Solutes Disprove Kineticism

Modern physics thinks that such things as table salt have polarity, and that water does too in order to explain why water tears salt apart and distributes it throughout the water. "Polarity" is a simple thing to understand, a molecule having a both positive end and a negative end, a microscopic magnet, that is, but it's not so easy with their view of it because molecule formation is expected to go toward the spherical rather than the long shape. It's not possible, in their atomic model, to have a north and south pole on a spherical molecule.

That is, if there is, for example, a central large atom merged into several smaller atoms that spread out evenly over the large atom's surface, it's a spherical molecule with as many small atoms on the bottom as on the top, and as many on the sides too. How can that offer a polar situation if the central atom is negative in charge, for example, with the smaller atoms all positive in charge? How will one argue that the smaller merged atoms on one side of the molecule have a net negative charge while the same atoms on the opposite side have net-positive atoms?

In my atomic model, where all atoms weigh the same such that, in a gas at STP, there are 16 times as many O atoms as H atoms, a water molecule becomes one large H atom at the center with eight O atoms merged into it all around. In their model, they have no way to make this molecule net-negative at one and net-positive at the opposite end, but I do have a way.

Now before I show you the following trash, note that their configuration for the H2O water molecule has the H atoms more on one side of a center line than the opposite side. That is, the three atoms are not in a straight line, and the reason is obvious: the goofs can not get a polar situation out of it, for if the two H atoms are in a straight line with the central O atom, both ends of this molecule would have the same electrical charge, whatever charge they assign to the H atom.

It's completely STUPID because, whether they assign the H atom a positive or negative charge, the H atoms will repel each other such that they would take up positions as far apart as possible, and thus they would end up in a straight line with the O at their center. The molecule will look like this: H-O-H.

Besides, unbeknown to them, the H atom is by far the larger atom of the two such that it's not the O atom that goes at the center. Everything they report about the shape of their water molecule is a figment of their imaginations, yet they will want you to believe think that they are such masters of the atomic world that they can practically see the atoms with their own eyes.

I hope the below shape comes out right on your browser; it gives the shape of their water molecule, making no logical sense because the H atoms would repel each other as far away as possible, not sit close together:

........H........H

.............O

Now let's go to their explanation as to why the H atom is as you see it above:
"A water molecule has a bent or V-shaped geometry [instead of straight line].

It consists of one large oxygen atom in the center with two smaller hydrogen atoms attached at an angle. The hydrogen atoms are pushed down by two pairs of non-bonding electrons on the oxygen atom, resulting in a bond angle of approximately 104.5 degrees. This shape is often described as...a "Mickey Mouse" shape, with the oxygen as the head and hydrogens as the ears"

It's up to you whether you wish to believe the imposters when they give their reason for the Mickey-Mouse shape, due to "two pairs of non-bonding electrons on the oxygen atom," as if they could see the atoms and their electrons with their own eyes. But I'll counter that the real reason for this shape, which they won't inform you about, is that they need one end of the molecule positive, and the other end negative.

Their shaping of the water molecule is not from logic that obeys the known laws of electric charge, but is anti-logic on behalf of make-believing whatever their need. In this case, they need to shape a polar water molecule to explain why materials dissolve in water.

Just so you know how they think: "Polarity is generally defined by the distribution of electron density within the molecule, where polar solvents/solutes have uneven charge distribution, while non-polar ones have uniform distribution." Translation: wherever there are more electrons on one side of a molecule than on the opposite side, that's the net-negative side. You can clearly see that this need to explain polarity in many materials will cause them to shape molecules of many kinds accordingly, when in reality none of it is logical, none of it even necessary.

My electron-atmosphere model of the atom can be described simply as: all types of about 90-100 atoms (some say over 100 elements) have one proton only, of different types / sizes / shapes and/or positive force, because God created them that way. I don't have big-bang nonsense that demands a simplified view of the atomic core where all protons everywhere are identical, a very stupid concept, but one that best deceives the public because a big bang producing innumerable protons, where roughly 100 of them are identical, is very hard to believe. Once a person believes that the big-bang lung could produce matter out of nothing, it's easier to believe that the big-bang wind blew out all protons identical (but even that is incredibly difficult).

Every proton logically attracts electrons from all sides, and there is no laughable limit that modern goofs place upon their atoms, where they very-stupidly allow only one electron per proton. Just take a moment to think of how moronic that claim is. The whole world is under their spell. Logic demands that a proton will pull in electrons from all sides, MANY of them. You have a choice right here and now, my atomic model versus theirs. If you choose theirs, you are wacko. Can you please show me just one magnet that has only one iron ball orbiting around it, zillions of times per second. If you can believe such a thing, you are a science moron.

Logic demands that some electrons can be pulled into contact with each other upon the protonic surface, if the positive force of the proton is strong enough to accomplish it against the "will" of electrons to remain apart. As the electrons build in numbers upward from the surface, they add negative charge upward until electrons are forced to hover in space above the in-contact electrons beneath them. They hover where they are perfectly balanced between the positive force of the proton, and the negative force of the electrons beneath them. It's a beautiful creation of God that allows atoms to merge, due to the space between electrons, and thus they can form liquids and solids from gas atoms, an absolute necessity for living things.

The further away the electrons are from the protonic surface, the further away they hover from each other because the negative force increases with height above the surface (due to an ever-increasing number of trapped electrons above the surface). It's all logical; I follow logic. The further out the electrons, the less they are under entrapment by the positive force, not merely because the positive force weakens with distance, but because there is more negative charge to counter the positive force.

If there were no gravity force, the electrons would load until a layer of electrons experiences equal negative and positive force (at the outer-most layer), at which time there is no net-positive force at the outer edge of the atom to attract anymore electrons. It's the maximum size of the atom, a size it never achieves because gravity force won't allow it. That's because gravity is a negative charge that "wants" to blow electrons off of the atom. The maximum-size atom is neutral in charge; no polarization can result. It's going to be neutral on all side, no net-positive or net-negative is possible.

IMPORTANT: the full size of the atom is the full size of its electron atmosphere when a layer is as attracted to the proton by a force equal to the gravity repulsion that wishes to repel them off of the atom. That layer is the outermost layer because gravity is always active to keep more electrons from loading, even though the proton has the ability to load more. A few extra electrons can yet load, momentarily, such as we can see when we rub objects to give them a small negative charge. The rubbing forces new electrons to enter to some depth into the outer layers of electrons, but they leak out in a minute or two, into the air.

I've had the question for years as to whether gravity repels some captured electrons on the bottom of every atom to the top such as to add negativity to the tops. The result is that the charge is not quite the same between tops and bottoms. I don't see how else atoms could attract or repel in order to explain why some materials dissolve. I'm giving you a means by which every atom has two poles at exact-opposite ends. The last time I checked, the bottom is the exact opposite of the top, and as gravity is always toward the bottom, voila, we have a way to explain atomic polarity that doesn't violate known laws of electric charge, but instead seems compelling.

If the only thing in existence were atoms and gravity, all atoms would be net-positive all around, with slightly less net-positivity on their tops. However, God provided free electrons (heat) all around all atoms, which may or may not make all atoms net-negative or even neutral in some cases. The free electrons press in on the electrons atmospheres, adding themselves to the atmospheres. and of course you can see how this can make atoms less net-positive than would otherwise be the case.

The bottom line is that all atoms and molecules are expected to have a small surplus of electrons on their tops versus their bottoms, and as such, I can see that, when molecules near each other, the bottom of one molecule could "desire" to have (rob) some of the excess electrons on the top of a neighboring atom. That is, the bottom of one atom will seek to pull some electrons from the atom beneath it, but as those excess electrons are attracted also by the proton of that atom, the result is that both atoms attract each other a little. That is, polarity in atoms cause a slight attraction such that solutes can be firmed.

But even if I disregard or reject the concept of excess electrons on the tops of all atoms, I still have what the goofs do not have, the merger of electron atmospheres (where electrons do not orbit) when two atoms make contact. It seems to me that all atoms that are forced to make contact will merge to some degree, some deeply, other not so deep. Logically, the ones that merge more deeply are the ones that attract each other more.

In other words, I don't need atomic polarity to explain why water yanks the molecules of salt out of the solid salt at the bottom of a glass. If the attraction involved in the merger of water molecules into salt molecules is stronger than the attraction of salt molecules merged into each other, the water can pull salt molecules out of the solid salt. Simple-dimple, no polarity needed.

Modern science believes that water pulls ("disassociates") salt molecules apart such that the molecule is no longer intact while dissolved in water. However, as the primary evidence for this is that salt water has the ability to conduct electricity, I'm going to reject the idea. I'm going to say that there are intact salt molecules in the water, especially as the wackos, first of all, have no means to explain flow of electrons due to their belief that electrons are all in orbit. They are not permitted to invent free electrons in metal wires just because their theory doesn't allow flow of orbiting electrons. There is another option, the electron atmosphere of stationary electrons, duh. Give the outer electrons a push, and they flow like water atom-to-atom.

The goofs view dissolved salt with a lone salt atom surrounding by water molecules, ridiculous in my view because water molecules are very large by comparison. You don't imagine the small atom stuck at the core of larger atoms, but rather vice-versa. In my view, the liberated salt molecules are logically merged into the outer edges of water molecules. They would have taken that position too, had they correctly understood that H and O atoms are NOT the smallest amongst all atoms.

It seems to me that if the sodium and chlorine atoms are separate within the water, one should be able to fish them out separately with "fishing rods" of some sort, but I'm not reading that this has taken place.

Plus, the evaporation temperature of chlorine is 134 degrees below the boiling point of water, meaning exactly that chlorine atoms cannot be alone in water, or they would evaporate out of the water profusely when water boils. Forget it, for none of the salt leaves the water by evaporation. It's far better to view modern physicists as moral lunatics too brainwashed by evolution-toting concepts to realize that they need to repent of their shame. Pity Creationists who've yet to realize that modern chemistry and atomic physics are based on the big bang, for these Creationists will actually support the erroneous ideas.

When we lay a teaspoon of salt at the bottom of some water, the logic is that the water molecules pull the salt molecules apart at their weakest link. Salt is a sodium-chloride molecule (the atmospheres of both are merged), and so we learn that the weakest link is not where the sodium and chlorine atoms are merged, but at some point where the molecules as a whole are merged. The water does not pull the sodium atom from the chlorine atom, but pulls out the whole molecule intact. Otherwise, boiling water fully away would leave only the sodium at the bottom of the pot.

In order to explain why both the sodium and chlorine are intact after all the water has boiled away, they invent the reasoning, and so it's up to you to make a judgment on whether the reasoning is ad-hoc trash, or reasonable. You shouldn't believe them at their word in matters involving microscopic particles where they can barely get anything figured out correctly due to their loyal service to the big bang.

How do salt molecules spread throughout the water? Do they become merged with water molecules due to the attraction between them, or do salt molecules act like a gas within a liquid to repel each other to equa-distance throughout the entire liquid (apart from mergers)? Perhaps both are true, but if the latter is true too, then the inter-repulsion between salt molecules is stronger than their merger bond to water molecules.

AI says: "Even if a substance is soluble, it does not instantly spread evenly. It relies on a process called diffusion, where particles move from high concentration to low concentration. This can take time, during which the mixture is not uniform." The solute molecules are spreading out under duress to do so. There is some frictional force slowing their movement, which could be due to weak inter-repulsion between the salt molecules, and/or some merger depth into the water molecules.

It's possible that all solutes become merged with water molecules while the latter can hold only so-many. When in contact with more solute molecules than a water molecule can hold, it causes the excess to become robbed by a neighboring water molecule until it too is filled to max, and so on and so on until the salt spreads evenly throughout the water, not by the salt's inter-repulsion in this case, but by piggy-backing molecule to molecule. This is one way to explain the limit of the solid solute to dissolve, when the water molecules are filled to the max with the solute.

When a substance submerged in a liquid does not dissolve, modern physics thinks that the solute (submerged material) has no poles upon its atoms, neither positive nor negative, and so its molecules are therefore not yanked out from each other. But this can be explained in another way, where there is insufficient attraction to yank the solute molecules. No poles need in the picture whatsoever, and so if the goofballs have configured all their molecules in such a way as to best explain the what they think is polar attraction of solutes, they have invented molecular shapes that are untrue on top of not knowing the true numbers of atoms per molecule. This is called a hell hole.

The merger-attraction of the solute molecules to each other plays an obvious role in whether a material will dissolve or not. It is pretty daft to claim that materials that do not dissolve have no polar quality when an alternative explanation is as simple as: the material has a strong molecular bond.

Whether a molecular reaction adds or subtracts heat from the environment is a BIG CLUE to what's happening. Merging atoms add heat, and unmerging atoms absorb heat. It's that simple, but I do not think that kineticists can keep to this rule even if they would like to. Their explanation of heat formation / absorption can at times cause them to break with that rule.

We read: "The process of dissolving common table salt (NaCl) in water is endothermic, meaning it absorbs heat from its surroundings, resulting in a slight decrease in the temperature of the solution." It means that there's more unmerging going on than merging. We know that the salt molecules are unmerging, but are they then merging with the water molecules? Above, we wanted a clue to say one way or the other: do the water molecules attract the salt molecules into mergers, and/or do the salt molecules repel each other apart from mergers? Thus far, as dissolved salt absorbs heat, there's no evidence of the merger option.

One thing is plain: the water will not attack and separate all of the solid salt added to it. Either the maximum merger of water and salt molecules cancels the attractive ability of the water to yank salt molecules out of the solid salt, or the repulsion between dissolved salt molecules over-rides (becomes stronger than) the attractive forces between the water and the solid salt. That is, while the water seeks to pull out salt molecules from the solid salt, the repulsion of the in-solution salt pushes the solid-salt molecules the other way, inward toward the solid salt.

Fortunately, I know that even liquid atoms act as though they repel each other (against their attraction forces) due to the heat particles in their midst pushing them apart (this is material expansion due to heat). The heat particles in the water are going to push the larger water molecules with more force than the smaller salt molecules, and so if the heat-particle push against water molecules can't keep solid molecules from breaking away from the solid salt, neither should the heat-particle push on salt molecules.

That looks like is a compelling argument to reveal that salt molecules do merge with water molecules as the mechanism that spreads salt evenly throughout the liquid, otherwise the only way to stop the dissolution of salt is via the heat-push upon dissolved salt molecules, but I'm showing why that ceasing should not happen by that method. The heat-push on salt molecules should be the only repulsion force that acts between them; I don't imagine an innate repulsion existing from them due to their being either net-negative or net-positive.

The liberated solute molecules, because they are at a distance from each other, press inward on only a small percentage of the solid solute. There's not enough liberated molecules to press in against ALL of the solid's molecules. One liberated salt molecule pressing against one solid-salt molecule, but not pressing on many neighboring solid molecules, cannot counter the attractive ability of the water to yank out the ones not being pressed. Therefore, I do not think that maximum dissolution of the salt is due to heat-particle push on dissolved salt molecules that exist only in the atomic spaces i.e. but not merged with water molecules.

It seems a better theory that the solid ceases to dissolve once the water's attractive ability is no longer strong enough to liberate. It stands to reason that the salt molecules merged into the water molecules reduce the latter's attractive abilities. We could say that the naked water molecule, having zero salt molecules merged within it, has maximum attraction, while that attraction declines for as long as salt molecules are loading upon it. The more the water takes on salt molecules, the more of them that are merged into the quasi-naked water molecules directly beside the solid salt. Then, when the water molecule becomes so filled that it can no longer attract more, the water is saturated with salt.

When heat is absorbed by a solute, the goofs wrongly interpret the situation as energy needed in the first place to cause the solid solute to go into solution. No, the disappearing heat energy is not the cause of the dissolution, but the dissolution causes the heat to disappear. They are ignorant because they refuse to recognize that heat is in the electrons, forcing them to find an alternative means to explain what's going on.

The disappearing heat is an after-effect of the unmergers. The unmergers are caused by the attraction forces between the solute and the water. The goofs don't recognize how heat can disappear, but thinking that it goes into the solid solute, someone might assume that the disappeared heat is what causes the dissolution. If that were true, we must ask: why should the kinetic water molecules slow down (i.e. get colder) just because water molecules yank out salt molecules to themselves? What could there possibly be in the disconnection of salt molecules that could make the water molecules vibrate slower? Don't worry, they thought of something, and they frame it as best they can to keep their kinetic monster alive as best as possible.

The kineticist: "Hotter water dissolves more salt or sugar primarily because the increased heat provides kinetic energy, which makes water molecules move faster and collide with the solute (salt/sugar) more frequently and forcefully." It works in theory, and while I'll agree that heat in the water helps to dissolve the solute, it's not the primary cause of dissolution, because we can place sugar and salt in high air temperatures, but the salt molecules don't liberate.

Therefore, if it's not the heat that causes the salt's liberation, it's of course attraction force between them and the water molecules. Extra heat only allows the water molecules to attract more salt. And so the monster builders need to explain why mere attraction of salt, and liberation thereby, causes water temperature to go down. As the attraction causes a salt molecule to rifle toward a water molecule, shouldn't that speed the water molecule just as soon as they collide? Yes. But don't worry, the monster weavers will weave a tale on how the water loses speed.

The more dense (i.e. the hotter the water) the free electrons (heat particles) in water, the more they spread water molecules apart. If you can imagine an increasing number of free electrons invading the center of this '8' molecule by their inter-repulsion force, you can see that the top and bottom of the 8 is going to eventually separate into individual atoms. Even while the top and bottom unmerge slowly with increased heat in their midst, their electron atmospheres are re-gaining the electrons they lost when originally merging. They gain exactly as many as they both lost when the atoms fully unmerge.

Therefore, when solute molecules completely unmerge, a significant amount of heat "disappears" into their electron atmospheres. That heat can no longer register on a thermometer, not at all meaning that it literally disappears. None of it disappears. Instead, it's hiding from the stupids too stupid-fied by kineticism to know where its hiding.

We have learned something thanks to hotter water dissolving more salt. We learn that it can also hold more salt in solution, meaning that extra heat allows water molecules to attract more salt. How? By two means, and one of them is by spreading water molecules apart a little, in turn causing the salt molecules merged into them to move apart a little, and thus opening up more room for one or more solid-salt molecules to join the party on every water molecule in the batch.

In the meantime, the extra heat also separates the solid salt molecules, making them easier to yank out i.e. with less attraction force needed than without the added heat.

As dissolved sugar absorbs more than twice the heat as compared to dissolved salt (at the same water temperature, to be assumed), we can learn something. We learn that while the same amount of water absorbs about six times by volume more sugar than salt, yet the sugar dissolution provides only twice the heat. It moreover suggests either that sugar molecules are more merged into each other than salt molecules, and/or that sugar molecules merge less deeply into water molecules than salt molecules do. Due to these options, we would need other clues to know more-precise merger depths.

Due to a cc of salt weighing not much more than a cc of sugar, I would suggest that sugar molecules are more deeply merged than salt, partly because they are significantly larger that salt molecules i.e. significantly fewer sugar molecules per unit volume. That picture jibes with the fact that sugar absorbs more heat, because deeper mergers of the solute molecules means more absorbed heat when the molecules unmerge fully.

The wrong atomic model is going to lead to such stupid things as defining a sugar molecule as a C12H22O11. Haha, so laughably a molecule of 12 carbon atoms, 22 H atoms, and 11 O atoms, all joined as one particle, ahahaha. They've got the sugar molecule framed as a gigantic monster. Imagine how much fun they had figuring out its shape in order to give it a positive and negative pole.

Who decided which gang of morons was going to have their sugar molecule displayed in the textbooks as opposed to how others drew it up? That's a serious question. Who decides on these controversies? It suggests that there are big cheeses who control atomic physics and chemistry, otherwise there would be contradictions throughout the textbooks. The way they draw the sugar molecule, you'd think they actually saw one. If you believe them when they claim they have "seen" one, you are their victim. AI: "Yes, scientists have 'seen' sugar molecules, though not with the naked eye." That's all you need to know that you are being played by those who greatly exaggerate their expertise, the better to keep you on-side their big-bang-monster "science."

One good thing is that the imposters admit the release of heat (though they tend to see it as formation of heat) when atoms merge. We can glean this from the following:

Solutes that release heat when dissolved in water — a process known as an exothermic dissolution...In these cases, the energy released when water molecules bond with the solute ions is greater than the energy required to break apart the solid's crystal lattice (google AI).

Breaking the CRYSTAL LATTICE is a typical, self-aggrandizing phrase that means only a breaking of the molecular bond. They want you to think they have peered into the atomic world capable of seeing a lattice.

As you can see, they folly-speak by claiming that the heat absorbed by the dissolving of the solute is the CAUSE of the dissolving. As I said, the dissolving is due to attractive forces, and only after attraction has done its work is heat absorbed. The heat that is about to become absorbed cannot cause the detachment of the solute molecule, but as these goofs have no other way to explain the disappearance of the heat, they tell you that it's disappeared due to being used up by causing the detachment.

Where it says, "the energy required to break apart the solid's crystal lattice," it means that they credit heat for the liberation of solute molecules. If they give credit to attraction between the solute and the water, they are then stuck-in-the-mud on how to explain the disappearance of the heat. But if they use the heat to cause the liberation, they think they can explain how it disappears.

Their explanation forces them to believe that the dissolving process slows water molecules but speeds the molecules of the solutes, which is not only mere heat TRANSFER rather than disappearance, but is not possible where there is more heat measured after the liberation than existed before liberation. That's called heat disappearance. If one claims that heat energy merely TRANSFERS from liquid to the solid salt, there will be exactly zero temperature loss in the system.

The solute molecules break apart, and heat disappears from both the solid solute and the water. Explain it.

As you just read from AI above, there are some solutes that absorb less heat when they liberate than the heat formed in the water, which is very useful for proving that solutes can MERGE with liquid atoms/molecules, though merger is harder to prove if there is no heat release as the net-product.

I left out some of the quote above, which you can see here: "Solutes that release heat when dissolved in water — a process known as an exothermic dissolution — are typically ionic compounds with high hydration energy, or certain strong acids and bases." Then, "High hydration energy is the large amount of energy released when gaseous ions [atoms] is dissolved and surrounded by water molecules. It occurs with small, highly charged ions that strongly attract water molecules." They call the atoms "ions" in this case because they have attractive capability.

"High hydration energy" becomes revealed as just another kinetic fantasy, denoting how much faster the solute makes the liquid molecules move. Rather than interpreting the CREATION of heat from captured electrons going free due to the mergers, they chalk it up as faster water molecules. Besides, nothing in the response tells us how this higher energy is created. In the case of solutes, they call it "solvation energy." I asked google how atomic mergers of solutes increase water-molecule speeds (vibrations), and the response is a foggy one having to do with orbiting electrons, which is how you can know it's incorrect:
"The particles in the solute are initially held together by strong attractions (lattice energy). When water breaks these attractions and pulls the particles apart, they move from a low-energy (bound) state to a higher-energy (free) state in the solution. The energy released during this interaction is transferred to the surrounding molecules."

I'll leave it up to you to go find what they mean by high-energy / low-energy state. If you fiddle enough with AI, you will find that it'll use circular reasoning and deflection, avoidance of answering your questions in such a way as to explain the mechanics you are looking for. There can be no logical mechanics to explain the creation or disappearance of heat if it's not from electron release or electron absorption. It's not enough to say that, in a lower- / higher-energy state, the orbiting electrons go higher or lower such that this explains the appearance or disappearance of heat.

The goofs are trying to invent a means to speed up the liquid molecules from speeds (temperature) that did not exist prior to liberation. They might give the impression that the extra heat is directly related to the level of attraction force that causes liberation. They might argue that, the stronger the attraction, the faster the liberated solute molecules, the more they speed up the water molecules. Yet most solutes make the water colder.

The attraction essentially takes place between a water molecule directly beside a solute molecule. It's even questionable as to whether a water molecule two molecules distant from the solid solute has enough attraction to yank a solute molecule out. Whatever might be the case, as the two molecules attract each other, they are expected to speed toward each other, but then drastically slow as they collide, as they transfer each others' motion energy into each other. In this picture, there is no extra motion energy at all in the liquid. Quite to the contrary.

It is a delusion they want you to believe that colliding particles retain their total kinetic energy fully. No, but kinetic energy gets used up during collisions. It disappears into the resulting slower motion.

I asked: "is the heat release during a solute's dissolution caused by the merger of liquid and solute molecules, or by something else?" Response:

The heat release during a solute's dissolution is primarily caused by the formation of new attractive interactions between the solvent and solute molecules. While the initial breaking of bonds within the solute requires energy (endothermic [= heat absorption]), the subsequent 'merger' or bonding of the solvent [liquid] around the solute particles releases energy (exothermic [= heat release]).

The statement above substitutes the reality -- the release of electrons during atomic mergers -- with "new attractive interactions" between the liquid and solute molecules. You are allowed to ask why water molecules should move faster just because they bond from the attraction between them. I can't see how. Do two magnetic balls collide with zero loss of speed?

When two identical magnetic balls are rolled at each other on a horizontal surface, they generally do not immediately cease motion, but rather experience a sharp decrease in linear speed,..

Just before colliding, magnetic force accelerates the balls toward each other. Immediately after collision, their linear speed significantly decreases because a large amount of energy is lost to heat and deformation (google AI).

Do you see how heard-headed these kineticists are? No, the balls do not lose their kinetic energy merely to heat and deformation. They slow down because one ball transfers its motion energy into the other, and that transfer acts to slow motion. DESTROYERS OF REALITY. They are protecting their kinetic theory of atoms. They will refuse to admit that motion ceases motion at collisions because they want you to think that ever-colliding atoms are ever in motion. DETESTABLE FREAKS protecting the big bang.

Let's go to the more-common solute situations that absorbs heat. How will the kineticist explain the mechanics here? How does the overall slow-down in molecules take place. That slow-down takes place in the water, they will confess, because their thermometers measure cooler water during solute liberation.

Solute molecules slow down when liberated into a liquid primarily due to collisions with solvent [liquid] molecules...which increases drag and TRANSFERS [caps mine] kinetic energy away from the solute. Upon entering the liquid, the solute particles transition from a state of high potential energy to a lower energy state, losing speed as they are surrounded by solvent molecules.

You can see the desperation. The molecule is loosing speed by drag to the liquid, in which case it's purely a TRANSFER of energy, not absorption. The fact is, both the solute and the liquid lose heat when liberation takes place, but if someone argues that the solute molecule slows in the liquid as the means of explaining the disappeared heat, then they break their own kinetic law that claims motion energy cannot be destroyed or slowed per any one system. The solute and the water is ONE SYSTEM. You can't use kineticism, or a kinetic-based argument, to explain lost heat in one system. You MUST have electrons -- heat particles -- going into hiding. It's the only explanation.

The free electrons in the water and in the solute cease to be heat particles when they load onto the liberated salt molecules. That's how heat disappears. The particles are still there. There has been no destruction of electron particles. They just transform into captured electrons, which are no longer heat. They are now stored heat, able to come back out as heat, able to be detected by a thermometer when they come back out, but only if they enter the thermometer, which they cannot do as long as they are captured by salt protons.

Electrons can act either as the clothing of protons, or as heat particles. What is so hard to understand about this? Nothing, but big bangers want God dead, and so they continue to reject the caloric model of heat, because it does not serve the big bang.

Where you read, "increases drag and transfers kinetic energy away from the solute," it's a red herring. The only thing the solute molecule does is leave the solid solute; it can add exactly zero kinetic energy (according to kineticism) if both the solute and the water are at the same temperature to begin with. It doesn't matter what happens to the solute molecule, whether it slows or increases in speed in the water, it yet cannot add heat, nor subtract heat, because the solute and the water are one system, one unit. If you take heat from the one and put it into the other, it merely transfers but does not reduce nor increase overall heat. RED-HERRING GOOFBALLS will not admit that their theory does not work here.

This is sin against God, the love of big-bangism due to hatred of God. That hatred was the fuel of kineticism a century or more ago, depending on when the big-bang concept started in the secret rooms of astronomy experts. From the stepping-stone of Darwinism, the next naturalism step was tackling the evolution of the cosmos. No-brainer: there was a concerted effort amongst evolutionists, quasi-evolutionists, and closet evolutionists to steer atomic physics into directions best suited for supporting a big-bang history.

Other Considerations of Salted Water

When materials turn from solid to liquid, they unmerge a little, and therefore they absorb free electrons from the neighboring environment.

When a solid salt (like sodium chloride, NaCl) turns into a liquid, it absorbs a significant amount of heat, typically around .52 kJ/gram. This energy is called the latent heat of fusion or enthalpy of fusion. It is used to break the strong ionic bonds within the [solid], rather than to increase the temperature.

We are not talking salt in liquid solution here, but salt becoming a salt liquid due to high heat. True, the heat weakens the bond of solidity, but it is gravity attraction, now, which contributes to pulling the atoms apart a little, during which time .52 units of heat becomes absorbed into the electron atmospheres, disappearing there from the air. The very heat that gets between the molecules to spread them apart a little is part of the heat that re-loads into the electron atmospheres.

Both the heat and gravity are active to cause what we see as melt. Below the melting point, the atomic bond is stronger than the pull of gravity, a thing they do not teach. Melt is the evidence that gravity force has gotten the upper hand. It can't be any other way. We cannot say that gravity has a greater force on the atoms at a temperature below melting point, or we would see gravity pulling atoms down on the sides of materials at that temperature.

The attraction of water to pull salt molecules out of solid salt is far stronger than the pull of gravity on solid salt, for the dissolution of salt takes place fully and with far less heat facilitation. The atomic bond strength is essentially equal to the pull of gravity at the start of melting point. You can easily witness the truth of this because most melting materials flow down the outer sides of the solid material. Duh, credit can go only to gravity.

Yet, AI acts as if it's not true, when I ask: "is the melting point when gravity pull on the atoms becomes stronger than the atomic bond strength?" It says:

No, the melting point is not defined as the point where gravity becomes stronger than atomic bond strength. Instead, the melting point is the temperature at which the thermal kinetic energy (vibration) of atoms or molecules becomes strong enough to overcome the intermolecular forces holding them in a rigid lattice structure.

Ya-but, why do the kineticists disregard the gravity force that's obviously in play? How could gravity not pull on atoms at all times? Of course it does. If gravity were yet stronger than the bond, at melting point, material would not flow downward. There may be some materials that soften without downward flow until some temperature above the melting point. Asking google about it:

Yes, there are materials that melt but do not flow or drip immediately due to extremely high viscosity, often termed 'non-flowing melts' or "viscous melts."...These materials have strong intermolecular forces or high molecular entanglement, making them act more like highly viscous, non-Newtonian, or amorphous liquids that "sag" or deform slowly rather than dripping immediately.

It gives a list of such materials, glass, some rubbers and PVC. It also tells that sulfur becomes more viscous (flows less) with additional heat (at 200 C) above the melting point, suggesting that there's something unique in sulfur to make it so. However, the ability not to flow at melting point could, in some cases, be due to atomic entanglements due to atomic shapes rather than a bond strength greater than gravity.

The "heat of fusion" (heat of freezing) that you read above is not the correct phrase for the heat absorbed during melting, but it can be used because the heat of freezing is exactly the heat amount released to the air as is robbed from the air during the melt phase. That phase is the interval during which atoms/molecules are able to get away from each other a little due to added heat in their midst.

While gravity can't contribute any heat of melting when its force only equals the bond strength of the molecules, it can contribute just as soon as it gets the upper hand, for it's a no-brainer that, when gravity contributes to moving atoms apart, heat disappears into the electron atmospheres. Regardless of what it is that unmerges atoms, heat disappears into the electron atmospheres. But if something is melted in a container here the container walls tightly contact the frozen material, gravity cannot pull any material to itself, at which time all disappearing heat is from merely the expansion of the material due to heat, which isn't much if measured only at the one melting-point temperature.

Heat-of-melting tests are probably done with material in a heat-insulated container, but not touching the container walls. Heat needs to get at the material from between it and the container walls, wherefore the material is permitted to be drawn down by gravity. Hence, the measured heat disappearance is mainly from the gravity pull on the atoms. Gravity can pull the atoms while they remain merged.

The goofs themselves teach that there is a certain amount of heat absorbed at melting temperature where the heat does not enter the material to spread the atoms apart. This is what is meant by heat of melting, that the material fails to grow larger even though heat is used up by the material. Instead of spreading the molecules further apart, this heat is converting to captured electrons. It's t disappearing act...that they don't understand due to rebellion against the caloric model.

Throughout the heating of the liquid, from melting to boiling points, the atoms are continuously spread further apart, and so heat continues to disappear from the air, into the electron atmospheres, yet science does not openly acknowledge this disappeared heat as it does the heat of melting or the heat of evaporation. Why does it hide it? Because, it can't explain it. The only thing happening is simple heating, yet some heat simply disappears, and they don't know how to explain it without making stretchy monkeys of themselves.

We saw above that salt absorbs .52 kJ/g of heat during the melting phase, and then: "When liquid salt (molten sodium chloride) turns into gas (vaporization), it absorbs a significant amount of heat known as the latent heat of vaporization...The heat absorbed when liquid salt (specifically sodium chloride, NaCl) turns into a gas (vaporization) is approximately 2.2 kJ/gram." We now have a total of 2.72 kJ/g, plus some unknown amount during the melting and boiling phases, that disappears into the electron atmospheres.

I accidentally got this response to a question: "The energy required to separate sodium chloride (NaCl) molecules from their solid crystal lattice into individual, separated molecules in the gaseous phase (sublimation) is approximately 170 to 180 kJ/mol," which works out to 3 kJ/g. How did it jump from 2.7 to 3, as per molecules being fully separated, same as what happens at evaporation? Because, more heat disappears between the melting and boiling points, which the bosses do not systematically include in their textbook teachings. I've not heard of it before. I don't know whether they even have a name for it. Maybe it's called sweep-it-under-the-rug heat so that nobody finds out about it.

Even though salt does not sublimate (defined as going from a solid to gas without going through the liquid phase), you'll note that AI added "sublimation" in the round brackets above. Apparently, that's because the statement is giving the total heat absorbed during the melt, liquid and evaporation phases. That's why it goes above the 2.7 that is itself due only to two of the phases, melt and evaporation.

Ahh, I've just learned: "The process of measuring the heat absorption of a material through solid, liquid, and gaseous (evaporation) phases is called calorimetry." Therefore, they apparently do acknowledge heat absorption between melting and boiling temperatures, yet I've never heard of it. When asking google just now, "is heat absorption during the liquid phase taught in school textbooks," google deflected and would not allow AI to respond.

I then asked, "is heat absorption during the liquid phase generally a secret?" This time, AI responded: "Heat absorption during a liquid phase change is not a secret, but it is known in physics as latent heat or 'hidden' heat. It is described as 'hidden' or 'latent' because the energy absorbed or released during a phase change (like melting or boiling) does not cause a change in the temperature of the substance." Did you see that, in the brackets? It cites only melting and boiling, but not between them.

It then adds: "When a substance changes phase (e.g., solid to liquid, liquid to gas), its temperature remains constant even though it continues to absorb heat." Only the two phases are cited. It then has a section, "Types of Latent Heat:" where it lists only two, "Latent Heat of Fusion" and "Latent Heat of Vaporization." Therefore, yes, the heat disappeared after melting and before evaporation is a secret.

When salt molecules are robbed from a solid sitting in water, the molecules become fully free, same as when the salt goes through both melting and boiling. Therefore, it seems a no-brainer that the liberated salt molecules, in water, absorb at least 2.7 kJ/g of heat, and probably 3.0. "The dissolution of common salt (sodium chloride) in water is an endothermic process, meaning it absorbs heat from its surroundings. The heat absorption is approximately +.066 kJ/gram at 25°C." Only .066 kJ/g? How can that be? The water has fully pulled the salt molecules from the solid, same as evaporation does, yet the experiments can find only .066 kJ/g of disappeared heat?

My conclusion is that salt molecules merge deeply into water molecules, releasing much heat when doing so. That is, they ABSORB over 2.7 kJ/g when disconnected from each other when the water yanks them apart, but then RELEASE it most of it (i.e. all of it minus .066 kJ/g) when merging with water molecules. This is how to view the situation as part of reality, with merged electron atmospheres, not in the way the kineticists view it.

These numbers, if accurate, tend to prove hard as rock that salt molecules do merge with water molecules when dissolved in water. It's the only way to explain how the 3.O kJ/gram goes down to .066, a difference of 45 times, or about 2 percent, almost an even-even trade. That is, almost as much as is absorbed is also released when the salt molecules merge with water molecules. We therefore learn that there is a salt-water BOND, and that the salt molecules must spread throughout the liquid against the friction of this bond strength.

It suggests that one "naked" water molecule steals the merged salt molecules of the neighboring water molecules until all water molecules become dressed with salt molecules. It teaches further that, with increased temperature of the water, the water molecules are spread apart a little such that they can fit a few more salt molecules upon their bodies.

Then, when the water evaporates, only the water molecules lift off into the air while the salt molecules stay behind. Why? The only explanation: the salt molecules are smaller and/or heavier. Lift off depends on the ability of rising electrons to send them up into the air. The smaller the molecules, the fewer heat particles get underneath them. The heavier the molecules, the more heat-particle density (higher temperature) is needed to make them blast off.

google AI tends to tell me that salt's evaporation temperature is at least nearly its boiling point of 1413 C. That's a lot of heat-particle density as compared to the evaporation point of water, which is below water's freezing point, believe it or not? Water takes off (sublimates) even from ice at frigid temperatures, attesting to how weak its molecular bond is. Yet it is able to yank salt molecules out of each other, though not from attraction at a distance i.e. steam does not dissolve salt.

A water molecule, when in contact with solid salt, is already merged with salt molecules such that any existing attraction between them is due to merger attraction. As the water molecule is one H atom surrounded by eight, merged O atoms, it seems that the O atoms are the ones merging into the salt molecules. Therefore, the pull of the oxygen proton on the electron atmospheres of salt molecules is expected to be stronger than the pull of a salt proton upon neighboring electron atmospheres of other salt molecules. This is the reality far closer than what kineticists will tell you. I expect the O atom to be larger than both the sodium and chlorine molecule.

After untold billions of dollars spent to understand, and untold billions more to disseminate their understanding, kineticists have become masters of their kinetic model. The main problem: it's a figment of their imaginations. Their entire atomic-weight model is a figment because they refused to allow rising electrons to inform them of the largest versus smallest, or the heaviest versus lightest, atoms/molecules. Where in fact both the H and O atoms are larger than sodium or chlorine atoms, that's part of the reason that sodium-chloride, table salt, cannot evaporate while water evaporates. There's insufficient heat-particle-rise force under the salt molecule at the temperature of boiling water.

The heat-particle rise knocks the water molecules away from the dissolved salt molecules, and the latter have no choice but to fall to gravity, building up as a quasi-solid (kind of like salt dust) at the bottom of the pot. It teaches us that, not only are the heat particles unable to give salt molecules lift out of the water, but are unable to keep them aloft within the liquid.

Moreover, we learn that the bond between the salt and water molecule is so weak that, if we could lift one salted water molecule with our fingers into the air, its salt molecules would just drop out to gravity. That's what we learn when the water molecule alone gets evaporated. However, I said above that the attraction between salt and water molecules is stronger than the pull of gravity on solid salt, and here we find the appearance of the very opposite, gravity stronger than the salt-water attraction. Yes, but at the boiling point of water, there is added heat involved that loosens the grip between the salt and water molecules.

On the other hand, such things as alcohol, ammonia, acetic acid in vinegar, and acetone too, evaporate along with the water, meaning that the upward heat flow in water is able to lift them all out, and some of them remain bonded to the water molecules upon being lifted out.

Yet, gravity is unable to pull salt molecules down, when they are merged into each other, until salt's melting temperature of 801 C, though it doesn't necessarily mean that the inability is due purely to the salt-to-salt attractive force, for atomic shape can also strengthen a bond due to entanglements.

Recall that 3 kJ/g of heat is absorbed when solid salt is turned to salt gas, meaning that about 3 kJ/g are formed/released when the gas reverts to a solid. When hydrogen is combusted to form steam, I'm being told that 120 kJ/g of heat is formed. But you need to be very careful here because they may not be reporting the experimental reality of heat release when H gas combusts, but may have charts that tell them how much heat quantity is released per one type of atom dislodged from another, for example one O atom dislodged from one H atom, and one H atom dislodged from another H atom. As they view both H and O gas as possessing diatomic atoms (which I don't buy), their chart "realities" are not going be the true realities. Chemistry science can thus becomes a hell hole.

Furthermore, when I ask google, "I don't want the total energy input required to break both O-H bonds in a water molecule; I would like the heat quantity absorbed solely by the separation of the O and H in a water molecule, in kJ/g," it doesn't give me the 120 kJ/g that it gave me above, but rather 51.4 this time (or even 25ish if I phrase the question a little differently). It could be that the 51.4 is their theoretical heat absorption/release as per just one hydrogen and one oxygen atom unmerging/merging. It could be that the 51.4 was obtained in relation to their faulty view of a water molecule as an H2O molecule, such that separating the two H atoms from the one O atoms raises the 51.4 to 120, in their BOOKS.

By the way, don't use heat measurements in kJ/mole, because every substance has a different number of grams per mole, which is a lunatic system if you don't know what you are doing. For example, H gas combusts with a release of 242 kJ/mol (= 120 kJ/g) while salt releases 175 kJ/mol (= 3 kJ/g) when turning to vapor from a solid, but then, to explain the vast difference between 120 and 3, a mole of H gas (2 grams) weighs 29 times less than a mole of table salt.

If we can trust the 120 figure, it means that pound-per-pound, the full compliment of O atoms are merged into an H atom more deeply than salt molecules are merged into each other, to the extent of 175 units of heat versus 242 x 29 = 7,000 units, a difference of 40 times the 175 figure, which checks out where 3 kJ/g is 40 times less than 120 kJ/g. This, by using grams instead of moles, is an example of how to view the mechanics of the situation. This is how to read those numbers in terms of atomic-merger depth, but using moles is a mental hell hole for making comparisons, and maybe deliberately so in old efforts to keep the lowly scientists form making too many realizations.

"Pound-per-pound" means the same number of atoms per comparison. The full number of atoms of one water molecule have far-more merger volume than the same number of atoms of solid salt, making sense because the two atoms that make up salt are each smaller than O atoms, and it's the O atoms of a water molecule that do the merging into salt molecules.

I can't rule out the high probability that the jackasses have tossed out the some of the numbers obtained from experimental realities, for when it comes to writing school textbooks, there's crucial motive for some of those realities to be replaced with the expectations or demands merely of the theories.

If the atomic theories are as wrong as I've been pointing out, there's no way that many experimental realities can jibe with the predictions of their theories. NO WAY. You need to understand that, if what they write in school textbooks don't jibe even nearly with experimental realities, parents and even the teachers are going to flush chemistry and physics textbooks down the toilet. Therefore, when the masters had to make the choice on whether to teach the numbers obtained by experimental realities alongside the predictions of their theories (not going to match), they probably chose the latter exclusively (i.e. tossed out the experimental realities). You can see how the masters then turned these sciences into hell holes for all who depend on the numbers, such as factory manufacturers.

The burning of hydrogen gas produces more heat, pound-for-pound of gas, than any other gas, which is the experimental reality. It is a vast contradiction to where the jackasses have things jackass backward when they make the H atom the smallest of all atoms. How possibly can the smallest of all atoms make for the greatest heat production? There's no way to answer that question without making a jackass of yourself, and the jackasses do precisely that if you care to break down their reasoning. Most people just look the other way and trust their reasoning.

I asked google: "I don't want the total energy required to break both O-H bonds in a water molecule; I would like the heat quantity absorbed by the separation of the O and H molecules in kJ/mol?" On that one occasion alone, when asking for the answer on moles, it gave me the 242 above, which is equivalent to 120 kJ/g. When using the very same question but asking for a response in kJ/grams, I got the 51.4. From day to day, google AI could be schizoid, as you may already know.

If you don't phrase the question as I did above, or if you ask only, "when water is disassociated, how much heat is absorbed in kJ/mol?", the response will be "The total energy required to break both O-H bonds in a water molecule is approximately 920 to 930 kJ/mol." That whopping amount includes the heat needed to get the water to a temperature that causes disassociation in the first place. google AI has got to do better than to give those high numbers without indication as to what is fully meant. Confusion is their best weapon to keep us from realizing their scams.

I asked google: "why does chlorine in salt water not evaporate with evaporating water?"

Chlorine does not evaporate with water from salt water because it exists as part of solid salt (sodium chloride - NaCl) dissolved in the water, and solid salt has a much higher boiling point than liquid water.

When salt dissolves in water, it separates into individual positive Sodium ions and negative Chloride ions. These ions are held in the liquid by electrical attractions to water molecules.

As you can see, the claim is that the salt molecule disengages into its atomic parts such that both are alone in the water,. Therefore, if the two are no longer intact, the boiling point of salt is irrelevant. In other words, AI can apparently not find an answer to my question, and tried to offer some irrelevant trash. If the two salt atoms are alone in the water, then the thing of importance is the boiling points of both chlorine and sodium, not when the two are joined in forming salt.

I wanted to know why the chlorine atom, if it's indeed alone in salt water, does evaporate with evaporating water. But as part of the response above, AI doubled down with its trash:

Here is a breakdown of why [the chlorine] stays behind:

Vastly Different Boiling Points: Water boils and turns to vapor at 100C. Sodium Chloride (salt) does not melt until 801 C and does not vaporize (boil) until 1,474 C. Therefore, when water evaporates at low temperatures, it simply does not have enough energy to bring the salt with it.

As you can see, this response doesn't want to acknowledge that chlorine atoms are alone in the water, presumably because it can't explain why they don't evaporate. The response once again cites the boiling point of salt, which assumes that the salt is molecular (intact) in the salt water. Yet it claimed above that the chlorine and sodium atoms are separated in the salt water, as it does in this statement:

As water leaves [in evaporation], the chloride ions and sodium ions find each other again and reform solid salt crystals at the bottom of the container.

AI is a good liar on behalf of its masters. It answered my question without answering the question, well done, just like a typical evolutionist liar. The response ends with an unwilling admission that chlorine does in fact evaporate from water when it's alone in water:

Chlorine gas or bleach added to pools does off-gas (evaporate) because it is a different chemical form. However, the chloride ions found in seawater or table-salt-and-water solutions are extremely stable and do not evaporate.

Ya-sure-sure, different form. Yes, it is in a different form, but only because it's alone in the water when it's in your pool. The "chloride" is exactly the same as the chlorine atom, don't let them fool you. The reason that the chlorine doesn't evaporate in a salt water is that chlorine atoms are attached to sodium atoms. The two together are now heavier than when they are alone.

It doesn't matter that the chlorine atom is in contact with, or bonded to, the water molecule, it should evaporate in warm water because it evaporates on its own at a temperature of -34 C. Therefore, when water molecules leave the water surface, so would the chlorine atoms if indeed they are in the water alone.

I changed the question a little by adding "lone"; "why do lone chlorine atoms in salt water not evaporate with evaporating water?" This time we are getting a serious response:

Lone chlorine atoms — specifically, chloride ions in saltwater — do not evaporate with water because they are strongly attracted to the water molecules and the sodium ions, making them non-volatile. Evaporation requires high energy to break these electrostatic attractions, and at normal temperatures, only water molecules have low enough binding energy to escape into the atmosphere.

It's telling us that, although chlorine doesn't need even room temperature to evaporate, it doesn't evaporate when attached with handcuffs to water molecules, or when sodium atoms are nearby and tying some sort of chain to its ankle.

Ya-but, chlorine alone in water evaporates well below the boiling point of water, and here AI is trying to give reasons as to why it cannot evaporate at water's boiling point? Why is it trying to make that case? Only because dissolved salt does not go up with the evaporated water. Instead of inventing ways to explain why it doesn't go up, it needs to acknowledge that it's still connected to the sodium while in salt water.

The problem is, if they are going to argue that the lone chlorine atoms don't go up due to strong bonds with water molecules, that's exactly why they should evaporate together while still bonded. You can't have it both ways, arguing that the chlorine doesn't go up because the water molecules in the liquid are holding them down while the up-going water molecules discard them.

If chlorine were alone in water, our eating salt would dangerously allow lone chlorine atoms throughout the body. Chlorine dioxide, for example, is poisonous in too-large amounts, and can be ignited with a spark i.e. Would you drink chlorinated pool water? Just because the goofs think that chlorine is alone in water with lone sodium is no reason to think that the lone chlorine can't easy get out. But if the larger chlorine atoms are studded with smaller, merged sodium atoms, then it's safe in the body, obviously, to a degree.

The fact the chlorine evaporates at a relatively low temperature suggests that its atom has some significant size. The fact that its melting temperature is near its boiling temperature suggests that it has a spherical or near-spherical shape, without hooks or entanglement that would put more distance (i.e. higher evaporation point) between the melting and evaporation points.

But the chlorine atom is no match for the evaporability of acetone, for example, which does leave the water along with evaporated water molecules. I asked google for solutes that evaporate with molecules SEPARATED from evaporated water molecules:

Volatile solutes, such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, benzene, or toluene, evaporate with their molecules separating from water molecules because they are highly volatile.

Acetone dissolved in water will evaporate faster than the water itself, leaving the water behind,...

What are we learning here? We just saw a list of gasoline-like oil products, all of them hydrogen-carbon molecules, all of them containing the HUGE H atoms that get more lift than any other atom at the same temperature. That's why these products evaporate easily at relatively low temperatures. Like water, acetone can evaporate below its freezing temperature, and, like water, it consists of large atoms receiving much lift.

Methanol evaporates at any temperature above its melting point of nearly -100 C, and acetone has nearly the same melting point. The melting point is when the atomic bond equals the gravity pull, and evaporation is the overcoming of both the gravity pull and the atomic bond, from heat rising out of the liquid surface. Water ice likewise evaporates at -100 C.

As acetone and methanol are both lighter than water, per unit volume, it means that there are fewer atoms per unit volume, which should mean that their molecules are lighter than the water molecule. As proof of it: "At -95 C, methanol evaporates approximately 337 times faster than water, and acetone evaporates approximately 3,195 times faster than water." It gives me the impression that many more than one surface layer of methanol and acetone molecules evaporate at the same time, from the same batch of rising heat particles.

I think I can agree with physics that methanol is four parts hydrogen, one part carbon, and one part oxygen. I don't know what size the carbon atom might be in comparison to H or O atoms because carbon doesn't become gaseous such that it can be weighed at STP. But where four parts hydrogen mixes with one part oxygen, I can tell you that there are four O atoms per each H atom because one equal volume of each produces one H atom with 16 O atoms. If each methanol molecule has only one H atom and four O atoms, then we would probably add three carbon atoms for a total weight if 8 atoms, only slightly less than water molecules. I don't think that picture is going to explain how methanol gets much more evaporation than water unless water molecules are more deeply merged, which then allows the methanol molecule to be larger than the water molecule such that it receives more lift on top of being a little lighter. That could work.

This is how correct atomic physics is done, by first acknowledging the lift power of heat particles, and working things out logically. In this case, the slightly lower weight coupled with the slightly larger size is not enough, in my opinion, to explain 337 times more evaporation, but there was also the prospect of deeper merger for the water molecule, and that makes for a stronger atomic bond such that it could make water 337 times less evaporative.

I have no idea on whether chemistry has correctly described all the various fuels. For example, acetone is said to be six parts hydrogen, three parts carbon, and one or two parts oxygen, but I have no idea whether that's correct. All I know is that anything having to do with atoms can't be trusted when the baboons are working with them.

They claim that a theoretical carbon gas at STP weighs six times as much as a hydrogen gas, but I don't trust that claim. If correct, I would claim that there are six times as many carbon atoms per identical volume of H gas. In that picture, where benzene is defined by them as half H gas and half C gas combined, the molecule works out to one H atom per every six C atoms. Acetone works out to one H atom per three C atoms and two or three O atoms, but I don't see how the latter could evaporate 3,195 times faster than water unless it's very-slightly merged (very easy to lift off).

All three, acetone, methanol and benzene, dissolve in water, whereas oil and gasoline float in water unable to be attracted downward by the water's attractive capability, probably because the upward heat-particle force on oil and gasoline molecules is stronger (than the merger-attraction with water molecules).

Rust

This section, and the one after it, needs a proof read, which will be done by tomorrow morning, maybe tonight.

All of the uncertainties of the atomic world attest to God's great generosity to mankind, for the many options of atomic behavior allow for a different materials to pop up "magically." There are vast advantages in forming alloys, for example, where various metals become solutes within molten metals. Just 10 percent of chromium mixed into iron gets stainless steel, what a deal.

Imagine how many different materials can be made with 90-odd elements that bond with other elements and compounds, and with the many catalysts that cause bonding or modify it in many ways.

Chromium was not discovered until the age of chemistry, in 1797, and nobody figured out that it could make stainless steel until 1913. Chromium was discovered by heating chromium oxide; the chromium fell out. Oxygen bonds with many elements to create oxides. Why is oxygen so prone to bonding with substances while others are not? I feel sure that the attractive ability of water is in the O atoms that surround one H atom at the core. It's the O atoms that make water able to form so many solutes; we drink needed chemicals due to this ability, and "fortunately, crude oil in the ground does not dissolve in water. How "lucky." God knows what He's doing.

When iron is wet, the oxygen in the water pulls the iron atoms out to form the iron oxide molecule. This is technically called, "slow combustion," because the iron doesn't dissolve into the water. If it did, it wouldn't be combustion, a process always forming an oxide molecule.

Oxygen does not pull iron atoms out from a distance, not even when in contact with iron surfaces, not at all meaning that it has no attraction to iron atoms. The failure to cause rust when iron is in air alone is likely due to atmospheric oxygen atoms remaining at a distance from each other, unable to transfer iron atoms to each other. But that changes when water contacts iron, for water molecules are in contact with each other, able to form a draw-away "suction" on the iron atoms. Water molecules suck.

The formation of iron oxide, thought wrongly to be an Fe2O3 molecule, releases, rather than absorbs, a 5.2 kJ/g of heat, meaning that there is a significant depth of merger between the iron and oxygen but with much-less simultaneous unmerger of the iron atoms. Do you see how this works? There is heat absorption when the water pulls the iron atoms apart, but we then learn that the iron atoms merge much-more deeply into available O atoms to net a 5.2 kJ/g.

I'm reading that while water facilitates iron rust, the iron does NOT merge with the O atoms that are part of the water molecules. Instead, we are told that it merges with the free O atoms in the water. Is this even correct? It may not be because nobody can see what's going on with their eyes.

Air atoms in the air are pressed (by repulsion force) against solid surfaces, wherefore air atoms are pressed against iron atoms on bare iron...and probably merged into them (I can't see it any other way). When the wind blows along an iron surface, it removes the air atoms that are slightly merged with iron atoms, but, according to google AI, the air atoms are not able to yank iron atoms out such that they get blown together in the wind. But how can anyone prove either way whether there are lone O atoms stuck to a couple of iron atoms from when the wind blows air atoms off of an iron surface?

I've just read:

Yes, iron rusts significantly slower if there is no free oxygen (dissolved oxygen) in the water. While iron will still corrode (oxidize) in water without oxygen, it is a much slower process that forms a different, protective [rust] layer rather than the rapid, flaky, red-brown rust seen in air-exposed water.

It didn't tell me where the protective type of rust gets its O atoms, whether from the water or the air. If we think that an experiment with water-on-iron in a vacuum should tell us something about where the iron gets its oxygen, the problem is that water instantly boils away in a vacuum i.e. turns to steam. That's not going to tell us whether rust originates from free oxygen in water versus the O atoms of water molecules.

The following quote suggests that iron atoms can, in high heat, steal ALL the O atoms in water molecules, meaning that there is attraction force acting between the iron and water particles, when the two are in contact:

When hot steam contacts bare iron, a chemical reaction occurs, particularly if the iron is hot (red hot), resulting in the formation of iron oxide and the release of hydrogen gas.

The high heat forces the O atoms to unmerge a little from the central H atom in each water molecule. When unmerged enough, iron and oxygen atom pull each other into a merger, and wave bye-bye to the resulting lone H atoms that fly off. In the process of merging with oxygen atoms, the iron atoms turned to rust can barely keep a bond with pure metal atoms, and so the rust can flake off easily from the pure metal.

But did you note that, in fact, rust can form from the O atoms in water, without need of free oxygen in water? It could suggest that, at lower temperatures, the free oxygen is needed to facilitate the making of the rust molecule, in place of the high heat that makes a rust molecule from steam alone.

I asked: "do the free atoms in water form iron-oxide, or is it the O atoms in air?"

It is primarily the oxygen molecules in the air that react with iron to form iron oxide (rust). While water is essential for the process of rusting, the oxygen atoms in water are chemically bonded to hydrogen and are not free to oxidize the iron.

It mentions O atoms in air without telling that they need to be in the water, contradicting the claims of those who say that free oxygen in water is necessary to form rust. The claim above is stern in teaching that the O atoms bonded to water molecules play no role in forming rust. I'm not buying it, because iron can and does take O atoms from water:

Under specific, often anaerobic (low oxygen) or hydrothermal conditions, iron can strip oxygen directly from water molecules, releasing hydrogen gas (Wikipedia).

This occurs when the oxygen supply is limited, forcing the iron to take oxygen from the water molecule, leading to the creation of black rust (magnetite Fe3O4) rather than the common red-brown rust (Fe2O3).

High temperature is not needed to form black rust, and so we learn that rust can form, after all, with a low density of free oxygen, at which point the iron will disassociate the water molecule i.e. steal its O atoms.

I asked, "why do you say that rust cannot form from O atoms in water while also saying that black rust can rob O atoms from water?" The response (below) now tends to reveal that it's not O atoms in their air directly that cause red rust, but only when they are dissolved in water in what can be called "free oxygen" due to not being merged with H atoms:

The discrepancy lies in the difference between stable, common red rust and black rust...

Here is the breakdown of why these two statements are both technically correct:

1. Why Rust Cannot Form from Oxygen Atoms in Water

Common red rust needs the oxygen in the air dissolved in water to form.

The response as to my "why" question then ends with: "In this high-energy or specific cathodic environment, iron atoms can break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds in H2O to steal the oxygen, releasing hydrogen gas." Ya-but, that "specific cathodic environment" freak show sounds like some piece-of-trash reasoning to me, where they haven't got a clue how to explain the discrepancy. The alternative is that red rust DOES steal O atoms from water regardless of the claim that it doesn't.

Black rust is abundant in nature. It's purely an iron-oxygen molecule, same as red rust, only black rust (brittle) is bonded much better to the pure iron beneath it.

I'm thinking that each iron-oxide molecule could be one central O atom with many iron atoms merged into it. In that case, when the iron body pulls O atoms to itself, each O atom must "suck" iron atoms into its electron atmosphere, expected to circle evenly all around it. Yet we need to explain why the resulting rust can still stick to the iron body, but with little bond strength due to the invasion of O atoms.

The iron-oxide connection to pure iron is an iron-to-iron link, but where one side of the connection is from iron atoms merged into oxygen atoms. The latter can weaken the connection due to distance/space between the iron atoms saddled upon each O atom, and so whereas the pure iron has back-to-back irons atoms merged, the iron atoms on every O atom are not back-to-back, but provide dispersed/sparse connections to the pure iron. You might want to imagine maybe six iron atoms merged into one O atom, for example.

If the unmasterful masters are correct in saying that black rust (Fe3O4) is defined as the number of atoms in 4 volumes of O gas mixed with the number of atoms in 3 equal volumes of a theoretical iron gas (all at STP), then it has 56 percent (4/7 = .56), by volume, of oxygen gas. But the red rust (Fe2O3) is then 3/5 = .6 = 60 percent oxygen gas, which doesn't seem like enough difference to produce a non-flaky rust versus a flaky rust, meaning that, perhaps, their Fe3O4 and Fe2O3 formulas have at least one erroneous number.

Black rust forms under water, or high-water conditions. It seems possible that, if red rust didn't form first on unsubmerged iron, black rust would eventually form on such iron. The free oxygen in water places black-rust formation on hold, that is, such that it never gets to form for as long as water has plenty of free oxygen.

It seems evident that free O atoms pull iron atoms out of each other to some degree, and that there is a simultaneous weakening of the bond between iron atoms in the rust molecule and the non-rusted iron body. The bond is so weak that water is able to get between the rust molecules and the unrusted body in order to continue the rust process there, deeper and deeper into the iron.

However, free oxygen in water is so scarce that there is great distance between them, microscopically speaking. It's said to be about 20 parts per million, versus the quantity of water. I can't see how rust can proceed as fast as we can visibly see it taking place, after just one rainy day on bare steel, unless the O atoms merged in water molecules contribute to rust formation. I'm wondering whether the free O atoms in water dictate how other rust molecules must proceed such that they are always red rather than black.

I'm reading that black rust "typically takes longer to develop into a thick, stable layer compared to common red rust." It could be that once red rust gets into the driver's seat first, the process that forms black rust is forbidden to drive the process. Or, to the contrary, black rust may be due purely to some substance in lake or ground water that is not in rain water.

So what is it about water that allows iron atoms to steal O atoms? The answer appears to be in this: "Free Oxygen is Essential: Without gaseous oxygen (or dissolved in water), iron will not oxidize into traditional red-brown rust, even if liquid water is present." The scientists who conducted the experiments assumed that water is the catalyst while the free oxygen in the water is what joins to iron atoms.

Lambert and Thomson (circa 1910)...discovered that...pure iron does not rust in pure water [no free oxygen] and pure oxygen [in the air]. However, if oxygen was present [in the water], the rusting process was directly proportional to the available free oxygen, not the water.

I'll accept that statement, but I think it's wrong to assume that the water is only a catalyst. I'm thinking that, once a free O atom grabs hold of a few iron atoms, the resulting rust molecule does something to the surrounding water molecules in contact with it, such that the latter each lose one or more O atoms...that are then free O atoms i.e. able to grab more iron atoms. That makes some sense.

The next sentence after the google quote above continues:

Later studies confirmed that water acts primarily as an electrolyte/catalyst, creating an environment where oxygen can act as the oxidizing [rusting] agent. The dissolved oxygen in water reduces to form hydroxide ions, which then combine with iron to form rust.

The key red flag there is "hydroxide" atoms. How can hydroxide, which contains hydrogen, form merely from free O atoms, as the statement implies. AI can be pretty stupid at times, and so that probably explains it. O atoms do not "reduce" to an hydroxide molecule. Still, it seems evident that the unmasterful masters decided that hydroxide is a basic part of rust formation. What is that stuff, anyway? Is it real, or an invention due to the masters making a mess of things yet again? Hydroxide is a theoretical H-O product that I don't think can exist.

A free O atom in water, which is anchored to, or trapped by, the surrounding water molecules, pulls a few iron atoms to itself, forcing a merger, afterwhich SOME OF (not all) the O atoms come out of neighboring water molecules, and, as was theorized above, they then become iron robbers too. The water atoms, with reduced numbers of O atoms, become the "hydroxide" molecules...with a lifespan of about, oh, next to nothing. These molecules don't actually exist but as part of a transition from robbed water molecules to restored water molecules.

Although they claim that a hydroxide molecule is negatively charged, it's probably a figment of their imagination due to some rule they applied as a fix to their erroneous chemistry. No negative charge, and no ions, are needed to explain atomic bonding if the atoms are merely merged, for attraction is an automatic part of all mergers. They attract each other into each other, but the goofballs do not include this capability in their atomic models, and so they need to decide whether atoms bond by having either positive or negative ions at play, situations they invent as sheer figments.

A hydroxide ion is a negatively charged diatomic molecule (OH-) consisting of one oxygen atom covalently bonded to one hydrogen atom. It acts as a strong base, nucleophile, and catalyst in chemical reactions, commonly found in solutions that turn red litmus paper blue." (Wikipedia).

There's no such thing as a covalent bond; it's a figment of the orbiting-electron trash. They are completely out to lunch calling it an HO molecule, by which they mean that one gallon of O gas mixes with one gallon of H gas to produce one gallon of gaseous hydroxide, which is an impossible product when sourced in normal water because it's half a water molecule (HO8), which works out to an HO4 molecule. Free hydrogen merging with oxygen naturally forms an HO8 such that, if an HO4 develops by some means in water, it'll instantly reload with the free oxygen in water.

I asked google: "how stable in water is the HO- hydroxide molecule, and what does it turn into, and how fast?" I was given the following contradictory response indicating, I think, that some fool-hardy chemists want us to believe that this substance actually exists in water. They armed AI to lie on their behalf, but AI also found the contradiction:

The hydroxide ion (HO-) is extremely stable in water, as it is a fundamental product of water’s autoionization [there's the ion trash again]. It does not 'turn into' something else in the sense of decomposing or degrading under normal conditions, but rather exists in a rapid, continuous equilibrium, rejoining with hydronium ions (H3O+) to reform water within roughly 1 picosecond.

Hahaha, a picosecond is a trillionth's of a second, yet someone programmed AI to deceive the world with a STABLE hydroxide molecule that doesn't ever become a normal water molecule. Where it says, "it does not turn into something else," it's a contradiction to what follows, where it said to revert to water in a picosecond.

I rephrased the question and got: "Hydroxide ions (HO-) exist alone in water for an extremely short time, typically on the order of 1 to 5 picoseconds (1-5 trillionth's of a second) before recombining with a hydronium ion to form water, or swapping protons with surrounding water molecules." You can't trust these fools, they have no idea how many picosecond the thing survives for. They like to show-off how masterful they are with such dogmatism when in fact they are farcical GOOFBALLs...very similar to Trump.

Assume that free O atoms in water pull iron atoms out of each other, afterwhich the iron atoms steal SOME of the O atoms from water molecules, afterwhich the depleted water molecules INSTANTLY re-load with O atoms from the free O in the water, to become normal water molecules again. You can see why rust proceeds slow also by the possibility that iron-oxide formation depletes the free oxygen in the water, meaning that more rust formation will need to wait until O atoms enter the water from the air. The process can continue only as fast as air oxygen enters the water.

After asking, "how fast can a thin layer of water on steel, with zero free oxygen, become saturated with it when water sits still (no wind, no agitation)?" AI says: "A thin layer of water (e.g., a few microns to 1 mm thick) on steel can become saturated with oxygen from the air relatively quickly, often within minutes to a few hours, despite the lack of agitation or wind." Then, to answer another question, AI says: "Rust formation can deplete free oxygen in a thin layer of water (10–100 µm) on steel very rapidly, often within seconds to minutes,..." That could easily explain why rust proceeds so slowly. It's telling that, when iron is continuously wet, a steady stream of atmospheric O atoms enters the water, but reloads the depleted water slower than the rust procedure uses them up.

I suggest that, as the water molecules re-load when depleted of some O atoms, it fools the chemists into thinking that the iron gets its O atoms purely from the free O atoms.

Road salt (= same general material as table salt) facilitates rust formation, suggesting that salt molecules are yanking out iron atoms. In fact, "Salt-saturated water (approximately 26%–27% NaCl by weight at room temperature) contains negligible or extremely low levels of dissolved 'free" oxygen'" (google AI, source Wikipedia). Instead of free O atoms yanking out the iron atoms, salt takes their place and does a much better job probably because there's a lot more salt in the water.

Salt accelerates rust formation by acting as a powerful electrolyte [electrically charged entity], which drastically increases the conductivity [attraction] of water and facilitates the rapid electrochemical reaction between iron and oxygen (google AI).

That to me can be said much simpler as: salt molecules merged into some water molecules pull iron atoms of an iron body. Yes, but we can't stop there. Instead of the salt molecules merging with iron atoms, it's the O atoms upon the water molecules that do so; otherwise rust would be the result of salt merged with iron atoms.

We can't stop there. As that salted water has almost no free O atoms, we learn here that the O atoms upon the water molecules are going into rust production. They would say that the salt changes things, allows water molecules to participate directly in rust formation (not being a catalyst only), but I would say the same is true on unsalted water.

They can't get away from seeing ions in this rust picture: "These [iron] ions then combine with hydroxide ions in the water to form iron hydroxide, which eventually turns into iron oxide (rust)." Ya-but, that's nuts, and moreover the admission of hydroxide ions in the water is an admission that water molecules grant their O atoms to rust formation.

It's incorrect to say that iron atoms bond with hydroxide to produce iron hydroxide because the reality is that the hydroxide is the water molecule, and of course the iron does not bond with the water molecule. What's wrong with these goofballs? The iron bonds with the O atoms freed (by the iron atoms) from water molecules, and the remainder is the hydroxide molecule.

Plus, instead of the iron hydroxide turning to rust, as is claimed in the quote above, it's only the freed O atoms that do so. What is wrong with these goofballs? There is attraction between the freed O atoms and the iron atoms such that the iron steals away th O atoms.

The thing we learn here, in their ion interpretation of things, is that chemistry professors are highly repulsive and more unstable than hydroxide. It's take a lot longer than a picosecond to repair them. They have highly-charged imaginations that routinely jump the tracks to the rotten side of town.

He claims that two iron-hydroxide molecules turn into a combination of red rust and H2O, and he gets away with it because who are you to disagree and topple the empire? The masters can say whatever they wish, and the government will support them because the masters set themselves up as the masters not to be contended with, for they alone have the secret knowledge of the atomic world, and what mere group of politicians can disagree and topple the empire? They are dug-in.

How often have you seen green color in red rust? Yet, as proof that iron hydroxide forms in an intermediate stage of red-rust production, they say: "...the formation of iron(II) hydroxide, a greenish-white solid, which [iron] is quickly oxidized in the presence of oxygen and water to form iron hydroxide..." If its intermediate prior to the formation of red rust, we should always see greenish material amid the red rust, but I've never seen it.

The same AI response adds: "Spectroscopic techniques on corroded rebar have identified the presence of Fe(OH)3 and FeO(OH) along with Fe2O3, confirming hydroxide inclusion." Ya-but, if it's so fundamental to the production of rust, why do we need spectroscopy to prove that it's there? Why isn't it visible to the eye? I challenge to a dual by horse and lance, to the death.

I asked google if the green is visible to the eye: "Yes, greenish iron hydroxide — often referred to as green rust (an intermediate corrosion product...) — can be seen with the naked eye in rust, but it is rarely seen on typical, dry, air-exposed metal. It does not require a microscope, but it does require specific, often submerged, low-oxygen conditions to form and remain visible [in the green color]." Not seen with rust in air, but seen with rust in a lake. I win. There's no iron hydroxide in red rust. They lie.

"It is most commonly found on iron or steel submerged in seawater, in mud/wet soil, or on the underside of underwater steel structures where oxygen is low." I'm not buying it as anything fundamental to rust production. It looks more like a freakish substance, maybe from the urine of mythical Glaucus.

"Green rust is highly unstable and 'metastable'. The moment it is exposed to oxygen (air), it oxidizes very quickly — often within minutes — turning into the stable red-brown iron(III) hydroxide." Oh, it changes color. "If it dries out, it will turn brown." Dries out? That's sounds biological.

The water makes it green, and so it looks like a secondary water-iron product, not a fundamental rust product. I'm reading: "Yes, certain bacteria can make iron hydroxide (specifically ferric hydroxide) as a metabolic byproduct. These microorganisms, commonly referred to as iron-oxidizing bacteria (IOB), obtain energy for growth by oxidizing soluble ferrous iron into insoluble ferric iron."

My suspicions are that, in keeping with their conclusion that water's O atoms cannot contribute directly to making red rust, they devised an invention where the water is first turned to iron hydroxide, and only then into red rust.

Asking google whether O atoms can be removed from both red and black rust, I'm told that H gas at a high temperature can do it to both types apart from other facilitation (heat alone is needed). In this process, the heat acts to unmerge the iron and oxygen atoms, to some degree or fully, until the attraction between hydrogen atoms and the same oxygen atoms is strong enough to steal the latter from the iron atoms. Lone iron atoms and water are the results.

Hot hydrogen gas will force H atoms hard upon the surface of the rust, resulting in merger attraction between the H atoms and the iron atoms. I imagine the latter at the outer edges of the rust molecule, and so I ask self: how can the H atom grab the O atoms at the center of each rust molecule? Possibly, some iron atoms load into the H atom followed by O atoms that, in being more forceful upon the H atom due to deeper mergers, push out any iron atoms...as the O atoms spread around the H's electron atmosphere.

It seems logical that each H atom robs its eight O atoms from the iron before the O atoms are fully out of the iron atoms due to heat pressure, because the H atom is helping to get them out. "Yes, oxygen can be liberated from rust (iron oxide) at high temperatures with no other materials present, although this process requires extreme heat..." With hydrogen present, I'm reading that it needs about 350 C to liberate the O atoms from rust, which is not extreme heat, yet we can assume that the H atoms facilitate the removal of the iron atoms such that lower temperatures are sufficient. Once a sufficient number of iron atoms are removed, per iron molecule, the H atoms can load the O atoms.

Chemical reactions are often a game of atomic pop-out by a combination of merger attraction and heat-pressure forces. It's often a tug-of-war where the strongest do the popping out. You need to realize what they won't teach you, that even some gas atoms are in contact with solid and liquid substances, and all mergers involve attractive forces to different degrees depending on what atoms are involved. Physical contact between the H atoms and iron oxides is in play during the robbery of O atoms. Attraction from a distance is not required. Big-daddy hydrogen is expected to suck in both atoms that make up the iron oxide, but the iron atoms get spit out, otherwise pure iron atoms would not result, yet they do result.

In conclusion, when water contacts steel, there is attraction upon the steel atoms, without doubt, but while it's not quite able to yank out the steel atoms from other steel atoms, some facilitation from free O atoms gets the ball rolling. Due to the low numbers of free O atoms in water, it seems impossible to me that rust should proceed without some of the water molecules granting their O atoms to the making of rust.

The Potent Wee-Wee Hydrogen Atom

The repulsion or attraction between gas atoms and molecules can definitely exist at a distance, but only when heat-particle missiles strike them to shake out some of their electrons. This is cause for a chemical reaction, the making of molecules.

It's hard to see how mergers can take place from atoms at a distance aside from inter-attraction, when the only thing added to the materials, to cause mergers, is calm heat i.e. not a tumultuous spark. The latter is a huge lightning bolt in the midst of H and O atoms, and is expected to send heat particles (free electrons) crashing into both atoms, which can in turn send the atoms into collisions such that, theoretically, no inter-attraction is needed to bring them together into a merger.

But "quiet" or soft heat, a slow rising of temperatures in the midst of H and O gases, yet causes the two to merge, and that to me looks like inter-attraction, because there is no physical force to bring the first few atoms together. By "first few atoms," I'm referring to prior to when the chain reaction sets in (otherwise known as the combustion process). In order to begin the chain reaction, a first "few" atoms need to come together such that they contribute enough heat-particle missiles to begin the chain reaction.

Sparks themselves can be too small to ignite (cause a chain reaction in) hydrogen in normal air, even when hydrogen is saturated (at maximum mix) in the air. I'm reading that, when hydrogen gas is only four percent of the hydrogen-air mix, a spark of any size will fail to ignite it. This can be credited to the greater distances between H atoms when less sparse. They are too far apart for the destructive chain reaction (an explosion) to set in. Some H and O atoms merge, but not enough of them to create the heat needed for a chain reaction.

It's my view that gases explode due to electron missiles, which possess kinetic energy, yet it's not their kinetic energy necessarily that causes gas combustion. Rather, their bombardments are expected to increase the temperature of an atomic neighborhood, not by kinetic heat energy (which doesn't exist), but by the addition of heat particles to a neighborhood. That heat is the most-likely cause of combustion, not kinetic energy of the electron missiles.

It's a good guess that the kinetic energy (bombardments) of missiles change the normal electrical make-up of one or both atoms that normally do not attract, but those changes may not cause attraction. I've considered the idea, but this may not be the best theory. The bombardments may not be able to sufficiently bring one of the two atoms more to the net-positive condition such that mergers take place by any attraction that may result. Bombardments never make atoms more net-negative.

When trying to understand the situation, it is important to realize that the gas atoms are at all times under adopted repulsion force due to heat-particle push between them. It forces atoms as far apart as possible. Any mergers due to attraction needs sufficient attraction force to overcome this adopted repulsion. Missile bombardment alone may not be able to cause any attraction, or may cause insufficient attraction, but missile bombardments always release captured electrons, and this result is the most-likely cause of gas combustion, I now realize.

Clearly, the spark causes missiles that creates the attraction, but where there is no spark, the only other source for electron missiles is when temperatures above 500 C (ignition temperature of hydrogen) cause H and O atoms to attract, suggesting that the addition of heat particles to both atoms causes the attraction somehow.

The H and O atoms merge at over 500 C even when the pressure is one atmosphere, meaning that none of the atoms involved are closer to each other due to increased temperature. The only way my atomic model can explain the mergers in that situation, from my knowledge of the situation (I could be missing something), is where the added heat particles crush (not "crash") into the atoms, adding negative charge to them and thus causing attraction at a distance in some way.

One way to explain it is that both the H and O are positive in charge at normal air temperatures, whereas the addition of heat-particle electrons to both, until 500 C, makes one of the atoms net-negative enough to secure sufficient attraction at a distance to cause merger. If that's the correct view, it can reveal that all types of atoms have become net-negative by 500 C, for the H atom is the largest of all, and if it's been made net-negative by 500 C, all others have too, I think, but not necessarily including molecules larger than H atoms.

I think that all types of atoms begin as net-positive after gravity has done its work of repelling away some captured electrons. Then, heat begins to do its work to add electrons to the atoms, and my guess is that smaller atoms become neutral at temperatures lower than for larger atoms, and therefore the same is true for when they achieve a speakable amount of net-negative charge. That is, atoms with larger electron atmospheres need higher temperature to become net-negative. This picture can really give the screws to experimenting chemists because, depending on the temperatures, all atoms can transition from net-positive to net-negative.

I asked: "does it ever seem to chemists that atoms change their charge from positive to negative due to temperatures changes?" The response shows them to be jackass-backward:

Chemists and physicists observe that atoms can change their charge state due to temperature changes, particularly when transitioning to extreme temperatures. However, this is generally described as a process of ionization — where atoms lose electrons and become positive ions — rather than changing from positive to negative.

To the above, we need to add this other part of their view: "Prior to forming a water molecule, individual oxygen and hydrogen atoms are not typically charged ions (net-negative O or net-positive H) at atmospheric temperatures. Instead, they exist as neutral atoms..." So there you have it: they see atoms going from neutral to positive with added heat, but cannot explain (with their kinetic view of atoms) heated atoms becoming net-negative. Yet they do in fact claim that atoms are net-negative, even at high temperatures, when they need to, which is double-speak, breaking their own rules, no surprise whatsoever.

In my theory, high temperatures add electrons to make atoms more toward the negative, but in their theory, where atoms collide harder at higher temperatures, they see atoms becoming more net-positive due to losing electrons. This explains why I see the O atom as net-positive when they join H atoms at 500 C, yet they see it the other way around. AI: "Yes, even at 500 °C, just before water formation, the oxygen atom is net-negative (electron-rich) while the hydrogen atom is net-positive (electron-poor)."

Similarly, "Yes, at 500 °C, the oxygen (O) atom in a water molecule remains net-negative and the hydrogen (H) atoms are net-positive." I know they have it backward because the kinetic model of heat is impossible. Apart from kinetic atoms explaining heat, it can be explained only with heat material increasing between atoms, which crowds in on atoms and ADDS electrons to them.

I asked: "how can you say that atoms at room temperature are neutral, and then claim that O atoms at 500 C are net-negative?" Here's how someone at Quora answers without explaining the obvious problem: it breaks the rules of kineticism:

Atoms are considered neutral at room temperature because their number of electrons balances their number of protons. However, at 500C, oxygen is highly reactive [doesn't prove it's negative versus positive], and in many environments, it becomes part of molecular species [the ones that don't obey the law of Kineticism] where it is net-negative — meaning it has acquired a partial or full negative charge due to its high electronegativity."

Atoms don't suck more electrons due to their net-negativity, get a truth bone into your body, buddy. None of what he/she conveys speaks to why a neutral atom at low temperatures should become negative in charge at higher temperatures that, according to kineticism, is supposed to strip atoms of electrons.

They are willing screwballs when attempting to justify breaking their own rules (by some invention), such as saying: "Oxygen has the second-highest electronegativity on the periodic table. When it reacts, it 'steals' electrons from other atoms, acquiring a net-negative charge.." Ahh, achem, if it steals electrons, it's positively charged, duh. And it can only go as far as becoming neutral when stealing electrons, not net-negative. An atom can become net-negative only when something foists sufficient electrons upon it, and, at high temperatures, heat particles are what logically and obviously accomplishes that feat.

So, H and O atoms merge at around 500 C. Atomic mergers always release heat, hot flames or explosions in this case thanks to electron missiles formed during merger. This is the simple and true mechanics of combustion of any gas.

The spark is a one-time event in an explosion that will move clear across the room, burning every H atom in the room far from the spark, because the heat caused by the mergers is itself able to merge other H and O atoms beside the spark. But not if the H atoms are too far apart, for heat decreases exponentially with distance.

I'm reading: "Hydrogen gas fails to ignite with a flame when its concentration in air is below approximately 4% by volume (the lower flammability limit or LFL) or above approximately 75% by volume." A fact with an unexpected problem such as that can become a super revelation as to what's going on in the invisible world. The goofers have had a couple of centuries to discover the revelation, but the best they could muster is

If the concentration of hydrogen exceeds roughly 75-95% (depending on the mixture, e.g., in oxygen), it will fail to ignite [even at 500 C] because there is INSUFFICIENT [caps mine] oxygen present to support combustion.

In their theory, there cannot be insufficient O atoms to cause a reaction (an atomic bond) because all they have to work with is negatively-charged O atoms and positively-charged H atoms. It doesn't matter that there are few O atoms, they are yet expected to bond with H atoms, in their view. Therefore, the above claim that there are insufficient O atoms is just another example of how they ignore contraventions of their own kinetic model.

Air has 21-percent O atoms. When open/atmospheric air has 75-percent H atoms and 25 percent air atoms, the 21 percent of O atoms becomes 25 percent x 21 percent, or .25 x .21 = .05 = 5 percent O atoms. AI says seven percent, which is one O atom per every 14 H atoms. How are they going to explain that, at 500 C, these fewer O atoms should not attract and bond with H atoms? Their problem is, they don't have a logical reason to claim anything but that all of the available O atoms should bond with the ample H atoms such that there ought to be a rich formation of HO and HO2 (not H2O) molecules. When I inquire about it, I'm told: At 550°C, atomic oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) do not inherently 'fail' to bond simply due to a 1:14 concentration ratio (excess hydrogen). It goes on to say that HO and HO2 (not H2O) can be formed, but this needs to be placed into context where in fact they probably do not form at all...even though kineticism expects much production:

The short answer is no, at 550°C and a hydrogen concentration of 75% or higher, the formation of HO and HO2 radicals is negligible and does not reach levels typically considered 'to speak of' in a chemical or combustion context.

If you challenge these lunatics, you can fish out their lunacy, by which I mean to say that they never stop inventing fixes to their own basic expectations, and such inventions, because they are both numerous and not real, are properly defined as "lunacy." They are in a lunatic domain with their accepted / argued "facts."

I have the problem of explaining why too high a hydrogen-gas concentration fails to combust. I need to argue that, if a spark or flame is applied to a concentration of one O atom per 14 H atoms, all the many H atoms will compete to attract the little birdie. The next little birdie is going to be a few H atoms down the street, but it's going to be attracted by another H atom altogether. There are so many H atoms that it's doubtful any one of them will end up with even two O atoms. We can readily see that this situation produces very-little merger volume such that the electron missiles formed to cause a chain reaction just aren't there in sufficient numbers.

Moreover, the fewer the electrons that come streaming out of a merged H atom, the weaker the electron missiles. The more dense the stream of electrons from each atom, the harder they repel each other, the faster missiles they become. If only one O atom merges into an H atom, the electron missiles will be weak.

My problem gets harder now, when we read: "Yes, a hydrogen concentration of 73% in air will combust, and very likely explode, when exposed to a spark." Yet, it won't ignite at 75 percent or higher concentration. How much difference can there be, in the distance between O atoms, in a 73-percent versus 75-percent concentration? Not much.

All I can argue is: at 73 and 74 percent, both the distance and atomic forests (includes nitrogen atoms) between H and O atoms are together not sufficient to keep H atoms from attracting eight O atoms each. But at 75 or 76 percent, the two together are able to keep H atoms from loading eight oxygen atoms.

The context here is that H atoms do not load anything but the eight O atoms sufficient to form water. That is, if we mix three gallons of H gas with one gallon of O gas, and ignite it, two full gallons of H gas will combust with the full gallon of O gas, to produce two gallons of water ALONE i.e. perfect steam, and with one full gallon of perfect, untouched H gas as the remainder.

In other words, all three gallons of hydrogen will not participate in the combustion such that the resulting molecules are deficient in the number of O atoms that water always possesses. The three gallons of H will produce only HO8 molecules, and no HO6 molecules even if there's sufficient H atoms to mathematically allow HO6 molecules to form.

There is something about H atoms that tends to load no fewer than the normal number of eight O atoms. When the goofers talk about HO molecules (half a water molecule, in their minds), it's another lunatic fantasy that they can exploit when needed to explain why their own rules are contravened. It's not like they put an ace alone up their sleeves for emergencies, but more like the entire card factory.

I wish I could understand why the H atom will not load with fewer than eight O atoms. The best I've been able to say is that it always loads as fully as possible, with eight, though with some facilitation it can load 16 to form hydrogen peroxide (which they call H2O2, two volumes each of H gas and O gas), which could possibly be one O atom piggy-backing (merged) upon each O atom merged into one H atom.

The following fact allows us to learn something:

Yes, hydrogen gas at 75% to 80% concentration in air will likely combust at temperatures of 1000 C or higher. While the standard upper flammability limit (UFL) of hydrogen at room temperature is approximately 75%, increasing the temperature significantly expands this flammable range, allowing richer mixtures to ignite.

In my view, higher temperatures make H atoms more net-negative and thus more capable of attracting O atoms through the atomic forest.

Back to lower hydrogen concentrations. Electron bombardments of atoms, from a spark, cause them to lose electrons, and once lost they are immediately converted to heat particles for as long as they are in the middle realm between the atoms, for as long as they are not yet re-loaded onto the atoms. Therefore, I can imagine with logic that, for a split second, electron missiles bring a local neighborhood to over 500 C, which thus produces more missiles by atomic mergers.

The spark alone can bring the neighborhood to over 500 degrees, because the spark consists of freed electrons. All light is formed from emitting captured electrons (no photons needed). The standard tool that creates a spark for lighting torch gas by friction is evidence that the electrons flying out, at the frictional rub, are bombarding air atoms such as to violently remove (emit) some of their captured electrons, and that's why the spark makes light, from air atoms emitting electrons into the aether (free electrons) ever-existing between air atoms. Wherever there is heat, there is the light-wave medium, the aether.

I asked google how the smallest of all atoms could produce the greatest amount of combusted heat, pound-per-pound of gas:

The hydrogen (H) atom produces the greatest heat per unit mass when combusted — approximately 120–142 MJ/kg, or roughly three times more energy than gasoline — because of its extremely LOW MOLECULAR MASS [caps mine], high reactivity [what's that, a trick?], and the efficiency [what efficiency?] of the resulting bond formation.

Low mass just means small size in their minds, but how can low mass possibly explain high energy? It's an oxymoron. In their own atomic model, they have every type of gas producing exactly the same level of motion energy, when they are all at STP. They claim that every gas at STP has the same numbers of atoms, and so where O gas weighs 16 times more than H gas, the false claim is that the O gas has atoms 16 times larger and heavier, but travelling 16 times slower than H atoms. Thus, the smaller and lighter H atoms can produce no more than the same level of motion energy, which is to say the same level of force (gas pressure) when colliding with the container walls. That's what I mean when saying that they have every type atom or molecule, at STP, producing the same motion energy, and, their problem is, motion energy is exactly heat energy in their view.

Therefore, AI was unable to answer the question acceptably because the morons who invented the wee-wee haven't got an answer to reckon with. By the time that the H atom was invented, they knew that hydrogen gas is a potent heat creator, yet their big-bang theory needed a small, rudimentary (the smallest of all) H atom to best explain star formation by the big bang.

Part of the answer was H's "high reactivity," but that has nothing to do with the level of heat production. It's not how easy an atom can merge with others, not how popular it is when bonding with others, that determines the level of heat it puts out when bonding. For me, their H atom is highly laughable because the reality is that heat output is based on depth of atomic merger, yet this wee-wee has almost nothing to offer.

Part of the answer is "the efficiency of the resulting bond formation." What in tarnation does that allude to? Yes, the H atom has a deep bond strength, but not if its the lightweight of the world with only one electron. How can anyone argue bond efficiency in that bittie?

An additional part of the same response adds:

Because hydrogen is the lightest element, 1 kilogram of hydrogen contains a much higher number of moles [volume] of fuel than 1 kilogram of gasoline.

Haha, I see nothing said by that statement to crown the H atom as the heat-producing champion of the world. In fact, the higher the number of moles per kilogram of gas, the higher its merger-depth potential, which is a thing they do not acknowledge. Hydrogen gas has the most moles per weight only because it's the gas with the largest atoms, and thus it's the gas with the fewest atoms per STP volume. In being the largest atom, it adopts the most repulsion force such that it has the fewest atoms per identical pressure at STP, which is exactly why it's the lightest gas, for all atoms weigh the same, and so the gas with the least atoms weighs the least.

There's nothing in the response ANYWHERE that mentions the atomic speeds of the various gases, as if, suddenly, heat potential has nothing to do with atomic speeds. The response from AI tends to view heat potential in gases from the MERGERS of the atoms when combustion takes place.

Below we have more from the same response. The argument includes the desperate idea that small size can allow a higher number of bonds. Yes, but, per unit volume of material, a higher number of bonds by small atoms is not necessarily going to get more heat formation than fewer bonds from larger atoms. However, their argument is a red herring, for you can easily understand that, where there are small, back-to-back spheres a half-inch round all merged halfway into a four-inch sphere, their total merger depth will not be as voluminous as eight large spheres of about 2-inch diameter each merged halfway into the same four-inch sphere.

[The H atom's] small size allows MORE energy-releasing bonds to be formed per kilogram of fuel compared to heavier hydrocarbon fuels, which contain heavy carbon atoms that do not contribute to heat generation.

Hydrogen combustion forms water, with the H-O bond formation releasing a tremendous amount of energy. Unlike hydrocarbons, hydrogen combustion does not waste mass on heavy carbon atoms.

But wait. They tell us that heat is the speed of molecules, and now suddenly parts of gasoline molecules that disassociate provide ZERO HEAT??? How can that be? Instead of arguing for ability of the smallest atom to produce the most heat, this response insults gasoline molecules by accusing their carbon atoms of being heavy and lame. It's like desperation to provide some sound reasoning.

As you can glean in the phrase above, "energy-releasing bonds", they are talking about atomic mergers, not atomic speed. They are talking heat released from atomic mergers, and will argue that gasoline molecules have mergers that contribute zero heat, which is impossible. Every merger releases heat. You read above, with your own eyes, the excuse that "heavy" carbon atoms contribute zero heat. But that's ridiculous because CO (carbon monoxide) is a combustible gas that of course does release heat (when forming carbon dioxide).

They call gasoline, C8H18, and once burned produces water and carbon dioxide. Both products form from mergers with O atoms, and as such both products release heat. But when AI is tasked by the imposters to explain how the wee-wee can produce more heat than gasoline, they try to convince us that carbon in gasoline doesn't burn, hoping you will just look the other way as the jackass defecates on your feet. When asked, google readily admits:

Yes, the carbon in gasoline directly contributes to heat output. The combustion process in an engine occurs when carbon and hydrogen from the gasoline combine with oxygen from the air, a reaction that breaks chemical bonds and releases energy in the form of heat.

My argument is that, exactly due to a wee-wee size, and especially due to the fact that the baboons allot just one electron to the H atom, it cannot produce the most heat when it merges with O atoms. As heat is produced by electrons going free during mergers, a wee-wee will produce the least amount of heat during combustion.

I showed above that, the smaller the back-to-back atoms that are halfway sunk into a large atom, the smaller the overall volume of merger depth. By back-to-back, I mean the maximum number of atoms that can be merged on the larger atom's surface. The larger those merged atoms, the larger the merger volume.

To be convinced of this, imagine spheres just 1/8th of an inch in diameter, each sunk halfway into, and all around, a four-inch "atom." That wee bit of merger depth, only 1/16th of an inch deep into the atom, cannot provide as much merger volume as one-inch spheres each halfway merged into, and all around, the 4-inch "atom." Therefore, the larger the atom, the greater the potential to produce heat by mergers, meaning that wee-wee is the least potent of all. The good news is, there is no wee-wee H atom, and so there's no use trying to manufacture ways by which to prove that the smallest atom can have the greatest heat output.

Here is more of the AI response as it glorifies the H atom:

Hydrogen has a broad flammability range (4%–75% in air) and requires very low energy to ignite, allowing it to burn faster, hotter, and more completely than other fuels.

The size of spark to ignite H gas versus gasoline gas has nothing to do with the resulting heat formation. It's complete desperation to the point of a sham to cite the ease by which H gas ignites. It ignites easier because it burns better, not vice-versa.

Telling us that hydrogen burns hotter and faster doesn't touch upon whether the H atom is the smallest or largest. Telling us that hydrogen burns more completely is a ruse, for the entire gasoline burns too, because it all turns to oxide.

It then says: "The hydrogen flame propagates at 1.85 m/s, much faster than gasoline (0.42 m/s), leading to a rapid release of heat." Wunderbar, H gas has the most heat, the fastest-spreading heat, exactly why it can't consist of the smallest atom. Yet that sentence is part of the response as to how the H atom can be the smallest. Someone is singing the praises of H gas in order to prove that it can also be the smallest, but pointing out its pluralistic superiority amounts to multiple arguments for it's large size. I don't know how worse they can get things so backward.

The last part of the response deals with their diatomic H atom, which I reject. They view H gas as having an H2 molecule, and they assign it a weight of two grams per mole. They invented a theoretical H (not H2) gas having lone H atoms, which they assigned one gram per mole. And that's how they rolled and never looked back. The last part of the response:

Efficiency in Bond Breaking/Reforming: While energy is required to break the covalent bond between two hydrogen atoms (H2), the energy released when those atoms bind with oxygen to form water is significantly higher.

You can see their game, that in an effort to explain how wee-wee can become the boxing champion of the world, they try to convince you that tearing apart the H2 molecule, when the H2O molecule is formed from two H2 molecules, involves less heat absorption than when two separated H atoms merge into the same O atom. In other words, not only do they opportunize with whatever's available, on behalf of an explanation, but they fully admit that heat creation has to do with atomic mergers.

Then, to spare themselves egg on their faces because it appears that faster atomic speed has nothing to do with heat creation, they invent ways to explain how atomic mergers produce faster atoms. They will invent whatever it takes to protect the kinetic kingdom.

AI won't answer my question when asking: "HOW does the formation of water from combusted H gas speed up the resulting water molecules?" It's not enough to say: "The formation of water from hydrogen gas combustion speeds up the resulting water molecules primarily through the rapid release of massive internal energy, which is converted directly into the kinetic energy of the product molecule." Ya-but, they admit that the "rapid release of massive INTERNAL energy" is not kinetic energy.

Moreover, what exactly is their internal energy? How do they lay its mechanics out into the light and upon on the table for us to study and understand, to test or to dissect? I don't need them to tell me what the internal energy is. I know that it's the captured electrons, meaning that however they lay their mechanics on the study table, it's erroneous, because the rapid release of captured electrons do not become atomic kinetic energy. They do not even have released electrons as their internal energy.

Two H2 molecules unmerge. One O2 molecule unmerges. Two of the four unmerged H atoms, along with one of the two unmerged O atoms, becomes one H2O, and the other two H atoms along with the remaining O atom becomes a second water molecule. That's how they roll with this because they insist that O atoms are really a diatomic O2 molecule. They cannot have a water molecule forming more simply with one H2 molecule merging with one O atom because that would leave a remaining and unused O atom from an O2 molecule. They therefore invent an amount of heat absorption for when the two H2 molecules, and the one O2 molecule, break up, when they form water. That heat absorption does not exist. The only thing that exists is an H atom merged with eight O atoms, plus the heat released from those eight mergers.

They imagine H2 molecules racing and crashing about in the midst of O2 molecules likewise racing about and crashing. They don't so much as get bruises at zillions of crashes per second. They are invincible, ever perfect, ever bouncy. Light a spark, and zappers, they think that both the H2 and the O2 get separated. But how? The spark is supposed to create attraction between H and O atoms, but they also assign the spark the task of unmerging H and O molecules.

I ask: how does the H2O product get more atomic speed than the original H2 and O2 had? As soon as they separate, there's a burning flame that burns hot-hot-hot, and so we expect fast-fast-fast steam molecules if indeed heat is defined as atomic speed. Where can that speed come from if it's impossible to create energy out of nothing?

Captured electrons are not technically heat while captured, but they are indeed heat particles nonetheless while captured. They become heat only when freed from their captured situation. I have this explanation. But they cannot explain the fast-fast-fast steam molecules that result from H-gas combustion. When they try to explain it, they appear like desperadoes, if you care to look at it.

A spark can speed some H2 and O2 atoms to begin the combustion, but the spark can't speed up the entire room of gas that explodes with great fury and power. Where does that FAST-FAST-FAST energy come from, if indeed it's all from faster-crashing atoms? How can the mere separation of H and O atoms, and there re-combination as water molecules, create such faster atoms as to blow out the window glass? Forget it. Be smart. Credit the release of inter-repelling electrons that come out like jack-in-the-box from every H atom in the room, and from the eight O atoms per every H atom.

The same AI response continues:

The combustion process breaks the stable bonds of H2 and O2, allowing the atoms to rearrange into a lower potential energy state, releasing energy as high-temperature heat and light.

What is this invented and resulting "lower energy state"? How can such a thing exist in a hydrogen-gas explosion that blows your doors off of its hinges? They believe that energy cannot be created out of nothing, but not knowing where to get the energy of the explosion, they just create the concept of a low-energy situation, and then say: the loss of energy there is the formation of energy here. FARCE. They are claiming that the explosion energy is directly from the "lower energy state." Low produces high, magicland in action. Therefore, we'd like to see this lower-energy animal on the study table, full lights on.

Asking google to explain a lower energy state, part of the response: "When two hydrogen atoms form a chemical bond (H + H becomes H2), they move closer together, and the system reaches a lower potential energy, releasing heat." Yes, of course, they move closer together, releasing heat, because merger releases the captured electrons. But why do the goofers call it a lower-energy state if they don't know how the heat comes out of it? That's the animal I'm after. What do they replace my captured-electron reality with an invention? They will become nutcrackers to protect the kingdom from invasion by caloricists.

Yes, after the captured electrons come out, we can say that the water molecules have less stored energy, but how do we view the water molecules with less kinetic energy if they've just blown the gates off of their castle?

You've probably seen diagrams of molecules where they put short sticks between the various atoms of the molecule. That way, you don't see them merged. You might start to get ideas if you always see atoms merged, ideas that counter what you are taught about atoms.

Let me repeat their quote above while changing their "heat" term to "an explosion." "When two hydrogen atoms form a chemical bond (H + H becomes H2), they move closer together, and the system reaches a lower potential energy, releasing an explosion." They claim that the formation of the exhaust, the water, is the lower-energy state, meaning that they have the exhaust as the thing causing the explosion...because they have no released heat particles to create the explosion. What else have they got? They have the powder keg, the H and O atoms not yet merged, and they have the water, the exhaust, but they can't explain the explosive material in the keg. They are trying to invent an non-material explosive with mere words.

Alas, they define the lower-energy state as the orbiting electrons of the water molecule going into lower orbits. Not coming out of the keg, but sinking lower into it. The only thing coming out of the keg, as electrons go lower, are photons, according to their own "science." A "covalent bond" refers to orbiting electrons, what lunatics believe in:

Once ignited, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms rush together to form covalent bonds and create water molecules. This new bond arrangement is far more stable [so what?] than the initial state, meaning the electrons drop to a much lower energy state.

Once chin deep in error, the next thing to suffer are the eyes and ears. The electrons of the water molecules go downward in orbit, just because they don't know what better picture to offer, and, voila, the explosion happens. Repeat after me, "orbiting electrons go down, doors are blown off their hinges." See any sanity in that?

They then say that mere photons, with near-zero mass, are released when orbiting electrons go down in orbit. Ya, but, zowie, you need a lot of concentrated photons to blow the window glass to the street curb. NO STUPIDS, it's not massless photons, it's much-larger electrons rushing out of atoms, filling the room and repelling each other, while pushing air atoms, through the glass. The fake experts will not adopt this reality because they assign the H atom one measly electron. PITIFUL.

Photons, which do not exist, are thought to cause no wind by their physical contact with air atoms. Yet the hydrogen-gas explosion is defined as a blast of wind, which can be easily explained where freed electrons typically push air atoms. In very fact, it's free electrons in the atmosphere that are the basis of all winds.

When initially asking google how the energy of a gas explosion is produced, it failed to tell me about the electrons going to a lower orbital level. It said only that the water molecule is at a lower energy state. It said nothing of photons. It's as if its programmers don't want us to realize, with that particular question at hand, that they are crediting photons for the explosion. It's all they have to credit. It's standard textbook teaching that electrons going down in orbit release photons, but when asking why the gas explosion takes place, suddenly AI was seemingly trying to hide the photon energy.

After failing to answer the question with the mechanics involved, I asked again: "please answer this question directly: WHY or how does the mere process of hydrogen atoms moving closer to O atoms form an explosion?" The response, though long, did not include "electron" or "photon." AI chose this response from reddit:

The explosion caused by hydrogen and oxygen atoms moving together is a rapid chemical reaction known as combustion, which releases intense heat and energy, causing an instantaneous, violent expansion of gas [no mechanics told]. The 'moving closer' process, triggered by a spark or heat, allows them to rearrange from high-energy, unstable diatomic gases (H2 and O2) into a much more stable compound, water.

This character logically seems to be crediting the original H and O atoms as the punch behind the explosion. I can agree, since they carry the electrons to be freed. But he cannot explain how the coming together of H and O atoms causes a great velocity increase of the water molecules, For, they do nothing but collide, and the collisions slow them down because they are essentially head-on-collisions. It's the opposite of what the heat particles do, which is to repel each other outward in all directions, exploding out the back door as well as the front door.

Plus, as the imposters well know, the gas explosion moves clear across a house in a split-second, something atoms cannot do if they are doing so while making each other race faster in all directions. It takes a lot of time for atoms to transfer their motion energy 40 feet away. And, besides, they may say that it's not the motion energy of atoms that moves across the house in a split-second, but the combustion process. Yes, but, all told, they need to explain the potency of the explosion by the motion of atoms, if they are going to reject heat material.

There problem is that their kinetic view of atoms has them moving in zero direction on average. Each one moves left as much as right, up as much as down, and so the atoms don't really move at all over a span of minutes. The atoms racing around above your gas stove stay racing around above your gas stove for quite a long time, and speeding them up by 100 times will not alter that fact.

To put it another way, it's impossible for me to see how the separated H and O atoms can move so fast toward each other by simple attractive forces as to become so powerful as to blow the front door clear across to the car on the driveway. None of the atoms in the house can move faster than the speed of the colliding H and O atoms, if indeed the explosion is from those speeds.

But if packed, captured electrons are suddenly released, all in a split-second, from the east wall of the house to the west wall, and from the south wall to the north wall, you can easily imagine why the explosion takes place so violently. Every H atom in the house, as well as their O couplets, are releasing captured electrons. STUFF. The stuff of the explosion. No fancy words needed to delude your thinking. Just plain heat material you didn't know existed because the fools made a fool of you.

The AI response ends with:

Essentially, the explosion happens because the system rapidly moves from a high-energy state to a lower-energy, more stable state, releasing the difference as explosive kinetic energy.

Ya-but if the end result is the lower-energy state, how is that an explosion? If the original H and O particles have the wild energy to cause the explosion, yet they end up colliding to form a low energy state, how can that transfer wild energy anywhere? This animal has no legs.

It would be much better if these goofballs could somehow get the original H and O energy to go elsewhere aside from into each other, because the latter slows each other. The H and O can't go toward the front door or window because they are attracting each other. We need particles that can go out the door and window if we are going to explain an explosion properly.

What they are trying to trick you into thinking is that, because the original H and O atoms have MORE ENERGY than the resulting water molecules, therefore that's the energy you can bank on as the explosion energy. In other words, the trick is to invent a potential difference in energy, and hopefully you will bite and "understand" even though there's no way to understand it should you decide to study the nuts and bolts of it.

On the one hand, they want photons to be fully massless to explain their impossible speeds, and on the other hand they need its kinetic energy at times to help explain experimental results. I asked: "do photons emitted from water-molecule electrons bring enough kinetic energy to explain a hydrogen-gas explosion?" Answer: "Photons emitted from water-molecule electrons do not bring enough kinetic energy to explain a hydrogen-gas explosion."

I suggest that we forget the spark in an attempt to explain why their model is incorrect. Forget the kinetic energy of the spark, as it's of no consequence in the total energy created in an explosion. Let's just pretend that one H2 and one O2 molecule separate to form a water molecule. The latter then needs a PACKET OF ENERGY to affect a neighboring H2 and O2 such that they too separate. Wunderbar, the chain reaction can continue, but only under the condition that each newly-formed water molecule gets a packet of energy to continue the chain reaction. That's what I'm talking about. Where does that energy come from, in their model? AI can't tell me, in a way I can understand it. It's mentioned "excess energy," but where does it originate, and how does it carry? Does it come from higher-orbiting electrons in the H and O atoms prior to their forming water?

We are told that the H2 and O2 molecules are STRONGLY bonded, as if this helps their case. In my mind, the stronger the bond, the deeper the merger, the more heat it STEALs when the molecules separate, but how is that conducive to granting water molecules the energy packets needed to set up a chain reaction?

Moreover, they are completely laughable when saying that H2 molecules, where each H atom has ONLY ONE electron (hahahahah), have a STRONG bond. There's virtually nothing to attract, HAHAHAHA. Plus, they say that a mere spark "activates" the H2 and O2, meaning that it starts the combustion reaction by separating these molecules. But if a mere spark can separate them, how's that a strong bond? Alas, the spark doesn't separate anything, but changes the environment such as to cause attraction between H and O atoms.

If they want to argue that the attraction forces between the separated H2 and O2 molecules is where the energy derives in a gas explosion, they will need to contend with physicists who argue that attraction forces cannot add kinetic energy to a closed system. I asked: "can attraction or repulsion in a closed atomic system increase or decrease the kinetic energy of its atoms?"

Yes, attraction and repulsion in a closed atomic system can increase or decrease the kinetic energy of its atoms, as they constantly convert potential energy into kinetic energy (and vice versa) while keeping the total energy of the closed system constant.

That sounds like a contradiction. If the total energy remains constant, it should have answered, "no."

NEWS

On Baron Coleman's first show of this week, he makes a good case to prove that police and FBI were yet staging the hunt for Tyler Robinson after he was already in custody at about 6:30 pm the day after the staged shooting. His Wednesday show picks up on it and adds a very-interesting revelation on a military plane invested in the staged killing.

Baron thinks that Robinson was an unwilling patsy, but I think his patsy role is more-likely staged too, along with the participation of both Tyler's parents and those of Lance Twiggs. In this Wednesday video, Baron discovered that Lance's parents are Internet "friends" with the officer who helped turn Tyler into the police, which for me reeks of a crisis-actor team working together with the American military:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB7NyRQ4dDQ

Pierre Poilievre probably lost the election because he failed to address Christians. I'm hoping that was the case. I'm happy that he lost if God caused him to lose for his failing Him, but I prayed that Carney is unable to do damage due to his becoming broken. In the video below, Poilievre is suddenly a Christian, totally new to me, and he has a good word for Jesus, though he may be doing what Trump did, feign friendship with Christians merely to get elected, and afterward rule like a typical agnostic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdmENiEiUQ

Christian persecution in sports is building in a way perfect for spreading loyalty to Jesus. This athlete carried his cross:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeggmm80yXY

I don't have comments on the Iran situation aside from Trump continuing to push the right buttons to start a conglomerated effort against Israel.

---

NEXT UPDATE Next Week

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

---