars result of 1/1.88 = .53, we find that Earth is .28 the way to Mars, still acceptable. But Mercury versus Earth becomes 88/365 squared = .06, which starts to send an alarm. It suggests that Mercury is 16 times closer to the sun than Earth. Jupiter is more problematic with .037, suggest 1/.037 = 27 times further from the sun than Earth. Those numbers for Mercury and Jupiter are not impossible, but look suspect.

Plus, rockets to Mars are more credible when Mars is only about twice as far from the sun, than Earth, than the 3.57 times that the .28 figure is.

We therefore ask, what is the most logical, square-rooting or squaring the differences in orbital periods in two-planet comparisons. Well, as the proportionality we're dealing with is INVERSELY proportional, meaning that two times MORE distance gets four times LESS force, and therefore four times less orbital speed for making periods, square-rooting seems the correct choice. I showed how the numbers work perfectly, by using the square-root as the proposed law, to get planets with orbital speeds matching the period differences of two-planet comparisons. It's compelling.

However, there's one more option: dividing the differences by two. This seems logical because of the inverse direction of the gravity force. The differences then become roughly the same as squaring the difference figures. Mercury's .241 then becomes .14 AU; Venus' .616 becomes .313; the .53 of Mars versus Earth becomes .235; the .19 of Earth versus Jupiter becomes .1, only 10 times the distance difference, very acceptable. However, dividing by two works only when the distance is twice as much. For all other distance proportions, I think it becomes obvious that square-rooting is the way to find relative planetary distances.

What I said above, "the square-root as the proposed law, to get planets with orbital speeds matching the period differences of two-planet comparisons," won't work by dividing by two. The numbers obtained by dividing throw the orbital sizes off from the perfect seen with square-root results. For example, where Mercury has an AU of .14 when dividing by two, the Earth's orbital speed becomes 1 / .14 = about 7 times slower, i.e. Mercury about 7 times faster, yet, at .14 AU, Mercury's orbit becomes about 7 times smaller than Earth's so that it's period of 88 days will not allow Earth's to be 365 days. With Earth going 7 times slower on an orbit 7 times larger, the Earth period becomes 88 x 49 days.

The beauty of square rooting is that it got Venus with an AU of .785, having an orbital path of .785 as far as Earth's orbit. The Earth was found going as far as the orbit of Venus in 286 days, and thus travels 365 - 286 = 79 days more than the orbit of Venus. To find how much of Venus' orbit the Earth travels in 79 days, we do 79 / 286 = .276 times, and thus we find that Earth goes 1.276 Venus orbits in 365 days, which means it travels .785 x 1.276 = 1.0 units of distance, which is exactly the orbital distance for the Earth orbit when the Venus orbit has a distance of .785.

Therefore, I do declare, I have found the true sizing of the solar system in relative distances, and have also found the law that reveals it. It assures that, against all claims, gravity force is only 2 times stronger when planets are 2 times closer to the sun. This math proves it.

Kepler first squared the difference of a planet-Earth comparison, then brought the number in the opposite direction by cube-rooting it. I can't see the logic in that complicated scenario. Cube-rooting is done when dealing in three dimensions, but orbits are two-dimensional things (identical with the cross sections of spheres). Plus, as the resulting AU that Kepler's math gets gives the speeds of planets too, while their speeds are determined by gravity force, it makes no sense to cube-root a figure when, at the most, he should be square-rooting it due to the inverse-square law of gravity that Newton believed in, which I assume Kepler also believed in.

The problem was obvious to Kepler, that he couldn't first square the planet-Earth difference in periods, only to square-root it, because he'd end up with the same number he started with. And so he cube-rooted it in order to find an acceptable (but wrong) outcome for relative orbital sizes, but he needs to explain why he did it that way instead of square-rooting. And this is, I feel sure, where Newton's mass monster comes in. He and Kepler imagined that planetary mass was adding some inertial element that had to be overcome on top of planetary weight to form orbital balance. So, he cube-rooted instead of square-rooting thinking that the inverse-square law of gravity combined with the mass monster were explained by the cube-rooting.

The question now becomes: why didn't Kepler just square-root the period differences, as I did? Why add anything more into the picture? At the time, scientists may have been experimenting with magnetic force, to see what the force is at twice the distance from the magnet. I was under the impression that it works on inverse-square law, but, I've just asked google for "experimental proof that magnets operate on inverse-square law", and its AI says:

You can experimentally verify the inverse-cube law using a compass to measure the deflection angle at varying distances from a magnet, or by using a digital balance to measure the force between two magnets at different distances, with the results showing a distance dependence closer to r^-3.

The above could be a fabrication or stretch if the evolutionists and/or astronomers needed it badly enough as compared to inverse-square law. The cube-root of 4 is 1.6, not far from the square root of 2.0, and the AI statement above says "closer to" the cube root, not exactly.

I've never heard this inverse-cubed law of magnetism. There's no shortage of videos showing inverse-SQUARED magnetism. Those video owners didn't invent it, but rather received it from the physics establishment.

I can explain why gravity operates on inverse only without being squared. When a magnet attracts a nail, it makes the nail into a temporary magnet, and so there are two ways to describe this result: 1) that magnetic force has only inverse force, not squared, because the nail offers virtually no magnetic force to speak of toward the magnet, or: 2) claiming that since the nail is a magnet, there is an inverse-square law acting between the two. The latter view could then have given rise to the idea, which I saw at google AI, that two identical magnets have 8 times more force (twice as much as a magnet versus nail) when brought twice as close.

Even astronomers believe that the planetary gravity (toward solar gravity) can be ignored when seeking to understand orbital mechanics. And that's my point, that since planets are so far from the sun, and so relatively small, it could explain why straight proportionality of gravity is the reality versus squared proportionality. The planets are just the nails about ten inches from a magnet; the nail's small magnetic force does act much at all on the magnet.

Yet, modern astronomy has held to the squared proportionality perhaps because Kepler and Newton got that ball rolling, and it held for so long that their sons didn't want to re-write the textbooks. We might say that mankind can, and will, be that indignant toward truth.

For the video below, skip to 6th minute, and then watch until it shows a magnetic force of .19ish when the magnetic-force picker-upper is ten centimeters from the south pole of a magnet (at the left end of the ruler). At five centimeters away, the force has gone up to .75, wherefore the force increases by .75 / .19 = 3.94 times, almost-exactly the square-law proportionality that expects 4.0 increase. Where does google AI get off, therefore, claiming inverse-cube law for magnetism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyoVuLtQ3ek

The video shows 1.1 when the thingie is four centimeters from the magnet, and 2.8 when two centimeters away, a difference of 2.8 / 1.1 = 2.5. What happened? Instead of going toward the inverse-cube, which needs 8 times more than 1.1, it's now not even 4 times stronger? When the device is one centimeter away, it's at a force of 5.4, a difference of 5.4 / 2.8 = 1.92, or almost 2 times. Therefore, at nearly the closest-possible distances, the difference is only 2 times, which could indicate that the thingie is designed not as a large magnet, but something that measures magnetic force with a tiny magnet within such as to read (as best as possible) only the magnetic force of the stationary magnet, not the force of the magnet in combination with itself. This video can perhaps prove that the solar "magnet" attracts planets with straight proportionality. It appears that Newton owes me a nice, shiny apple for correcting his inverse-square law.

I saw a video minutes ago saying that the measurement is ruined if the magnet used as the measuring device goes further away from the magnet, then closer. For the test to work, it's got to be brought near the magnet on a steady decrease in distance. You can see that, in the video above, the reading at 1 centimeter is no longer at 5.4 after he removes the device from the magnet and brings it back again. The test needs to be done as he did it originally, with a steady decrease in distance, not removing the magnet/device away from the stationary magnet.

I asked google for an "experiment showing magnetic attraction with inverse-cube law," but instead of giving me one with magnets, it wrongly offered a video on the magnetic strength from electric current (typical google trashiness), and moreover said: "...an experiment showing an inverse-cube law for magnetic attraction is complex and requires careful setup..." It sounds hokie-crockie to me. Not even one video available? How reliable is the claim, then?

I do now have a means of finding the actual distances of the planets in miles, thanks to the proposed law above. I'll show you drawings as evidence for that claim. Here's the first one as per the eclipse of June 15, 2011:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw1.jpg

That drawing shows only the method for finding the distance to the sun using any lunar eclipse, preferably full eclipses. I wrongly started the eye-line to the sun at the earth's surface; it should be at the earth's core, but it'll make virtually no difference in the solar distance found. In this drawing, one looks down upon the north pole of the Earth at the center of the Earth circle.

Next, see this drawing:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw2.jpg

The "lunar radius" I speak of at the lower-right corner is of the moon's "apparent diameter" as seen by the eye and measured by a telescope. The lunar radius I speak of is obviously half its apparent diameter. The drawing shows the method for finding the needed angles to the edge of the sun using NASA data alone. Therefore, nobody can deny the results of finding the sun less than 20 million miles away, because atmospheric bending of sunlight, if there is any when forming the Earth umbra, isn't a factor that the goofs, the liars, can use to their advantage for explaining away the 18-million-mile AU result for Earth.

Once we have the angle of both lines to the sun, as shown above only partly (for one line only), one can find the distance to the sun either with manual math, or with a triangle calculator in the top drawer of Mr. Average Astronomer. Yes, I'm insulting the cowardly astronomers -- all of them -- who do will not reveal this method for finding the real AU. As you can see, I don't yet have the angle of the Earth-umbra line in the drawing above, which will remain the poverty-stricken situation until one can find the Earth-moon distance at the time of eclipse.

To keep the average Joe from using eclipse data to discover the real solar distance, NASA's eclipse pages are deliberately absent the Earth-moon distance at the time of the eclipse, an obviously important detail that amateur astronomers would like to have. NASA DENIES THEM...because NASA is a horned demon. This denial kept me, an average Joe, from being able to find the exact solar distance, for years.

Then, while re-visiting the topic one day, I self-discovered a way to find the Earth-moon distance, and realized then that the Mr. Average Astronomer would know this method like the back of his hand. COWARDS! You can see that method at this drawing:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw3MoonCircle.jpg

One can prove by another method, NASA records, that the moon was in fact 232,640 miles from Earth, during the eclipse under discussion (June 15, 2011). But google makes that method hard to work with because it reports faulty / conflicting NASA data on how far the moon is when it's at a certain apparent diameter. That figure was found by the method shown in the drawing above. That figure is in this next drawing that also shows the angle of the umbra line as .24977 degree. The other line is at .2624 degree, which, in astronomical terms, are huge angles that no professional astronomer is afraid of:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw4.jpg

The angles of the two lines allows one to find where they meet, and of course they meet at the sun...always less than 20 million miles from Earth no matter which eclipse one uses to find solar distance. What's there to ponder? Get with the program of assailing modern astronomy, if you have the courage to be marked as a "lunatic."

That solar distance to a professional astronomer is as large as a barn. If you think they can reliably find distances to stars by following the itty-itty-bitty-wee-wee angles of two lines to the apex of a triangle at the star, then you will have no criticisms against following such relatively huge angles as you see on the drawing, over merely millions of miles.

Mr. Astronomer can't argue something like, "ya-but, .25 degree is such a small angle that 20 million can easily become 93 million with a slight alteration." Ya-but, can he find a reason to alter the angles of the lines? No. If he could, he wouldn't be afraid of showing th eclipse method, then explaining why the angles need adjustment in order to meet 93-million miles from Earth. Go ahead, try to find, with google, just one person who explains the eclipse method of finding solar distance. What you find instead are silent cowards more interested in their reputations than fighting for the truth.

The angles are what they are. The lines are straight. The angles don't lie. In the drawing above, I tell how to find the .25-degree angle of the umbra line, at this calculator page, where I've done the inputs for you; just look at the alpha-a line to see the angle of .25. Look down the page to see the triangle and my inputs.

Then, on this other triangle calculator page, I've filled it for you to show that the eclipse lines find the sun 18.3 million miles away. In case that page disappears, let me show you what I'm doing with the inputs. For this you need to go to the last drawing above, and imagine the base of the triangle one Earth radius long, 3960 miles, and situated between the umbra line and the .2624-degree sun line. View the latter starting at the Earth core, and view it as zero degrees.

When the .2624-degree line is made zero degrees, the umbra line becomes .2624 - .25 = .0124. But when starting at the Earth with the base of a triangle, we need to convert .0124 to 90 degrees minus .124 = 89.9876 degree, which is what I plugged into the calculator page above (I wish the triangle image at that page were flipped around to jibe with my drawing).

As the math doesn't lie, I'm not lying. The eclipse is not lying. The 18,298,000 result is telling us that astronomy has been lying to us with 93 million for at least as long as it's had near-perfect eclipse data. Don't think that astronomy has never done what I'm doing. It has, but it's buried it.

Next, I need to show you something without a drawing, because I don't have a draw package. I'll start by taking the following from the last update, with a response from, I think it was, google AI:

Sunlight bends by an average of about 34 arcminutes (0.57 degrees) due to atmospheric refraction when the sun is on the horizon, but this amount is variable and can be significantly higher in different conditions. The atmosphere acts as a lens, making the sun appear higher in the sky, which accounts for approximately two minutes of extra daylight at both sunrise and sunset.

A whopping two minutes! That .57 degrees is roughly the diameter of the sun as the eye sees it in the sky.

When seeing the red sun at sunset, the top of the real sun, not seen, is actually .57 degrees further down in the sky from the top of the red sun you so see. As .57 degree is just a slight bit more than the diameter of the sun (average .53 degree), the real sun is immediately beneath the red one, with the two kissing. It looks like a picture of Jesus, the red sun, on the right hand of the Father, which could reveal why God made the Earth at the size it's at in order to allow the an amount of light bending that creates that side-by-side-sun situation.

It means, first of all, that not much sunlight gets through the atmosphere in order to contribute much at all to the makings of the umbra line, for the sun on the horizon is of very low intensity compared to the noontime sun, yet it's only gone through half the air when you or I are looking at it. In my drawings, you or I are standing on the top of the Earth circle at sunrise, and on the bottom of the circle at sunset.

There is a question, therefore, as to whether the umbra size, measured by the moon's passage through it, is changed due to bent sunlight coming across the sunrise and sunset locations of the globe, or, to the contrary, whether sunlight to roughly ten miles up gets blocked sufficiently by air so as not to change the umbra diameter from what it would be if there were no air. But it doesn't matter for measuring the solar distance, because both scenarios get roughly the same distance.

When the bottom of a red sun sits on the horizon, the top of the real sun touches the horizon too, but this sun is fully beneath the horizon. That situation matches the umbra lines in my drawings, meaning also that, the bottom of the real sun for half the earth at sunrise is the top of the real sun for the other half, the side kissing the horizon at the same time. When half sees the rising sun sitting on the horizon, the other half sees the sunset sun sitting on the horizon. It's not always reddish, though, but a little yellow.

The establishment might like to argue, in attempts to challenge the 18-million-mile distance, that when sunlight bends, it stays bent after leaving the air, thus changing the umbra-line angle from the line of incoming sunlight. But, too bad, even if that's true, the light is known to shift down toward the ground when entering the air, and so if the sunlight line stayed at that downward angle, it would make the umbra appear smaller than it would otherwise be if there were no air. That would make the two lines under discussion, the two in the drawings, meet sooner i.e. with less than 18 million miles as the result. So glad that the establishment can't use that argument, because if it could, it would.

It's to be expected that light coming out of the air at the dark side of the planet, if anything much comes out, does so at the same angle as the incoming sunlight. For, it's known that light through water bends a little, but then corrects itself upon leaving the water (in a transparent container) such that both the incoming and outgoing lines of light are parallel i.e. at the same angle.

Therefore, if sunlight up to ten miles up did bend in that fashion to make the umbra of less diameter, it would make it roughly 20 miles less wide on the whole, so that we can confidently use the angle of the umbra line to find solar distance. The reason that it's a happy result is that I can now be sure that the true solar distance is at least close to 18 million, not something far smaller.

To find the perfect solar distance, one needs perfect eclipse data, but NASA's data can be shown to be slightly off. With perfect data, every eclipse result will have a sun size, on the day of the eclipse, perfectly proportional to the solar-distance figure. Unfortunately, as I'll soon show, NASA's data is imperfect. That is, the reported sizes of the umbra diameter, and sun and moon diameters, are not always perfect.

If the umbra line were set in 20 miles so as to be 20 miles less in diameter, the umbra line would not go exactly to the solar edge, but 10 miles deep into the sun (10 on both/all sides). The umbra line will now meet the .2624 line a little sooner so as to change the solar distance from the 18.3 million, that we got above, to 18.4 million. I did the calculation at the calculator page by changing the 3,960 mile Earth radius to 3,980.

There's other ways to find the solar distance aside from the right-angle-triangle calculator. You can use this other type of triangle calculator. I've filled the inputs for you to show that you DO NOT use those inputs, as logical as it may seem to you. Besides, it gets a solar distance of just 354,500 miles.

The reason you can't use those inputs, which are 90 - .25 = 89.75 degree, and 90 - .2624 = 89.68 degree, is that they are now both working off an imaginary base of a triangle that is the Earth radius, which is why you see the 3960 miles inputted into the calculator's triangle. When forming this triangle base, you no longer view the two lines as working off the zero-degree lines in the drawing, wherefore we don't input .2624 and .25. The two now need to be associated only with the base of the triangle such that one line can be viewed as zero degree while the other at .2624 - .25 = .0124 degree.

However, as the triangle calculator above won't accept the input of 0 degree, you can yet find the solar distance by cutting .0124 in half, or .0062 on both sides of the triangle's base, except that you need to input 90 - .0062 = 89.9938 degree, as you can see here where the solar distance is found as 18,297,684 miles. When changing the 3960 to 3980, the result is 8,390,097.

The reason that I named the two angles as .2624 and .2499 is that I was using a manual method for finding the solar distance, which requires those angles off of a zero-degree line to th solar core, which has to do with this Drawing 5:
https://www.tribwatch.com/photos/eclipseDraw5.jpg

I was able to find how much closer the .2624 line approached the .25 line with each mile toward the sun. It was then just a matter of dividing that distance number by 3,960, the radius of the earth, because the two lines start that much apart when going toward the sun. I can tell you now that, when we use the solar-distance figure above, each mile toward the sun sees the two lines coming closer by: 3,960 / 18,297,684 = .00021642 mile. In my manual calculations that got 17.877 million (see below), I was using .000221505 mile.

With the latter inputted into the beta-angle box, and 3960 still in box 'a', the solar distance is reported as 113.4 million, meaning that they are wrong to assign .524 to a sun 94.5 million miles away.

Fine Tuning Some Distances

I was like a man on one leg until getting it solid into my head what needed to be done mathematically. In one of my updates, I had the following, where I had manually found the distances for roughly ten eclipses:

At the end of 2021, when I was finally catching on as to how NASA data could be used for the quest of finding the solar distance, I calculated the following solar distances. After each distance figure, I give the angular size of the sun per the eclipse on the date shown. The larger the sun sizes shown, the closer the sun to earth per eclipse:
18.962 million; .52450: June 25, 1964
16.015 million; .524554: July 16, 2000 (something is wrong here)
17.877 million; .524832: June 15, 2011
17.188 million; .526277: May 26, 2021
17.630 million; .52661: August 17, 1989
18.207 million; .53144: April 15 2014
18.821 million; .5331: April 4, 2015
18.892 million; .5393: November 18, 1994
17.483 million; .544776: July 26, 1953

The sun sizes do not always jibe with the solar distances. For example, the eclipse with an 18.207 million-mile sun, and the two beneath it, have larger sun sizes that the three above it all with less than 18-million distances. Perhaps if the calculator was used for those eclipses, I would obtain distances that better reflect the sun sizes, and so I will re-do all the distance calculations, and show you the new results. Here's an example of how the manual math was worked out, with NASA's diameters in arc-minutes converted to degrees, for the eclipse of June 15, 2011. The "lunar-eclipse-line spread" you see is the base of the red triangle in my Drawing 4 above. The square brackets just show how I obtained the figure on that line, with the moon's distance at full eclipse on line 7:

June 15, 2011 1) umbra radius given: .7256 degree; diameter = 1.4512 degree
2) moon radius given: 15'57.2" converts to .531776 degree diameter
3) sun radius given: 15'44.7" converts to .524832 diameter
4) umbra diameter in moons: 1.4512 / .531776 = 2.7289 moons
5) umbra diameter: 2.7289 x 2,159.1 = 5,892 miles
6) lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,892/2) = 1,014 miles
7) 1,014 / 232,648 = .004358516 mile; [360 / .531776 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 232,648]
8) 1079.63 / 235,726 = .0045800 mile; [360 / .524832 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,726]
9) .0045800 - .004358516 = .000221505 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun
10) 3960 / .000221505 = 17.8777 million miles to the sun

Line 8 requires explanation, and it's maybe confusing without a drawing. The 1079.63 / 235,726 on that line is the moon's radius divided by the distance of the moon if the moon were acting as the sun at full eclipse. Imagine you are looking at the sun at full eclipse. Just pretend that the sun is the moon of exactly the same apparent diameter, then find how far from Earth that particular moon would be according to that diameter. The angle that I found on line 8 is not in degrees, but .0045800 mile lateral spread per one mile toward the sun (perpendicular to the spread. I learned later that this method was working in "radians."

When we are substituting the sun for the same-size moon, we are creating a pretend solar eclipse, with the moon directly in front of the sun. A line from the Earth core to the edge of the moon goes also to the edge of the sun, where finding the angle to a moon the same size as the sun gets the angle of the line to the sun's edge on the day of th eclipse. Eureka, it works excellent, and shuts the lying mouths of the astronomy goofs too, to find the real solar distance.

On the day of the eclipse, the sun was .524832 degree in diameter, and so we imagine a moon of that same diameter, then do the math you see in the square brackets, 360 / .524832 x 2159.26 / 2pi, to find that this pretend moon is 235,726 miles from Earth (2pi = 6.28318). This gives us the angle of the line from earth core to sun's edge as half of .524832 degree.

When we input the two numbers, 079.63 and 235,726, on line 8 into the right-angle-triangle calculator here, as I've done for you, it shows .262 degree for the angle of the line from Earth core to sun edge. If you look over on the same alpha-a line as .262 is showing, you'll see the same angle expressed as .00458 radians. Without a calculator, but only by the manual method shown in square brackets (calculation above), I got the very same figure, but expressed it as .0045800 mile.

A radian and an angle are both defined as the unit of lateral spread per one unit of forward distance. I was using one mile as the forward distance so that the lateral spread must be in miles too. The fact that my method uses a calculation for the lunar distance from Earth found only from the apparent lunar diameter PROVES WITHOUT DOUBT that this method is full proof for converting apparent diameters to lunar distances. For, my .00458 radians is exactly what the calculator gives when I ask it to find the angle of a line to the edge of a moon 235,726 miles from the Earth's core.

Bear with me, because this is the crux of my 18-million discovery. To put it in other words, I found the 235,726 distance using the apparent moon diameter of .524832 degree. The radius is thus half that, or .2624 degree, and the calculator, which gives only three decimal places, gave .262 when we input 235,726 with the real lunar radius of 1079.63 miles. It proves that an apparent lunar diameter of .524832 degree, or a lunar radius of .2624, has a corresponding moon distance of .524832 degree. Therefore, you can convert any apparent moon size to any moon distance either by my method in the square brackets, or with the calculator under discussion.

"INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINDING SOLAR DISTANCE"

The real lunar distance for that eclipse is on line 7 as 232,648 miles. This is obtained from the apparent moon size at NASA's page, which converts to the .531776 degree on line 2. The math here is 360 degrees / .531776 = 676.98 moons in a full, imaginary circle around the Earth, and as the moon is said to be 2,159.25 miles wide, we do: 2,159.25 x .676.98 = 1,461,762 miles as the distance of the imaginary circle. We then divide that distance by pi, 3.14159, to find 465,294 miles for the diameter of the moon's orbit at the moment of the eclipse, and so we just divide that by two to get the Earth-moon distance at that time, = 232,647, which is essentially the 232,648 that I used above. You'll get a slightly different result by using the standard lunar diameter of 2,160 miles.

The 1014 figure that you see on line 7 above is the base of the red triangle on Drawing 4. Therefore, as per the directions on Drawing 4, we put 1014 into box 'a' of the right-hand-triangle calculator, and 232647 into box 'b' to find the angle of the umbra line as .25. We'll use this below.

The angle of the line from Earth core to edge of sun is essentially given at the NASA page (for this June 15 eclipse) as the solar diameter, which is shown on line 8 above as .524832. We need only divide it by 2 = .2624 degree because Drawing 4 uses only half the solar diameter between zero degree and the .2624 line.

Once one finds the angles of both lines to the edge of the sun: 1) subtract one from the other, .26249 - .25 = .0124; 2) subtract that result from 90 degree = 89.9876; 3) enter the latter result into the beta-angle box at the right-hand-triangle calculator, with 3960 in the 'a' box. Hit "Calculate" to find the solar distance.

I'm going to redo the calculations, using the calculator, for as many of the nine eclipses in the list above as I can find in my records. This will refine the solar distance, and, hopefully, the sun sizes at NASA will then jibe with my new distance results. I'll spare showing you the math for each one. As it turned out, the sun sizes are still a problem at times; they should be inversely proportional to sun distance, but not all are. The first three on the list have sun sizes close to each other, and so all three distances should be close to each other too, but one is way off. The fourth and fifth on the list are closer to earth, and should therefore have larger suns, and they do. But then the problems start where the sixth on down; all with suns larger whereas they should be smaller than the fifth if the fifth is correct.

18.987 million; .52450: Jun 25, 1964
15.892 million; .52455: Jul 16, 2000
18.274 million; .52483: Jun 15, 2011
17.267 million; .52627: May 26, 2021
17.052 million; .52661: Aug 17, 1989
17.453 million; .53144: Apr 15, 2014
18.079 million; .53310: Apr 4, 2015
19.476 million; .53930: Nov 18, 1994
18.151 million; .54477: Jul 26, 1953

One can find the true solar diameter using any eclipse above. For example, using the last eclipse on the list, we input 18,151,000 into box 'b' of the right-angle-triangle calculator, and input half the sun angle of .54477 into the alpha-box. The solar radius is shown on line 'a' as 86,291 miles, and so the real diameter works out to 172,580 miles.

Doing the same for the second-last eclipse, the solar radius is now coming out as 91,660 miles, far larger than 86,291, suggesting that the 19.476 million miles for this eclipse is too far. The farther the sun, the wider its diameter works out to by this method. I don't say that the 18.151 number is more the wrong one because the 19.476 looks out of place as too large. I'll show the whole list with the solar diameters in miles worked in:

18.987 million; .52450 > 173,813 miles: Jun 25, 1964
15.892 million; .52455 > 145,494 miles: Jul 16, 2000
18.274 million; .52483 > 167,392 miles: Jun 15, 2011
17.267 million; .52627 > 158,600 miles: May 26, 2021
17.052 million; .52661 > 156,724 miles: Aug 17, 1989
17.453 million; .53144 > 161,884 miles: Apr 15, 2014
18.079 million; .53310 > 168.214 miles: Apr 4, 2015
19.476 million; .53930 > 183,320 miles: Nov 18, 1994
18.151 million; .54477 > 172,580 miles: Jul 26, 1953

There's no better way to show that all distance results, from NASA data only (not mine), cannot all be correct in the list of these nine eclipses. It's to be assumed that NASA is at least slightly wrong with ALL eclipses. The true diameter of the sun can be reflected by one or none of the above apparent sizes. They say that poll percentages obtained from interviewing 1,000 people can get close to the percentages of a whole nation, wherefore the best I can do is find the average solar diameter by adding up all nine results and dividing the result by 9. It gets 165,335 miles, but as some of the sun sizes are incorrect, that's only approximately reliable.

Adding up all nine solar distances and dividing by nine gives the average distance as 17.848 million. Put half of 165,335 into the 'a' box, and 178480000 into box 'b' to find that the average apparent diameter of the sun (for all nine eclipses) is .265 degree, though with closer inspection it's .2654 because placing the latter in the alpha-a box with 82668 in the 'a' box gets almost 178,480,000. There's no point in having the .2654; I'm just using it to check the math. It means that the average solar distance should be around 17.85 million miles. Using 18 million should be good for the gander and the goose, but not for the goof astronomer who doesn't check out eclipses on his own to see what story they tell. What kind of a pitiful astronomer is that?

The umbra line is like a bus that goes straight to the sun's edge, and all the goofball needs to do is hop on the bus, find out where it goes, then report back to the public. Shame on the establishment.

As the sun is said to be 865,370 miles wide, we can find another approximation of the solar diameter to be about 865,370 / (17.85M / 93M) = 166,065 miles. That's not itty-bitty. That's a lot of flames.

My proposed law that has Mercury and Venus with an AU of .491 and .785 respectively can now be discovered as roughly 18M x .491 = 8.8 million, and 18M x .785 = 14 million, miles. With Mars and Jupiter having distances of 1.37 and 3.45 more than Earth, Mars' works out to 24.7 million from the sun, and Jupiter 62 million. Those are huge distances, don't let the astronomer tell you it's peewee.

The sun's diameter changes to about 18 / 93 = .194 of whatever astronomy claims it to be. This shrinking of the solar system doesn't necessarily make planets smaller than claimed, and the particulars of the Earth's moon stay the same until proven differently. If the claimed lunar diameter is wrong, my 18 million figure is wrong accordingly, but triangulation measurements on the moon have got to be very reliable. Although light bends when going through air, the diameter of the sun and moon stay the same while their light bends.

I have it recorded:

If one wants to, one can check various distances reported on NASA's eclipse pages with the astropixels numbers to see if there's inconsistency. For example, I've found a problem where NASA reports the moon size of .4901 for the eclipse of November 28, 2012 (14' 42.2' = .4901 degree), where the lunar distance works out to 360 / .49011 x 2,159.26 / 6.28318 = 252,426 miles, while astropixels for the same moon has 406,348 kilometers = 252,493 miles. Differences a little larger than that could correct some the non-jibing solar distances.

Google's AI could easily do the calculation, or simply fetch the precise data, for my question: "what was the moon's distance at the eclipse of July 16, 2000?" Instead of giving me a precise answer, it's rounded off to 223,000 miles, whereas the reality was in the ballpark of 252,140 (the number I found and used), Then, in the lower section where AI is normally to do a detailed attempt at answering the question, it was programmed by the liars in the establishment to say only: "Based on the eclipse data and the general average distance from Earth, the moon was at a distance that allowed for the total eclipse to occur." That's it, that's all, at the perfect distance for the eclipse to occur, WHAT A JOKE. Clearly, the establishment doesn't want Average Joe to have the lunar distances for lunar eclipses. Why not? I told you why not.

How could an AI computer goof up something so easy as the question above when it should "know," or be programmed to know, the lunar distance as easily as knowing the apparent size of the moon at the eclipse. All distances to the moon are EXACTLY PROPORTIONAL (inversely) to the moon's apparent diameter, otherwise called the "angular diameter."

Lookie here at AI: "the smallest angular size of Earth's Moon is approximately 29.4 arcminutes (or about 0.49°)..." When the moon is the smallest, it's in the ballpark of 252,000 miles from earth, yet AI claimed that the moon was only 223,000 miles on the eclipse of July 16, 2000, even though NASA reports a moon radius of 14'43.2", which is .490666 degree, as large as it can get.

Then, when I ask google to convert the 14'43.2" above, it says: "14°43.2" converts to approximately 14.72 degrees." What a piece of trash. I didn't ask to convert 14°43.2, but rather 14'43.2". Plus, believe it or not, google will not bring me a calculator to convert 14'43.2" now, whereas it did a few years ago right up-front. This is called: screw the world, don't educate it properly, weaken the masses with disinformation and confusion. Make utter fools of everyone. Divide the masses, don't allow the people to climb educatively. What a demon google is.

14'43.2" is found as 14.72 / 60 = .245333 degree (moon radius), and when doubled it's .490666. google AI, being a computer, should easily be able to convert that angle to a lunar distance. Let's not let google get away with this. Let's ask it point-blank, "how far is the moon when it's angular diameter is .490666"? It's programmed to lie. It responds, not with 252,000-ish, not even with th 223,000 it gave above, but now: "When the Moon's angular diameter is approximately 0.490666 degrees, it is about 385,000 kilometers (239,000 miles) away from Earth." IT'S PROGRAMMED TO LIE half or more of the time on such questioning.

What it apparently means is that google will not give you the nails to find the distance to the sun even though you have all the eclipse tools from me or NASA to do so. I showed you how to find the lunar distance in a sure-fire way so long as you have the moons apparent diameter. In the case of .490666 degree, that's the width of the moon as per an imaginary 360-degree circle around the earth. By dividing 360 by .490666, we find that there are 733.697 back-to-back moons in that circle. You can multiply it by 2,159.25 miles, as per the real lunar diameter, to find that the imaginary circle is 1,584,219.8 miles long, then divide it by pi, 3.14159, to find the circle's diameter, 504,273 miles, and finally the lunar distance if found by cutting that number in half to 252,136 miles. That's the number I used in my eclipse calculation, and it's the right number.

I asked google point-blank: "how far is the moon at it's most maximum?" Response: "At its furthest point from the Earth, the Moon is about 405 696 km (252 088 miles)." There you go, it was lying when I asked how far the moon would be when the moon is at it's largest apparent diameter of .49 degree.

But let's ask: "how far is the moon when at its smallest apparent diameter?" Astronomers don't quite agree on the distance for the smallest moon size, but we finally coaxed google's AI to cough up a decent response: "The Moon's farthest distance from Earth is known as apogee, and when the Moon is at apogee, it appears smallest. This point is approximately 405,500 kilometers (251,970 miles) away from Earth." There you have it, proof that AI knows how large the moon was at the eclipse of July 16, 2000, but lied to the public, in keeping with NASA's unwillingness to reveal lunar distances at its eclipse pages.

Asking: "what was the apparent size of the moon for the eclipse of July 16, 2000?" It doesn't answer the question, but only pretends to with a deflection: "The Moon's apparent size varied during the total lunar eclipse of July 16, 2000, appearing darker near the center of the Earth's umbral shadow and brighter near the edges." Ridiculous response. My bet is that it's programmed not to share certain NASA eclipse data.

I then asked, "what was the angular diameter of the moon for the eclipse of July of 2000?" It lied again as if pretending it's bozo the clown: "The angular diameter of the moon at the instant of the July 31, 2000, solar eclipse was approximately 0.5242°." That's a large moon in comparison to the .49 degree reported by NASA.

On the 16th, the size of .49 was the smallest possible because the moon was at its apogee position. So I asked google, without "eclipse" in the question (I'm tricking google AI), and with "July 15" instead of 16: "was the moon at apogee on July 15, 2000?" "On July 16, 2000, the Moon was at or very near apogee (its farthest point from Earth), which occurred approximately 1.1 days after the apogee on July 15, 2000." So, AI knows the answer to the latter question, but doesn't merely refuse to give an answer as to what size the moon was during the eclipse, when "eclipse" is in the question, but gives the wrong answer, not even close.

I asked concerning another eclipse: "What was the angular diameter of the moon on June 15, 2011?" It finally gave a correct answer. I then asked the very same question earlier, "what was the angular diameter of the moon on July 16, 2000," hoping it would straighten out, but now it gave another wrong answer: "On July 16, 2000, the Moon's angular diameter was approximately 31.1 arcminutes (or 0.518 degrees)...It was also the date of a total lunar eclipse." You can't trust google AI for lunar data on eclipses. SHAME. What's the establishment trying to hide?

Umbra Length

When AI claims that "The length of the Earth's umbra is approximately 1.4 million kilometers (870,000 miles)," that distance is based on their 93-million sun. To find the umbra-line angle with a proposed umbra 870,000 miles long, we form a right-angle triangle with the Earth radius as the base. Therefore, we input 3960 into box 'a' with 870000 in box 'b' to find an angle of .261 (.2608). Compare that biggie to the .25-degree angle in my drawing, because .261 is roughly what they need for a sun 93 million miles away.

That .261 angle is going to be much-more parallel to the angle of the sun line so that it meets the umbra line much further from the Earth than 18 million.

Let's now find the umbra length with a sun 18 million miles away, and a sun about 165,000 miles wide. To find that umbra length for the eclipse of June 15, 2011 (the eclipse in my drawings), put 3960 into box 'a', and use the .24977 degree umbra line to get 90 - .24977 = 89.75. Put the latter into the beta-angle box to find the umbra length of 907,559 miles. That's with an average-sized sun; the umbra would be longer still when the sun is the smallest i.e. furthest from the Earth. It's longer than their 870,000 miles because they assume 93 million miles to begin with, then find the umbra length on that "basis," which is no basis at all.

They can locate a spacecraft where the earth and sun are of identical size from a viewer in the spacecraft. That craft is then at the tip of the umbra. They can then find the distance to the Earth, from that tip, by using triangulation. However, they don't report their findings to the public because it doesn't jibe with a 93-million sun. They are therefore imposters over at NASA.

When asking google for the length of the umbra, aside from the response above from its AI, there's no insightful articles shared with us on the topic. Imagine how much talk there is on this subject by eclipse enthusiasts, yet google denies them to know details on the umbra, and NASA won't tell them how far the moon is from the earth at any part of an eclipse. What a horned imposter.

When asking google how the umbra length is found, it gave this: "(Radius of Sun) / (Distance from Sun to Moon + Umbra Length) = (Radius of Moon) / (Umbra Length)" Ya-but, they have about 434,000 miles for the solar radius, a fictitious radius and thus they have no math basis to discover the umbra length.

I asked google the question to see whether it would tell of a spacecraft method. NOPE, we can't have that. So I asked point-blank: "how is the umbra length discovered by a spacecraft?" It responded with:

A spacecraft "discovers" umbra length by measuring the time it spends in shadow...This time-in-shadow is then used with the spacecraft's known velocity and altitude to calculate the length of the umbra along its path.

See any problem there? I do. They can fudge the rocket's speed to adjust the umbra length to what they need for a 93-million sun. You or I, or any general astronomer, can't prove they fudged, can't prove they are lying, and so they get away with it. The best I can do is show that, in literal testing to find the umbra-line angle, the tester can fudge the number without any independent person able to test the testing. If you wish to trust that over what NASA's eclipse data is telling us all, be my guest and be brainwashed. NASA can't fudge eclipse data enough to get a 93-million sun because there are many people all over the world who likewise record eclipse data.

The umbra-line angle for the July-16 eclipse was found (by me) at .248 degree while the sun radius at the eclipse is reported at .2623 degree. It's those two angles in combination that got a sun at an inconsistent distance of less than 16 million. The .248 can be gleaned accurate because it's obtained from the size of the moon at that time, and the moon size was reported accurately (as .490666) because the report matches with the apogee distance that the moon was at during the eclipse. Therefore, NASA erroneously reported the sun size of .2623 for that eclipse, which must be way too large where it find a sun less than 16 million.

That angle of .2623 is almost identical to the .2624 I have on my drawings for the June-2011 eclipse. In fact, I wrongly reported .2624; it should be .26228, or .2623. This correction makes the sun work out to 18.445 million instead of the 18.297 above. The difference in moon radii for both eclipses is .248 versus .25, wherefore one can see a difference of more than 3 million miles due to a small angle difference as .25 - .248 = .002. That's very small on your desk protractor, but on a telescope with, say, one-degree per four inches of telescope travel, it's not too small to measure.

KILLED ENERGY

Kineticists, liars who should know better, who break the laws of physics with atoms, claim that atoms never slow down during continual collisions. In the real world, balls that strike each other always slow down as they absorb each others energy. But the kineticists don't want to admit that atoms would do the same. Instead, they wish for you to be stupid, they wish to tell you lies, and for their trick they say, "energy can't be destroyed."

But energy can be used up to stop things. If we don't wish to say that "used up" is "destruction," how else should be call it? Once used up, it's GONE. It can't come back again. Sorry goofs, but energy does get destroyed in th truest sense when used up.

Two identical balls (or any objects) colliding head on at the same speed will each stop the other. ENERGY GONE. Where did it go? It went into stopping the motion of the other. It canceled the motion of the other, same as when two identical wave cancels by sharing their energy in collisions. ENERGY GONE. Where did it go, stupids, liars? Is it hiding in the water? Is it hiding in the balls? Same as when you strike a ball with a billiard cue, the energy of the cue is GONE into the ball.

And when two identical cues strike each other head on at the same speed, both of their energy is GONE after the strike. The cues don't start quivering during the night, when no one's looking, due to harboring the energy they received from each other. That energy never comes back to them after they initially swallow it.

The balls may bounce away from each other, but that's only due to receiving the energy of the other ball. The bounce speed is never as fast as the balls colliding, contrary to how kineticists imagine the "total speed" of colliding atoms never slowing down. During the bounces of the balls, the motion-energy in the bounces is swallowed up by friction (atomic attraction) and gravity. Attraction force slows everything, robs their motion-energy. ENERGY GONE. Why can't scum kineticists admit this? Because, they want the kinetic theory of atoms more than they wish to be honest.

The average striking angle of moving atoms would be at 45 degrees. And so we ask google: "do balls striking each other at 45 degrees slow down?" "Yes, balls striking each other, even at a 45-degree angle, will generally slow down after the collision due to factors like inelastic collisions, where kinetic energy is lost to heat and sound..." This reveals how brainwashed AI is, nothing but the ape of the kineticist, because it's programmed that way. Instead of admitting that each ball ABSORBS the other ball's energy, as the reason for the slow down, it credits the motion-energy loss merely to heat and sound produced at the collision, what a can of trash.

The response then adds concerning an "ideal" collision, which is the fantasy that kineticists imagine for ever-bouncing atoms: "In an ideally elastic collision with equal masses, the first ball would transfer all its momentum to the second, and both would move on at the same speed as the original, but real-world interactions are not perfectly elastic." In the real world, they are not nearly "elastic," admit it, but "not perfectly elastic" gives the false impression of being almost elastic. That's called a LIE. It's not a mistake, but a LIE. There's a big difference. Liars should not be educators. Throw them out.

Motion-energy is not destroyed upon contact, but during contact, it begins to transfer. If contact is very hard due to fast speed, not all of the energy may get transferred, which can explain bounce due to reverberating energy lingering in the objects. But when objects collide head-on at softer speeds, essentially all of their energy can be transferred. The energy of one ball CHANGES the speed of the other, but in doing so is STOPS the ball i.e. brings it to ZERO speed because it cancels its velocity. At that point, the energy is literally KILLED. When colliding balls slow down, PART of the energy is KILLED. If that's not "destroyed," what is it? How are we going to explain its disappearance if we refuse to say it's destroyed?

The most we can say is that the energy went in to stop the balls and therefore was not destroyed. Yet if the balls stop upon contact, the energy can be said to be destroyed. Take your pick, but do acknowledge that kineticists are wackers for claiming that one atom of a collision takes on the energy of the other to keep it fully alive, or that a fast atom striking a slow one will slow the faster one by as much velocity as the fast one speeds-up the slow one. This is the deception into which they lead you.

In that trick, two identical atoms colliding head-on at the same speed will bounce off at the same speed at which they collide. It insists on remaining ignorant to the fact that every item can be slowed by an obstruction in its path. The latter reduces the force of the moving object, which is why it slows, but, the point is, when two balls strike against each other, they are exactly obstructions to each other. Where's the expected slow down in speeds?

In reality, if a moving ball strikes an identical, stationary ball head-on at ten units of speed, in pure space but with gravity force active to pin the balls down to a degree, the moving ball will slow due to the obstruction, and the stationary ball will pick up some speed such that the combined speeds will be LESS THAN ten units of speed. The moving ball SLOWS, and some of its force is used up just to get the struck ball moving against the pull of gravity, which is the ball's inertia.

If the moving ball is struck by an identical ball moving against it head-on with two units of speed, the first ball will slow even more; it WILL NOT bounce away in the opposite direction at any speed. The struck ball will then move away from the first ball will less speed than when struck while stationary, because it had two units of speed in the opposite direction at collision point. FACT: if both balls are moving at the same speed in a head-on collision, they will stop each other.

The goofball physicist wants you to believe that a ball moving against a stationary ball will cause the latter to move at the same speed as the ball doing the striking, as if there is no inertia in play. Inertia from gravity ATTRACTION slows all objects experiencing collisions. Attraction slows things.

It's easy to deceive you in that way because it appears logical. They will say that one atom transfers its energy into the other, and so it's to be expected that the atom receiving the energy should bounce away at the same speed at which it was struck. BUT THIS IGNORES the fact that the energy of one atom MUST be used to slow the other. Even if they nick each other while passing, they yet slow each other a little, in accordance to how much motion-energy they transfer to each other.

In literality, transferred energy is destroyed. It no longer exists. A ball that comes to rest by bouncing on the ground has all of its energy destroyed. It transfers all of its energy into the ground, and the ground atoms thus vibrate momentarily during the reception of the energy, but the atoms then cease motion because they are in mutual attraction, and attraction force causes motion cease. The ball's energy, after the vibrations are gone, no longer exists, for all motion has ceased. The kineticist is a clown when trying to persuade you that the ground atoms travel faster than they were before the ball bounced on them, and that this extra energy from the ball spreads to other ground atoms and never-ever disappears.

This is the idiot who can't learn from the stationary nail on a magnet. It collides with the magnet, then goes stationary. Neither it nor the magnet move. ENERGY KILLED by attraction force. If we dangle the magnet from a string, and throw a nail at it, the idiot thinks and teaches that the nail's energy makes the magnet atoms vibrate faster, and the magnet's atoms make the strings atoms vibrate faster, and the string's atoms make the hook's atom travel faster. Rather, atoms that vibrate into each other slow each other down by transferring their energy into each other. It can be witnessed plain as day in the way objects react upon collisions.

When we think of billiard balls smacking dead-on and bouncing a little away from each other, chances are they do this because they do not in fact strike perfectly dead on.

Plus, on a billiard table, they are rolling as opposed to flying in pure space without spin, and spin causes the balls to transfer energy out from the top sides, with perhaps no energy coming out of their bottoms sides if the atoms are spinning/moving away from the ball collided with. This is predicted to kick-out the bottom sides of both balls, explaining part or even all of the bounce. I'm saying that the spin energy at the top of one ball goes more affectively into the bottom side of the other ball due to less push coming from there. And the atoms of the bottom side might be moving away from the collision (before collision) if the speed of spin is faster than the speed of ball approach.

Bounce of non-compressible, solid materials (i.e. tennis balls don't apply) is due to atomic vibrations, the final act of death for the transferred energy.

Recently, I showed how ridiculous modern physicists are who claim that metals have "free electrons" that, instead of orbiting protonic cores, collide both with each other, and with orbiting electrons (hahahah), and with protonic cores, endlessly without losing motion-energy. Only a science crackpot makes such a theory, proof positive that the establishment consists of wackos in the name of respectful education.

I explained that their explanation as to why the free electrons never get away into the air is bogus, in saying that the protonic positivity keeps them from getting away. It's bogus because they yet claim that the electrons bounce from protonic core to protonic core, meaning they can get away from protonic cores even after coming as near as touching them. In that case, electrons not striking protonic cores at the outer edge of the metal are expected to fly into the air and never return to the metal, especially as electrons repel each other away.

To make nutcrackers even more of modern physicists, they teach that atoms are neutral in charge because their orbiting electrons balance the positive charge of protonic cores, yet when it comes to explaining why free electrons in metals can't get away, suddenly they teach that conducting metals have net-positive atoms, a convenient invention that doesn't hold water because atoms are expected to load electrons naturally so long as there is sufficient positive charge to do so. And so the law-breaking ignoramuses maintain that metals maintain a net-positive force even though they are filled with negatively charged free electrons that protons "desire."

These lunatics believe that all atoms in the universe have orbiting electrons, as if electrons naturally enter orbits, yet even while protons attract the electrons in metal, they don't go into orbits, because the goofs need the free electrons to exist at all times in case someone flips the light switch on. If they are all in orbit at the time, there won't be any free electrons to cause the light from the bulb.

They then teach that free electrons can't exist in atomic spaces of material, even while teaching that electrons are EVERYWHERE easily within metals, and even flow easily across/past atoms. What kind of a science hypocrite is that?

Why do they flow from the light switch to the bulb? Because they are being pushed along. Say what? They are being pushed along. What does that mean? It means energy is entering into each electron such that they should increase their ever-colliding speeds. Do I mean to say that, if they are given lots of extra electrical power, they are expected to escape FOR SURE from the metal? Yes, because they escape from the bulb's filament FOR SURE. But if they escape from the metal, how can the metal ever have them back again?

How can the copper wire ever cause light again if the electrons escape into the wire's jacket? And what do they do inside the jacket, or how can they exist in the jacket's atoms if that material doesn't hold free electrons, according to those who devise atomic fables?

I'm saying that if we pump lots of amps into a metal wire such that it gets warm or red hot, electrons are thus going free. How does the metal get the electrons back? If we let the wire cool down after going red hot for a year, it still makes the light bulb work. Where does get its electrons back that went free, into the air, all year long, so that the bulb still works, still has electrons to cause light?

The imposters claim that your stove element goes red but doesn't lose electrons. It's red hot only because the sped-up free electrons travelling in the element speed up the atoms which they collide with. Ahh, so they speed up the atoms enough to glow bright red, enough to kill your skin in two seconds, but the sped-up electrons still don't come out of the element into air, is that it? Yes, that's how hypocritical they are, because, when the electron was discovered, it was made to come out of a light-bulb filament. INTO THE SPACE OUTSIDE.

So, let's get this straight. They teach that electrons come out of a red-glowing filament wire, but, in order not to create a serious problem for themselves, they say that a bright-red heating element doesn't lose electrons. What's the problem if they loose electrons? The goofs have no way to return the electrons to the heating elements, and so they minimize this problem by allowing electrons to get away only from a bulb filament, but nothing else, and they then just don't talk about it such as to advertise th problem. HYPOCRITICAL IMPOSTERS.

What should the hypocrites teach instead? They should teach that all protonic cores attract electrons in an ordinary way that makes them stationary upon them, no impossible orbits. Then, the magnet at the electrical plant forces them to flow in the ordinary way, atom-to-atom, to the light bulb, to the motor, to the stove element. The electrons don't go free into the air so long as they are not pushed too hard, because they are always under attraction to protons even while they flow. They are NOT free in the wire. They remain captured to protons, duh. Those that do go lost are replaced by electrons that are always ample in the air, a thing the goofs will not admit to.

That's right, they will not admit, even though the evidence is everywhere, that the air is filled with free electrons EVERYWHERE. Nor will they admit that free electrons in metals, or in any material, cannot go on colliding with each other for longer than a second, if there is no force entering the material to make them move. If you are an honest person, you would agree with me that, everytime an electron crashes into a proton, it will slow down.

Even if you won't agree with me that collisions alone slow particles due to their sharing motion energy, you still need to admit that the protonic attraction on the electron will slow it down. If you fire a nail at a magnet hard enough to bounce off, guaranteed, the nail has been slowed down by the attraction force.

How do I know? Because the nail has speed when arriving to the magnet, but can lose all speed upon contact. If we send it to the magnet hard enough to bounce off a little, it can yet be attracted back during the bounce. But the illogical, law-breaking goof wants you to believe that an electron headed toward a proton picks up speed from its attraction, then bounces off losing only the speed which it had picked up, so that it can go on bouncing forever without losing any speed. Are you going to allow yourself to be abused in this way? Are you going to allow yourself to be duped by science morons? These words I use are justified because professional physicists should know better. I wouldn't use the same words against a young student which doesn't know better.

A nail held close to a magnet picks up a LOT of speed due to the attraction. It zips into the magnet with acceleration, but will NOT bounce away. The nail is not even a magnet itself, yet the electron is a magnet along with the proton. They attract each other, wherefore they're expected to destroy the motion-energy of the incoming electron, if not on the first collision, soon after. Attraction force kills motion, DUH, we can witness this with our own eyes, but the wicked refuse to acknowledge their defeat, thinking that they are winning as long as they can continue to deceive the world.

The time is long past due to abandon the kinetic theory of atoms, to train a new generation of physicists with a stable atom that is fully at rest unless moved. The static theory of atoms.

There is at least one static theory of atoms already, which doesn't seem possible to me:

The Static Theory of Atomic Structure, proposed in academic papers on SSRN eLibrary, offers a novel electromagnetic model of the atom where electrons are complex dipolar particles [= both negative and positive parts]. This theory, in contrast to established quantum and planetary models, suggests electrons are composed of a positron and "tetrons" (negative charges), which create magnetic fields that allow electrons to occupy stable, precise positions due to mutual attraction despite like charges (google AI).

In easy-to-grasp language, this theory wants electrons that attract each other either from both ends, or from various parts, an idea in the right direction but causing problems for explaining things in the real world. Where the kinetic theory of atoms is impossible, and it is, the definition of heat is inevitably a free-electron material. In order to explain why heat spreads out, electrons must repel fully away from each other, not attract. In order to explain why heat enters the atomic spaces of all materials, electrons in the air need to spread out into materials. In order to re-load electrical wires and heaters, electrons must force each other into them.

Where's the logical theory on static atoms where electrons are merely attracted in stationary form upon a proton? What's wrong with this theory? Why do we never hear about it? It's the obvious reality. I suggest that it's such a good and logical theory that the establishment doesn't even want to present it to peoples' minds. What kind of traitors deny reality to the people? What kind of brainwashing fiends are they? And why?

AI adds: "The static theory directly challenges the classical planetary model of the atom." But what's wrong with stationary electrons all hovering over a proton? It's known that magnets can hover over each other, and a magnetic ring having both a positive and negative charge from two sets of magnets can cause a magnet to hover at a precise distance, locked into place between the positive and negative forces from the ring. That's exactly why electrons hover over the proton, as electrons further down, nearer to, and on, the proton's surface repel the higher electrons away such that they hover rather than fly off completely. The outer edge of the atom therefore consists of electrons that are barely hanging on while hovering. They more-freely flow (as electricity) when a magnet is applied to a wire than the deeper electrons.

Only an idiot teaches that a proton can attract only a dozen electrons, or two dozens, or three dozens. That's a shameless science nut for a big-bang cause. Shameful while shameless. In the static atoms above, the electrons hover over the proton as shown in the drawing at
this page.

There's no need for such positive electrons carrying negatively-charged "backpacks." It says that "Electrons are attracted by opposing magnetic fields until equal magnetic [forces] stop the approach." That is, electrons are viewed locked into place a certain distance from each other. BIG PROBLEM because they cannot form power/energy when released from the proton. All energy, aside for a wee-bit from repelling, positively-charged atoms, is from the release of captured electrons. In order to form energy, which is nothing but push-power heat, electrons must solely repel each other.

There's no need for the "tetron" backpacks to make electrons hover over the proton. The only thing needed is a proton wrapped by tightly-held electrons at the base of the atom. All other captured electrons will then get locked into place in a hover above that positive-negative core.

When asking google for "origin of tetron view of the atom," it responds as expected if the establishment wants to hide the static-atom theory: "The term "tetron view" does not appear to be a standard scientific term; rather, it is likely a misspelling or misunderstanding of the Thomson model (also known as the plum pudding model),..." The establishment loves to present the plum-pudding model of the atom to mock it subtly. "Tetrons" is in the Wikimedia article above, and so where does google get off pretending it doesn't know the term? The plum pudding model was proposed by the one who discovered the electron i.e. too early to get it right. He was close to getting it right because he had electrons suspended in a positive field, which is absolutely correct. Why did the establishment abandon that logical idea for the wacky orbit?

JJ Thompson had a positive field without the proton. Thus, with no proton, because it wasn't yet discovered, the orbit-model wackos like to describe it as gramma's plum pudding to distinguish it as the boring model. In contrast, they had exciting orbiting electrons, wowie, exciting-and-wacko versus boring-and-real, take your pick. When some shooting-range experiment claimed to discover the proton, why didn't the orbit wackos just change the plum pudding to a proton, with electrons hovering in its positive field? Because, they wanted forever-moving atomic particles, because they were law-breaking radicals of the lunatic kind who never stop inventing exciting "realities."

When asking, "origin of tetron / static view of the atom," google doesn't give me the answer, nor articles by which I may find the answer. The Wikimedia page puts the following in a footnote:

The static theory of the structure of the atom, or the model of the atom (Chukichev D.V. 2014)... [no link to any page]

...The static model of the atom falls under the laws of classical mechanics, eliminating the inventions [same word I use] of quantum physics, which invented more and more new postulates [= fixes upon fixes] to somehow justify the volume [almost all space] of the atom.

Over time, the static model of the atom may replace Rutherford's [orbit] model..The author of the theory is Dmyro Vitaliyovych Chukichev (Ukraine) 2014). Details of the proofs of the theory on the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100069923056093

In God's Kingdom, a static model will replace it, when the wackos get assigned to the bottom of the fool-human heap.

The writer of the footnote adds: "According to the logic of the laws of physics, an electron should fall on the nucleus of an atom." Dmyro Chukichev, my buddy. Go, Dymro, go, tell how absurd the orbit freaks are. But he errs when saying: "What cement held together the electrons, which according to Coulomb's law should have moved as far as possible. Instead, the outer electron layers of different atoms attract each other, creating strong molecules from atoms,..."

No, Dymro, the electrons in the vicinity of the proton are not predicted to fly the coop. The proton will hold them as part of the atom as high up as the positive and negative forces combined become equal, at the outer edge, but higher than this, the proton can no longer snag electrons as part of the atom, even though there is a sea of free electrons all around the atom. There just isn't enough net-positive force to bring them into the atom after a certain height. That's law-fulfilling logic.

Dymro, if electrons all come with negatively-charged tetrons, they would be attracted away from the electron to the proton on the logic that protons are massively stronger in charge than electrons. Protons attract many electrons, not vice-versa, because they are stronger. Protons would steal the backpacks of your electron. It's always possible that God bolted the backpacks to the electron, but this theory is unnecessary to create a static atom with hovering electrons.

Dymro, your electron is attracted to the proton by the negatively-charged tetron backpacks in spite of the proton repelling your positively-charged electron body. Therefore, if the proton can bring the electron close to itself by attracting the tetrons, why can't the proton steal the tetrons fully away once it arrives closest to the proton?

In my model, the captured electrons can be viewed as the proton's backpacks. What Dymro has done is to turn the electron into a mini-atom, having a positive body/core and covered with a number of negative tetron particles. It's not logical that the electron should have only four tetrons, or even six or eight, as Dymro portrays it. We'd expect the electron to attract more tetrons such that they hover above the first layer of tetrons directly planted on the electron surface. There's no reason that the electron should not attract hovering tetrons. His model creates a situation in which a proton will DEFINITELY steal away the outer layer of tetrons because they will be held very weakly to the electron.

He has a few tetrons on the surface only of the positive body i.e. one layer of tetrons only. He has electron "layers" above the proton, meaning that he sees his electrons hovering over the proton. Why shouldn't the same be true, with tetrons hovering over his positive-electron body?

He says, "Along the perimeter [of the electron body], there are several carriers [tetrons] of negative charges, their total value is greater than the charge of a positron." That's a good observation, and the same is true of my atom, but the fact must be that, in any one direction from the protonic surface, the negative charge equals the positive charge. If his tetron has less charge than his electron body, why shouldn't the electron body attract more than one tetron per one direction such as to create layers of hovering tetrons?

For the purposes of defining the ultimate size of an atom, all that matters is that the full size is when the negative charge equals the positive charge in any one direction, meaning all directions too. The fact that the accumulation of electrons, per atom, has more negative charge than the proton is irrelevant to atomic size. It's the existence of a balance of charges in one direction that assures MANY electrons per one proton, and the same must be true with a tetron view of the electron.

Dymro doesn't get to chose how many tetrons are on his electron body; the body is what chooses, depending on how much positive power it has. If the tetron has a quarter of the power of an electron body, one would claim four tetron layers such that there are four tetrons in any one direction from the electron body. For, where there are only three in any direction, there's a surplus of positive power going forth that will capture one more tetron.

The other big problem is that the electron body will continue to attract tetrons until the outer-electron layer is equal in charge to the power of the electron body at the outer layer, meaning that the electron is now neutral in charge toward anything on the outside, including the proton of an atom, meaning that the proton will not be able to attract the electron. Dymro wishes to believe that his tetron-studded electron will maintain a net-negative force toward the outside in order that the proton can attract it into its vicinity, yet he doesn't have near enough tetrons to create the net-negative charge to the outside. Best thing: get rid of the tetrons, make the electron fully negative, envision the atom with layers of such electrons, and trash the notion of positively-charged electrons which the goofballs have invented.

God could have made an insufficient number of tetrons such that the electrons would always maintain a net-positive charge to the outside, but that condition is incapable of forming an atom for obvious reason. Let me show the problem with this video, where the owner shows that a lock-effect can't happen if the double-stacked magnets on the table repel each other. It only works if they attract each other, meaning that the two magnets are opposite in charge. Remember, they are OPPOSITE in charge, contrary to Dymro's set up.

That is, the video owner has arranged the center of the ring to have a magnet that is opposite the charge of the lone magnet on the table, but Dymro has it the other way around, with positive charges for both the proton and the electron body. The ring of small magnets in the video have (and must have) a charge opposite that of the magnet at the center of the ring in order to lock the lone magnet in place at a distance. Therefore, the ring of magnets with the central magnet is Dymro's electron, but, the problem is, it's attracting a magnet (to be viewed as the proton) whereas Dymro's set-up would repel it. It's obvious as to why his electron would repel the magnet/proton since his electron, with so few tetrons, will have a large surplus of positive force going to the outside.

It's the large surplus of force coming from the center magnet that attracts the lone magnet on the table. That surplus is due to only one layer of small magnets surrounding the center. The more layers of small magnets there are, the less the outgoing net-force from the central magnet. The weaker the small magnets, the more of them that are needed to effect the same force.

To put it another way, if a positive magnet were on the table approaching the magnetic ring with a positive center, the lock mechanism won't work. The man said so, but unfortunately doesn't show what happens. My guess is that the lone magnet would be repelled.

Dymro's electron would work to create an atom if his electron were negative but with positive backpacks. But, again, such electrons don't repel each other to do work, and virtually all atomic energy is from electron repulsion, GUARANTEED.

The magnet video above proved that the CENTER of the ring is what attracted the lone magnet on the table. View the magnet-and-ring combo as the proton surrounded by electrons yet attracting a lone electron on the table. That's the true atom.

The lone magnet is attracted to the center of the ring, but, when the lone magnet gets close to the ring of magnets, they all repel harder due to the nearness, which creates a situation in which the lone magnet hovers where the positive force equals the negative force. A no-brainer. Why didn't the establishment make the atom just like that no-brainer situation, and save trillions of dollars and trillions of hours of work on a wrong model??? Because, lunatics will be lunatics. They owe the human race big-time. SHAME on the shameless and arrogant bastards without a Father in Heaven.

Note how near-frictionless the hovering magnets would be if in an airless environment. That's essentially the condition of hovering electrons at the edges of all atoms, except that the latter have the added benefit of no gravity force acting upon them. The hovering magnets in this video do have some friction from gravity pull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJA2VWCxrg

When outer electrons are removed, new ones come in to replace them, because all space is filled with free electrons, from the sun. If as many electrons are not removed from the air as those coming in, the earth would fry in a week. The only way to remove the in-coming electrons is by God's invention, a negatively-charged gravity force that repels electrons into outer space at all times. Dymro's electron won't work for that need because Dymro's electrons attract each other.

The reason that the establishment falsely claimed that solar electrons don't enter the air is because the goofs would then need to discover how electrons are also removed from the air. That would require a negative-charged gravity force which in turn would destroy Newtons' orbital mechanics et-al.

The only way to explain Galileo's Pisa results is where gravity arranges all atoms to have a net-positive force by blowing away some outer electrons from all atoms. All atoms thus have the same net-positive force, and thus all atoms weigh the same. But gravity could not blow away Dymro's electrons because gravity attracts his electrons.

I was generalizing, to make a point, when saying that atoms have equal negative-versus-positive force at their outer edges. The truth must be that while all atoms are net-positive, gravity prevents some electrons from being captured by protons even though the latter are capable where there is no gravity. However, all atoms are surrounded, and pressed upon, by free electrons either in the air or in the atomic spaces of liquids and solids.

In a gas, free electrons push into atoms from all directions, which consequently pushes atoms apart to explain the full measure of gas pressure. We could reason that half/part of gas pressure is from the inter-repulsion of atoms, and the rest from free-electron push against them. It's known that gases in sealed containers repel eight times as much when compressed to eight times less volume, and this fact threatens my new claim that gravity force only doubles when cutting the planetary distances in half.

It's known that when atoms are confined in eight times less space, they are twice as close. Thus, they repel each other by four times more force, and the rest of the pressure is from the free electrons, because, once the gas has been compressed, most of the free electrons are turned instantly into captured electrons. That's expected (by me) due to the greater atom-to-atom repulsion pressing them into the atomic sphere to allow the proton to hold them.

However, when the free electrons are forced inward into atoms, they should probably be deemed as part of atom-to-atom repulsion. In that case, one could sport the idea that most of gas pressure is from atom-to-atom repulsion while only a small part is from push-apart force. It's a hard call that confuses me to no end. I can still justify saying that half of the 8 times is due to atom-to-atom repulsion while the other half is due to the presence of free electrons. That latter sentence is now very important for understanding planetary attraction.

It means that one atom repels the other, not with 4 times more force at half the distance, but 2 times. I had it wrong when thinking that one atom repels a second by 4 times while the second repels the first by 4 times for a total of 4 x 2 = 8 times the repulsion force. Atom-to-atom repulsion accounts for only half the resulting gas pressure (when gas is compressed by 8 times), and as such one atom repels the second by twice as much while the second repels the first by twice as much for a total of 4 times the repulsion. That's excellent because it claims that atoms repel others by straight proportionality, not squared.

It's explaining why planets are attracted by solar gravity by only two times more when twice as close to the sun, which is straight proportionality. I've already told in a section above that we can ignore the planet's gravity attraction to the sun due to being so relatively small as to be almost irrelevant. Thus, solar gravity attracting a planet is like an atom repelling a non-atom i.e. 4 times the total repulsion does not apply.

I would have to say that, when atoms are brought closer, their extra inter-repulsion makes them smaller because their initial inter-repulsion force is from an excess of captured electrons (that originate partly from free electrons pushing each other into the electron atmospheres). Thus, whenever the gas is compressed, electron atmosphere compresses electron atmosphere still further, making the atom smaller and thus allowing more free electrons to jump on-board within the positive field of the proton.

The way to understand this is where atoms at absolute-zero temperature have no free electrons in their atmospheres. Then with rising temperatures, the continually gain more free electrons that become part of their atmospheres. One can instantly add many free electrons to gas atoms by swift compression of the gas, explaining why a gas does not heat up anywhere near as much as the VERY STUPID kineticist LIARS claims, when gas are compressed, and why gases don't cool anywhere near as much when reducing gas pressure by increasing gas volume swiftly.

I asked google: "how much colder does a sealed gas become when brought to eight times less pressure?" AI then treats me like a non-essential life form by giving me the response of the VERY STUPID kineticist instead of just giving me the truth: "A gas at eight times less pressure in a sealed container will become significantly colder, with its absolute temperature (measured in Kelvin) being one-eighth of its original temperature. This is because, according to Amontons's (or Gay-Lussac's) Law,..." It's telling me what the temperature will be in THEORY, not the fact.

As you can see, in the kinetic theory, increasing the gas volume by eight times is supposed to lower a gas temperature eight times from, say, 25 C (300ish K) to about 35 K (same as 35 C above absolute zero)...which is ridiculous to the point of criminal. The kineticist fools are utter-shameless fools to pass this "science" off to humanity.

I asked google: "ideal gas law aside, and explanations aside, just give me the answer: how much colder does a sealed gas become when brought to eight times less pressure?" Google didn't let AI respond, but just gave me kineticism-based articles. I'm sure that there are articles on this topic based on experimental facts, but you and I don't get to see them. We get only the kinetic brainwashing.

Following the Leads on Charlie Kirk Murder

The first we heard of Kash Patel after Charlie' Kirk's supposed killer was arrested, he said that he personally made the decision to publicly release photos of the shooter. But, as the video below says, the first three still shots released from a security VIDEO, as he climbed stairs to the roof, deliberately left out his face????????? Then, when he's on camera jumping off the roof, he's got no rifle that anyone can make out, yet the local police reported that he had hidden the rifle in the woods after getting off the roof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Ewp3BbAKQ

Why is it that in almost all horrific shootings, when covered swiftly, elaborately, and extensively for days by the whole news media, there are always conflicting news reports that are more than curious oddities or newscaster mistakes, as though some demons are screwing with the public's head? He had no rifle when jumping off the roof, but then maybe he did. See that? Screwing with the public.

If the rifle splits into two parts such that he can carry it in his backpack, why was he limping on the street, supposedly hiding the rifle under his shirt and upper pants? Why was he not limping when running on the roof and then running across the grass after doing a safe landing from the roof, from about ten feet up? He had no limp; he had no rifle in his pants. It begs whether this was a staging, and, usually, for government stagings, there's a rush of police to the public microphones, to set the narrative, to get full-public interest, just as we saw in this case. But, I confess, it's hard to explain what the staging is trying to accomplish.

If you slow the video to half speed and pause it just right at 8:02, just as he's passed the post, you can see his arm holding something like a bag, but not a long item like a rifle. If the rifle was taken up in his backpack, why didn't he just put it into the backpack, making it easy on himself for jumping off the roof, and safer when running across the road? Why bring attention to himself by carrying something long, a minute after the shot rang out? MAKES NO SENSE. The police reported that he carried the rifle in a black towel in his get-away. Are you kidding me? This storyline looks like it goes with the limp narrative.

About 30 seconds later, this item suddenly takes the shape of a long rifle, butt-end down, but any video doctor can arrange that in such a blurred image. There's no rifle under his clothes as he climbs the stairs. He therefore had to remove the backpack from his body to put the rifle together, if indeed he shot Mr. Kirk. Why would he take the time to put the backpack back on, but not take a few more seconds to put the rifle into the pack? MAKES NO SENSE. Why would he wrap the rifle with a blanket instead? MAKES NO SENSE. It's all screwy, not what we expect.

The reason they didn't show the man walking up the stairs in non-stop video is that we'd be able to see more clearly that he had no rifle under his clothes. His shirt was tight, anyway. His pants were tight, anyway. Therefore, police and FBI have no choice but to declare that the rifle was in the backpack, but they can't because it's too small. The plotters are left trying to persuade us that it's under his clothes. Nobody has said that the rifle comes apart fast, and google won't answer when I ask if it does. SOMETHING STINKS. The police have not said that he carried the rifle in the backpack. It's been said to be a bolt-action Mauser 98.

Plus, the mugshot of the reported killer doesn't quite look to me like the younger-looking guy walking up the stairs. It's debatable, but that was my first impression.

Then, when police took credit for finding the man fast, it deserved no credit since the man who turned the killer in. Apparently, the man who turned him in, either his father or his Mormon pastor, is/was a law-enforcement man, which makes things even more suspicious. Some are saying his father is/was a sheriff.

This event happened in Utah, where capital punishment is still in effect. Trump is calling for capital punishment of the killer. It gives the left an opportunity to start a civil war, by killing more right wingers, for the cause. And what's the cause? Same as Obama's inclusion policies, same as the "rights" pushed by anti-Christs to uphold sinners as special-people groups, to provoke Christians to anger, to slander them. Obama was the first to call Christian militia groups the worst terrorists in the country. He had no justification, which revealed that he had an anti-Christian agenda. Soros has pushed leftists toward violence. The agenda is to call Christians haters until the violent goons groomed by Soros and company start shooting bullets at them.

There is a large political faction that understands and supports this conspiracy. The more the left finds itself in a corner, losing political power, the more it will resort to violence. The right either backs down and submits, or fights back with bullets. Have you stored extra foods?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpCAv3kgNgU

REMEMBER: the FBI didn't want us to see the face of the man walking up the stairs, even though Kash Patel claimed (with a hint of patting himself on the back) he decided he wanted the public's help in catching the man. The faceless photos therefore reeks of a government-led conspiracy to fulfill an agenda. The only way I can fathom Trump's government following orders of a deep-state cabal, on how to handle this murder, is that Israel ordered the assassination, and that Trump knows it. But before entertaining such an idea with Israel at the root of the killing, there should be some good evidence beyond Mr. Kirk's opposition to Israel's Gaza program.

I claimed that Trump's assassination was faked. Trump was not shot in the ear. I claim he was part of the staging; I haven't changed my mind. He is therefore "owned" by blackmail by those who conducted the staging partly on his behalf in a deal. Those who conducted the staging wanted something in return from him. January 6 was faked too, but not likely from the same which staged the assassination. In both cases, the by-product is fodder to divide the people, make them possibly violent against each other. The right has more men. The left is a fringe party. But not all on the right would use violence. Most of the fringe-left would. Probably, the Israeli bloc is seeking to seize as much American wealth and power as possible without concern for either left or right ideology.

One report from Yahoo, not necessarily reliable: "While little information is available regarding his net worth, it is reported that he earned a salary of $27,000 in 2016. By 2021, he was earning $407,000 as a salary from the organization [Turning Point USA]. Moreover, Kirk also earned his income as a speaker, a radio show host, and a podcast host." The article says he has a worth of $12 million, from rags to riches. It begs whether he loved the money more than the students, but I'm not venturing an opinion. It's between he and God. Does God call us to political activism in Jesus name, in return for a half-million or more annually? I think it's a good question.

"Turning Point" sounds like where the USA is right now. I suggest that the left planned to use illegal aliens to help fight this war, explaining why the left has acted in-love with them. The aliens may not be stupid enough to fall for it, to fight their war for them, risk their own lives.

It seems from reports that Mr. Kirk took payments from Israel to get a large part of his fortunes. Apparently, he agreed to be bought by Israel, for political causes, by taking the money, then betrayed the unwritten deal. If Israel shot him, it's of course unjustified brutality.

Someone convinced the FBI director (Patel) that the killer (not Robinson) or an accomplice was caught on the same day as the shooting. How was Kash convinced? The next thing we heard was that the suspected killer / accomplice was innocent, and released by police on the same day or next, which is something the Israeli's, or their partners in America, could have accomplished. If that's what happened, then we can assume that the Israelis had arranged to frame Robinson with the murder, by somehow getting him onto the roof, and then having him scram by climbing down the roof, with an Israeli agent ready with camera to capture his escape. Finishing touches include a false report of his rifle in the woods.

I realize that's a hard sell, but it can explain the limping video as done on another day, in a rehearsal, with intent to put it out as if on the same day of the shooting. Patel then released the stair-climb photos, perhaps to reveal, NO RIFLE THERE, achem, IN HIS PANTS. Plus, the video of him getting off the roof could have been on another day too, for there's people walking by casually less than a minute after the loud shot. In other words, they were setting him up to frame him. If that sounds too wild, what else could explain the contradiction, and the faked limp footage in the run-away scene? I put that run-away scene on the highest quality that youtube would allow, 1080p60HD, but the scene was no better than when at 360p, suggesting that the conductors of this narrative forbade us to see it crisper because there was no rifle.

By Saturday, police reported that the rifle was found "fully assembled" (in the woods), suggesting it splits into two parts, but, also, to deny what appeared to be the original storyline, that he had the rifle under his shirt and pants, police, in the official arrest papers (came out Saturday from Crowder), claimed only that he had a "stiff" leg and limp (i.e. no rifle), which is a report to be expected after Kash released the stair-climb photos showing no rifle-in-pants, and probably showing no limp either.

In the fifth minute of this Friday video, one guest says that, possibly, on Friday morning, the gun-in-woods story was retracted, perhaps due to different factions in the police, or due to in-fighting against Kash Patel. The latter would be hard-pressed to go with the rifle narrative as-is, and those making the narrative know it. The moment Kash shows disregard for the rifle story is the moment the narrative supporters (includes Fox news to this point) gang up on him. His job is then on the line. The Italian guy changes the subject like he wanted to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQbM75gQ85A

As often happens in government / deep-state news reports, it seems the government / deep state has faked evidence against the suspect also on his social-media account i.e. totally fabricated things he did not say. See 4th and 5th minute here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdPgHjnvV7w

This video on the rifle tells that it doesn't come apart but by some time-consuming dismantling of the barrel only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_NyFGVncg

Someone in the comments of the video above quotes someone else: "'That’s a synthetic stock — only the barrel and bolt are removable. I own that exact rifle, the synthetic .30-06, and his small backpack couldn't possibly conceal a weapon of that size. Even disassembled, the barrel alone exceeds the length and rigidity that such a pack could accommodate without visible distortion'...Experts note that while some aftermarket kits allow partial breakdown, the rifle recovered was an older imported model, not designed for compact concealment."

Another comment agrees with my gut senses: "The guy from the stairwell and the guy they arrested are not even the same person." Here's Gray Hughes, who reminds me of a deep-state propagandist to tell the public exactly what the plotters want us to hear and see when some event is being twisted or faked outright. He shows the kid with tight jeans immediately after the limp-walk, and one can easily see no bulge under his clothes, but Hughes insists the rifle is under his clothes. The angle of the shot is perfect for hiding the part of the body where the gun is supposedly at.

Does Hughes ask who took the photo of him going down the stairs of the tunnel? No, because we're not supposed to ask that. If it was a security camera, then why -- the question for all cherry-picked images released for staged events -- do we not see the whole video? In this case, it seems to be due to his having no rifle in his pants and shirt, for the video play would tend to reveal it as he goes down the stairs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqvUjRUnjYo

I don't think the plotters were involved in the stair-climb video, yet it too omits the best shot of the clothing where we might make a definitive judgment on whether there's a gun with bulky scope at his hip. Look at how tight the pants are. The scope would be under the belt line.

Gun owners are saying that tools are needed to take that gun apart to shorten it. Hughes plays dumb. A comment at his video: "FBI said rifle was a Mauser K98 converted to 30-06. Dimensions are overall length (muzzle to butt plate) 43.7 inches. Barrel length is just shy of 24 inches." A rifle that long would go up his backside to the shoulder blade, and so the rifle's butt would offset the backpack so noticeably that high-tech Hughes looks like a paid, act-dumb partner of the plotters.

Someone else screaming to Hughes amid the compliments he gets from the dozy: "YOU CANNOT BREAK THAT GUN DOWN. it doesnt come apart like an ar. if it is in fact a 30 06." This comment is as per the narrative that the gun is not seen during the roof jump because he's got it taken apart at that time. It's an old gun. It's not the type used by James Bond for to carry under his pants.

Hughes wants us to believe, without showing any doubt of his own, as if he's got special glasses that sees through skin and bones. He wants us to believe the gun is on the backside of the body with the barrel coming across his human butt, which is impossible with pants that tight, because the human butt takes the gun's barrel far from the leg. It would show below his butt while making the walk extra difficult and even suspicious. The only way to carry a rifle under the shirt and pants "comfortably," while minimizes the showing, is down the front side of the body, on the flat of the front side of the leg. The fact that Hughes pretends to be the expert but plays so dumb and cleanly for the television narrative makes me think he's a deep-state fink. He played the public in exactly this way for the Trump assassination.

Starting with the belief that this kid didn't have a rifle on the roof, we could speculate that the photo showing him lying on the roof, in position to fire, was faked on another day, for there was no evidence in this photo that it was taken on the day of the shooting. Therefore, all views, from at least three cameras I've seen so far, of him on the roof could possibly have been faked. It would be easy, with computers, to make a black dot on a roof look like it's a person running, inside of a true shot of the day of the shooting. Or, one can just paste the roof scene with man running, taken from another day, into a video shot of the day of the shooting.

If the roof jump was taken on another day, the plan would seem to be to give appearances that he took the rifle apart on the roof, then wrapped it in a towel under his clothes with the rifle. The next conclusion is that he was somehow made to feign a limp for the limp scene, possible without knowing that a camera would be recording him. For this no-gun-on-roof theory, the limp scene needs to be faked too, though this is troublesome for the theory where the scene was recorded, apparently, by a home security camera...though not necessarily, it only looks like it. There's small drones that can swoop down above a driveway and hover in place.

The towel was there as part of feigning his get-away plan, and so he was convinced to go up to the roof -- maybe as part of making a social-media "movie," I dunno I confess -- and to do the roof jump. The another-day theory makes more sense than his being on the roof at the time of the shooting but without a rifle. Others are saying that the a man on the sidewalk, seen in the roof-jump video, is walking from the shooting scene as if nothing happened 30 seconds before the roof jump. That plays very well to the framing of Robinson. How they can possibly convict him when he can say that he was used and framed, I don't know. Don't assume they are not using mind-bending tactics on him right now.

He apparently never took the backpack off, though Hughes says he did to get the towel out of it. I think I can see the backpack on his back at the top of the roof jump, and during the jump. The purpose of the backpack then becomes, as Hughes told us, a means to feign hiding the butt of the rifle from showing through his shirt, but this is ridiculous for the purpose of reflecting reality because the barrel can't curve around his hip to the flat of his hip if the butt is behind the backpack. The more the rifle is on an angle starting from the back and ending up to the backside of the hip, the more the barrel will stick out from his pants. The best-case scenario to keep the barrel from making a pant bulge is to have the butt under his armpit, but the limp scene doesn't allow for that because the rifle would then be blatantly visible.

There is no sign of a rifle with scope under his clothes in the limp scene. Hughes is the devil on your shoulder wanting you to believe it. If the scope is in his backpack during the limp, he risks ruining the alignment for an old gun when he puts the scope back on at the roof. He needs to take the backpack off too, then put it back on again, which takes even more time aside from taking the barrel off.

The deep-state plotters always come out with new, fresh videos, after the crime, to combat / contradict the conspiracy theories, and Hughes loves to be at the front lines pushing the fresh videos, as he is in the one below showing the front of the tunnel at 10:08. He does look like a kid, not the 22-year old that was in a mug shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpLu_SWKkiA

At 11:37, where the back of the kid is shown, and where there's no bulge under his clothes at the arse, or above and below the arse, Hughes just acts dumb like a confounded traitor to his country. Hughes claims we can "see something protruding from the back of his leg there," which is false, but perhaps the plotters are working on a touch-up of this shot to make the bulge visible.

As conspiracy theorists might be questioning whether the limp and roof jump were on the day of the shooting, the plotters will task their video-editing department to come up with at least one video "proving" that he was at the location on the day of the shooting. It's easy to produce such a fake these days.

At the 15th minute, Hughes shows his ignorance, playing dumb again, or maybe he just is plain dumb, because he acts like he can't comprehend that the rifle could have been planted by someone else to frame the kid. Hughes tries to convince his audience that, because the rifle was found in the woods exactly where the kid walked into it, therefore the kid brought the rifle there. Simpleton Hughes, the plotters' useful idiot.

When he shows the roof jump in the video above, he points to a longish black thing that he claims is the rifle, which is convincing. When he drops the black towel to the roof to prepare for a short climb-down, there is another long, black thing, which you can see if you play the video at quarter-speed, and pause before the towel hits the roof. The problem is, this long, black thing and the towel combined are no nearly as long as the 43-inch rifle that he's accused of carrying. Big problem them, Hughes, because the whole of it looks more like 24 inches long, or roughly from his foot to his knee. This is why stiff-necked people like Hughes would argue that the gun was taken apart after the shot, though experts argue that there wasn't enough time to do that.

Plus, if Hughes is correct, then he needs to argue that the rifle in the woods was planted, because police said it was found fully assembled. Hughes is making a useful idiot of himself.

Maybe the long-straight thing Hughes refers to is just the towel being flung over his shoulder as he turned to look to the ground, and naturally Hughes would pause the video when the flung towel forms a straight line. Plus, they could have used a stick or something similar for this scene to produce the longish thing showing when a few inches above the roof.

There was no rifle in that roof-jump scene that anyone can see. Hughes is just a useful idiot afraid to let his mind roam for fear of becoming a thinker, or else he's paid to make people believe the criminal-plotter narratives. We'd expect someone like Hughes, with tech potential, to be paid by the cabals of this world to advance their narratives.

Just a theory, but perhaps someone convinced him to be on the roof to create a fake assassination for the Internet, to get his ilk viewers all happy for a moment with a feigned assassination. I confess I dunno how to explain his being on the roof. No jury would convict him based on Hughes' pitiful evidence that there's a gun under a towel, or under his jeans.

There is exactly zero evidence that the butt of the gun is under his armpit in the stair-climb scene. If the butt is on his back, the barrel would stick way out of his pant at the upper leg. Or, if the barrel is down across the cheek of his arse, it would show through the pants below his arse as he walked, and so having the rifle like that is not something he would do in a real murder attempt. The plotters along with Hughes and others are desperately trying to convince us, thanks to the stair-climb scenes, that the rifle was fully behind his back and across his arse into the right pant leg.

The butt of the rifle bends a little from the straight line of the barrel, and so the person trying to hide it under his clothes would bend it inward toward the middle of his back, rather than outward, so that it curves better with the body line. But, in that position, the scope sticks outward so as to form a large bulge at the butt or hip. Nobody in his right mind would got to an event filled with wall-to-wall students with a rifle in that position under tight clothing. At the very least, he would invest in some very-baggy pants.

For a real situation, one would take the barrel off and tie it to his body separate from the butt-and-trigger remainder. But the plotters decided to feign a whole rifle in his pants, because the limp makes that suggestion. If the barrel (its about 24 inches long in this case) were tied to the upper leg from the knee up, to his upper hip, there wouldn't be a limp. It makes sense that they decided to feign the limp scene as "proof" against him that he's got the gun under his clothes.

Hughes, if he were decent, would be asking, who really shot Charlie?

If you can believe it, there are some people portraying themselves as idiots, such as Larry Johnson, a guest on judge Napolitano, who talks about the rifle on the show, and knows what it looks like, but then tells the audience that the shooter could get the 24-inch barrel into the backpack. Anybody of teen years and up can plainly see that the bag is not large enough for that size barrel. As the narrative changes from a full rifle in his pants to one in the backpack, the pressure goes up for people to conform who don't want to lose their good reputations pushing a "conspiracy theory." You can lump Fox news people in with such "idiots." The more they have to lose, the more such people stay clear of conspiracy theories...until enough of the public or political base has picked up the theories.

Once we're knee deep into a theory at least near to what I've just presented, we are capable of believing that the bullets were not engraved by the shooter, but by the plotters, to deflect focus away from the real killers to some leftist transsexuals. It may be true that Robinson has been with a transsexual partner, but the engravings in the bullets may have been the plotters' idea with the full intent of having Fox news push the transsexual focus.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this conspiracy theory is where Robinson's father reportedly turned him in, though there's reason to believe that this is a false report, especially as it tends to deny the no-rifle-in-roof-jump theory. I'm not going to say that he had a gun on that roof or on his body. That mystery needs to be explained.

There's quite a few people, open to government conspiracies as a routine norm, who will tell you that suspicious things in newscast storyline -- just like this debate on whether there was a rifle -- are deliberately presented to the public when the purpose if to deflect the newscasting to some other topic to save someone from a bad turn of events about to hit the news. This murder comes just as Trump was about to be investigated by social media as per Speaker Johnson's claim that Trump was an "FBI informant" as per the Epstein crime ring. That story was critical for ruing Trump's political fortunes, and if we start to wonder whether this murder was to deflect from the Trump-FBI story, then the chief suspects of the murder would be Israel, Epstein's buddies that is, and likely Trump himself. If we then ask why Charlie Kirk was chosen, one might suggest that Trump, in actuality, despises the advancement of Bible-based Christians into political spheres.

Plus, there are rumors that Trump wants to retain the White House for 2028 and later, perhaps even have a family member become the next president. Some are saying that Charlie Kirk may have been a contender for the White House in 2028. He's a bit young for that, but there we have perhaps an added motive for the killing, on top of his becoming more like Tucker Carlson of Candace Owens on the Gaza controversy. Trump may still be hoping to get Gaza beach front, and the last thing a Trump-Netanyahu partnership in GAZA re-building want is those high-caliber people giving it a bad report. By making an "example" of what can happen to those who betray Israel, the latter may have ordered the Kirk killing to send like-minded ones a threat.

However, I'm not trying to demonize Trump where there's not good evidence, just presenting a valid theory such as a professional investigator should consider, such as Kash Patel. It's okay to look into that theory. An investigator looks into theories by design of his job. It's his job to follow the clues wherever they may lead. I think that, if Patel were to start investigating Israel for Kirk's killing, Trump would seek to stop him. Kash would be like a crow trying to land on a hot burner, with Trump trying to kick him off of it due to the dangers from Israeli / Rothschild backlash.

Regrettably, Kash Patel is joining the fake narrative, revealing that the police have invented a screwdriver in the hands of Robinson by which he could dismantle the rifle. This invention is needed because the public is not at all convinced that the roof jump shows no long rifle in one piece. This screwdriver invention requires that Robinson had his backpack off, and open, and that he would then need to put it back on, on top of taking off the barrel off.

For that act, he would have stood up and stooped down for some time, yet the camera image of him on the roof shows only his lying down taking the shot. It seems unthinkable that the person who caught him in the lying-down position didn't keep the camera fixed on him until the shot, and also after the shot. Yet we saw footage of him stooping and putting on the pack. However, such an image may yet appear in the news as faked to "prove" that he did in fact put the pack on after it was on the roof beside him, and that he did in "fact" take the time to take the barrel off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtfVfl0Hdtk

Fox news now regularly uses the "SHOCKING" click-bait term on video titles. Click-baiting is becoming the norm because it works, because people wait for the important developments that Trump promised, yet they are not coming hardly at all. Where the arrest of the FBI people who conducted January 6, and moreover jailed innocent pro-Trumpers?

NEWS

This is an enlightening video on how RFK might cause leftist media to go nearly or fully bankrupt together, if Trump allows it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChrVdz9WiJQ

Thomas Massie, as of Thursday, is just one vote shy of forcing Pam Bondi to release Epstein data that Trump doesn't want revealed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITlBJQ2m308

Big tech found itself making so much money that its owners couldn't help but realize that they could come to control the world with other globalists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8q9LrAVqYE

One Epstein buddy went down this week in Britain due to leaked documents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-_cePsS7hM

Tucker Carlson says different things about 9-11 depending on who he's talking to. He recently said that hijackers attacked the Twin Towers. He earlier acknowledged that building 7 didn't fall as a result of hijackers attacking it, and now he says that Israel appears suspect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czi00CeF_BU

---

NEXT UPDATE

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3EjmxJYHvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efl7EpwmYUs

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---