Planetary Gravity is Planetary Heat, Not Mass

Watch this impoverished science buff criticize an ancient "physicist" only for himself to miss the correct explanation as to why all objects fall at the same rate of acceleration. He's impoverished because he wasn't taught true science from the baboons, his masters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJzUqX520k

Neil doesn't explain why the onion falls at the same speed as the small ball. He understands that gravity pulls the onion harder, but he doesn't explain why all objects fall at the same speed. Neil implies that gravity sort-of "chooses" to use less force against smaller objects, and while that's more witchcraft than science, he also doesn't share any reasoning scientific or otherwise.

Neil becomes dark when introducing Einstein, and then enters jerkland when saying the floor is coming up at the same time as objects fall to the floor. Modern physics can be so nutty.

When a ball bounces to a table and the table resists the fall, the table is pushed down, duh. The atoms of the ball material, and the atoms of the air in the ball, all get SQUASHED closer together at downward impact, but as the atoms resist coming close together, they rebound back upward, which is what causes the bounce. Some atoms have more bounce-ability than others. Lead doesn't like to bounce. But never is there an upward force from the surface bounced upon as the reason for the bounce.

The reason all objects fall at the same speed while heavier ones fall harder is partly because gravity attracts the atoms individually such that a zillion atoms bonded into a single solid object fall at the same speed as a zillion atoms all separated. If we weld a hundred metal balls together, gravity attracts each ball individually such that one metal ball alone falls as fast as 100 welded balls. The welded balls fall harder together, but they fall at the same speed as the loner.

The other part of the reason is that lead or iron or gold balls fall at the same speed as aluminum balls, because all atoms weigh the same. It's obvious. If gold atoms weigh more than iron atoms, the gold ball would fall faster than the iron ball. Weight can be defined only as the specific pull of gravity. The harder the pull, the faster the fall. It's this simple to figure that all atoms weigh the same.

Go ahead and try to argue that a stronger gravity pull on an atom is not expected to result in a faster fall. You cannot do it with logic. You would need to become a science monkey, a baboon. You would need to invent a reason. You might try to reason that the heavier atom has more inertia in a motionless state than a lighter atom, requiring a stronger pull to get it moving such that it ends up falling at the same speed as the lighter atom. This is an example of monkey science.

There is no inertia for a motionless object in the downward direction. Inertia to a motionless object is due purely to gravity opposing the motion, but gravity does not resist downward motion of any object. The only logical conclusion you can make is that, the stronger the pull of gravity, the faster the atom should fall. As all objects fall at the same speed, all atoms have the same pull of gravity acting upon them, and consequently all atoms weigh the same.

The tighter you pull a stone with an elastic band, the faster the stone slings when you let go of the elastic. The greater the force that causes the motion, the greater the velocity. This is a universal law of motion. If you try to argue that gravity pulls one atom more strongly than another, yet they both fall at the same velocity, you are a law breaker. If you insist on ignoring the laws of physics for over a century, you are a baboon.

It's I who hold to the laws of physics when I say that all atoms weigh the same. I don't care that this rule shatters the modern atomic model now older than a century. If it needs fixing, then fix it.

Gravity is a force, but some scientists are now teaching that, no it isn't. They are entering lalaland. It's like when a baboon, continually banging a coconut against its skull, becomes a self-inflicted victim.

Yes, gravity is a force to be reckoned with, because it's exposing the baboons as willful liars. You are not going to get them to abandon their multi-weight atomic model until world-class embarrassment comes their way from the more intelligent people. The first order of the day is to wake the people up, then de-program them from the brainwashing they have received.

I asked google, "why do all objects fall at the same acceleration?" The response tries to appeal to inertia (square brackets mine):

All objects fall at the same acceleration — approximately on Earth — because the gravitational force acting on an object (its weight) is directly proportional to its mass [or weight], causing the mass to cancel out in the equation of motion (F = ma). Heavier objects experience a stronger gravitational pull but have greater inertia (resistance to acceleration), which perfectly balances out.

There is a magic trick imbedded in those words, even in the first sentence. It's suggesting that the weight of an object is directly proportional to the weight of an object. Only a monkey can speak in this way which refuses to accept the reality that all atoms weigh the same.

The object's mass, for this discussion, is its weight. The mass is not different than its weight. The mass is the reason for it's weight, meaning that the mass is the weight. Hello? Do we need to re-educate the physicists? Absolutely. It is they who are stacked with inertia, refusing to budge.

Therefore, the response above from the baboons to AI has no premise because the very first sentence is exactly zero. It says nothing. It makes no argument. It's trying to differentiate between weight and weight in order to give appearances that there's some balancing-out such that it results in all objects falling at the same speed regardless of their differing masses.

Plus, a motionless object held between your fingers has no inertia aside from the fact that it's between your fingers. Your fingers are the only thing keeping it from moving. If you let the object go, there is exactly zero inertia in the object, wherefore the second statement is a trick dumped rudely into your mind. You've been brainwashed with a trick.

The claim is that heavier objects have greater inertia. True, if it's sitting on a table and you want to move it sideways. But when it comes to a fall toward gravity in empty space, there is no inertia (resistance to motion) in a motionless object at the precipice of its fall, by which I mean to say at the moment of your fingers letting it drop.

Yes, the object has more inertia while falling, but this is now defined as the force required to alter its straight-down path. It has nothing at all to do with how fast it should fall. It makes no sense that a heavier object with more inertia during the fall should fall at the same speed as the lighter object, unless all atoms weigh the same.

Clearly, the heavier object falls with more force, yet falls at the same speed. There's only one way to explain it: all atoms are pulled by the same force, but the heavier object has more atoms such that it carries more force. This force (otherwise known as potential energy) has nothing to do with setting its fall velocity. The speed of fall is not from the more-numerous atoms, for if it were, it would fall faster. What don't the apes understand about this simple thing? They see it with their own eyes: MORE ATOMS DOESN'T MAKE FOR FASTER FALL.

The question then is: what determines a faster fall? Clearly, as gravity pulls on atoms, the only answer is: a heavier atom makes for a faster fall. There is no other option. This is telling the baboons that their atomic model is wrong. They have an appointment with God to explain their many lies.

All atoms, regardless of elemental type, are attracted by exactly the same force level, why isn't that yet a special law of physics? Because, the physics books would need to be re-written, and physicists would owe humanity, and God, one fat apology. Imagine how much would need to be changed, in physics theories, if it were accepted that all atoms weigh the same.

The modern physicist doesn't know why gravity attracts all atoms with the same force, but I do. If I told them, they would reject it. They would understand the ramifications immediately because the demand to scrap the atomic-weight table leads to the need for re-designing all atoms. No longer could every type of atom have multiple protons at their cores. No longer would it be true that every atom has one orbital electron per proton at the core. It would all become embarrassing trash.

Once a physicist entertains what I'm saying, he/she is ready to challenge self with finding a logical explanation as to how all atoms could weigh the same. I discovered it in less than five minutes because asked the question after finding the correct view of gravity. It works just like Newtonian gravity when it comes to attraction force, but this alternative gravity comes with a twist that explains why physics got the definition of heat wrong. This "new" view of gravity challenges and overthrows the kinetic theory of atoms, and succeeds where kineticism fails both in logic and with the laws of physics.

Modern physicists are their own enemies for ignoring the impossibilities of what they have been taught as factual. They can't explain the source of Newtonian gravity, yet refuse to entertain electromagnetic gravity. There is nothing at all wrong or even difficult about it. If gravity were an electromagnetic force, he reasons that it should repel atoms when they become either net-positive or net-negative. He therefore rejects electromagnetic gravity without another thought, without giving it some stronger thought, even though he acknowledges that "net-positive" and "net-negative" atoms are not necessarily in the positive or negative range respectively.

Besides, when an object is rubbed such that it either loses or gains electrons, there's only a superficial gain or loss, insufficient to make a dent in the weight of the full object. That is not the way to prove or disprove whether gravity can be an electromagnetic force. The bottom line is that while electromagnetic gravity attracts all atoms, it's not able to repel an object just because the number of electrons at its surface is altered.

The way to test whether gravity is electromagnetic is to use gas atoms. We now have them individualized (separate) as opposed to congregated in solids. If gas atoms are loaded with more electrons, or depleted of some electrons, they should become either lighter or heavier, depending on whether gravity is negative or positive. I can tell you that all atoms gain electrons when raised higher from earth gravity, and as such those atoms become lighter. Go ahead, take a stab at it, see if you can figure out whether gravity is negative or positive from that picture.

For the commoner, or the layman more like myself than a learned physicist, I should tell here that the moon is much lighter far from earth as compared to it sitting on your front lawn. The further the same object is from earth gravity, the lighter it becomes. There's no way to explain this unless the atoms load with more electrons the further they are from gravity. Can you realize why (before I tell you) they gain electrons with distance from the planet?

Why is the modern belief in Newtonian gravity not taboo? It is not logical that some force should exist within atoms that attracts both protons and electrons. It is far better to strive to explain gravity as a common electromagnetic force that must repel either protons or electrons, and while there is an abundance of evidence before us all that gravity does in fact repel electrons, modern physics cannot have any of it unless it's prepared to betray the big-bang theory. That's the bottom line.

The atom is made of both protons and electrons. Gravity repels the one but attracts the other. Yet gravity ALWAYS attracts the full atom, any atom, all atoms. Can you figure out why, before I tell you? You can begin to see that all atoms have more protonic force than negative force, but why should that be? Doesn't this mean that all atoms are net-positive? How could this possibly be correct? It is correct.

There is zero evidence I know of to prove that gravity attracts electrons, and moreover I don't think big-bang adherents are interested one iota in checking to see if it does, now that they have the entire world believing it. It serves their purposes to blindly believe and teach as fact that gravity attracts electrons. Star formation from the big bang is simply impossible if gravity repels either protons or electrons, amounting to a gigantic incentive for big-bang proponents to reject electromagnetic gravity like the plague. Sure, physicists may tend toward honesty, but threaten their big bang, and they become falsifying baboons if necessary. That's the real story of the age of science: it got usurped by evolutionists. What don't we understand about their tendency to lie when necessary?

One could get the impression that the big bang was being floated around as a secret theory, by atheist physicists, at the time that Newtonian gravity was initiated, because that form of gravity appears perfectly framed for the formation of stars from the big bang.

Nobody has ever trapped a "gas" of electrons at the bottom of a bowl. There's no evidence that free electrons congregate at the bottom of a sealed container. There's no evidence I've heard of that electrons prefer to join the atoms of the bottom half of a container, as opposed to the top half, due to gravity pull upon the electrons. Where is the evidence that gravity attracts electrons? If I knew of any, I would tell you. If I knew of any, I wouldn't be claiming that gravity is electromagnetic. Why waste my time on something I know to be false? But it's not false to say that gravity repels electrons. I've been at this for over 30 years, comparing their atomic model to mine, seeking the flaws in theirs, finding the advantages in mine. If ever I came across solid evidence that gravity attracts electrons, I would have written nothing of what you're reading.

Newtonian gravity claims that mass volume is proportional to gravity force. It implies that all atoms have a small gravity force, or a "graviton" particle, within them, yet no one can explain how the gravity particle came to fuse itself with all protons but not with all electrons, when all three particles were streaming away from the big-bang point. One expects that gravitons should be covered in electrons if indeed gravitons attract electrons. I don't know of any evidence that electrons have the graviton measles. It's unviable nonsense, yet big-bangers need either Newtonian gravity. But NEVER electromagnetic gravity. Some of them prefer to normalize the lunacy of Einsteinian gravity rather than delve into what I'm showing you here.

One day, when objecting to orbiting electrons, I decided to figure out what the true atom looks like for myself. It wasn't difficult to discover because it gets straight-forward for most endeavors, as long as one disengages completely from modern theory. With God in view as Creator, there are likely undiscoverable bells and whistles in the atomic world, above and beyond my rudimentary atom.

If the big bang shot electrons out faster than protons and gravitons, electrons could never meet protons to form atoms. All three particles would need to be shot out at the same speed in order to be in each others' vicinity a billion years or more later. In that case, the big banger has no choice but to believe against the laws of physics that they were all flying outward at the same velocity, even while knowing that any identical force sends lighter matter flying faster than heavier matter. The heavier the bullet, the slower it will fly in a vacuum. He knows this.

Gravitons are imagined as attracting each other while protons repel each other, and while electrons repel each other. If gravity attracts electrons, then electrons come with at least one graviton particle attached, or call it what you wish. Due to the impossibilities of particles meeting and bonding in what is exactly a big-bang EXPLOSION (it can't be called by any other name), the big-banger needs to envision protons and electrons each coming ready-made with gravitons attached, from as early as within the bowels of the big-bang monster. If the gravitons came out separately, they would attract each other into clumps, and we know of no graviton clumps anywhere, accept maybe in the ears of baboons.

As the monster puked out all of the material of the known universe, it somehow knew to grant all particles the same number of gravitons each, such that they would all tend to congregate into stars. This is what modern science has inflicted itself with, not just the belief in this nonsense, but with a dictatorial-style demand from all governments that all the world should come to believe it. The big bang is not a true monster, but evolutionary science is. It eats brains as its delicacy.

When the baboon is convinced that wee-wee electrons and gigantic protons were flying out at the same speed, he convinced himself that the electrons started to orbit the protons at nearly the speed of light, even though both particles were travelling at the same speed when that took place. What in tarnation could propel the electrons to such a fantastic speed, as compared to the speed of the protons, and how possibly could electrons enter perfect orbits in this scenario? Only a total whacko would take this cartoon-style theory seriously.

When I set out to find the true atom, I didn't take a shining to the kinetic theory of heat, not at all. The idea that atoms never slow down after crashing into each other millions of times per second is simply laughable. This is how badly big-bang fever had taken hold of science departments when evolutionists invaded and conquered them. The ultimate goal was, obviously, to frame atoms as the big bang needs them, and so it's not a wonder that they framed the atom wrongly.

Big law: heat always goes up, wherefore heat must be a particle that goes up, I concluded. What causes the heat particle to go up? Gravity, it must be gravity. How could gravity make the heat particle go up? Only one way? Repulsion. It meant that gravity is an electromagnetic force. Why not?

By the time I had come to that, I had already realized that the heat particle was the free electron. Therefore, it took me five minutes or less to answer the question: how could gravity attract all atoms if it repels electrons? It could have been less than a minute later, I just can't remember, but the answer came easily: gravity repels captured electrons from all atoms, makes them all net-positive, and thus attracts them all.

Gravity itself arranges to attract all atoms. The simplicity is mind-boggling. If I could get to that idea so fast, surely others had arrived to it. What happened? Why was it not discussed publicly?

I don't remember how much time passed to realize that gravity attracts all atoms with the same level of force. It implies that all atoms underwent a commonality when gravity made them net-positive. Somehow, gravity arranged all atoms to weigh the same, meaning that gravity arranged to pull them all with the same level of force. Gravity is the commonality.

Obviously, gravity can't repel all captured electrons from atoms. How many does it repel? I don't know the exact number, of course, but the thing we can know with confidence is that gravity will repel all electrons held to the proton with less proton force than gravity blows them off.

I'm not talking about the specific gravity force at the source of gravity deep in the earth; I'm referring to the level of gravity force just outside of the atom. My discovery: the peripheries of all atoms have electrons held on to a proton by roughly/exactly the countering force of gravity just outside of the atom.

The outer layers of electrons are barely hanging onto the proton. You can rub them off with the smooth skin of your fingers. Proof that they are coming off is the heat you feel in your finger if you rub back-and-forth long enough at the same spot. No kinetic theory of heat is needed because all heat is sourced in captured electrons going free from atoms. It is the heat particle.

The only good explanation as to why we have never heard of this excellent electron=heat theory is that the kineticists made sure to strongly brainwash and simultaneously rule all of physics. Newtonian gravity helps to guard against the electron-heat theory because that view of gravity insists that electrons have weight. The kineticists conquered the caloricists by pointing out that heated materials have no added weight versus unheated materials. The caloricists taught that heat is an all-pervasive material, and so they were conquered by the kineticists thanks very much to Newtonian gravity, because the caloricists didn't know that gravity repels electrons, making them weightless.

A Count Rumford thought he was so brilliant when he wasted his time boring a cannon to prove that caloric couldn't exist. He stated that, for as long as he bored, heat would come out of the metal, even though no heat was put into it. He concluded that heat could not be a material thing, but was rather from the motion of the drill bit. Therefore, the kineticists arose from his metal shavings, and toppled the caloricists.

Haha, Rumford, you spoke too soon. You didn't know that caloric was hiding from you, inside the metal. The evil joker is the modern kineticist, because he and his fellows have know for a long time now that materials have energy stored within, especially electrons. And that's just another example of the dishonesty of these perverted imposters. Not one of them stood up to say that caloric was vindicated after the discovery of stored atomic energy (i.e. electrons) that could go in and out of materials.

I'm reading now that "caloric was [considered] self-repulsive and was strongly attracted by matter" (Count Rumford and the Caloric Theory of Heat; Sanborn C. Brown). I didn't know either of those things. I don't see why the caloricists needed caloric to be attracted by materials since its self-repulsive feature is alone enough to get it in and out of materials.

Zowie, two sentences later in the same work: "Each atom was surrounded by an atmosphere of caloric, whose density diminished rapidly as one receded from the center of the atom. Perfect, absolutely correct. I'm shocked that they could know atoms so well at that time, but the writer doesn't give the date for those particular views, whether after or before Rumford, whether after or before JJ Thomson's discovery of the electron.

Yes, the caloric atmosphere surrounding the center of the atom does become more sparse with distance from the atomic core. It's been my claim for obvious reason that protonic attraction diminishes with distance from the core, allowing the captured electrons to create more distance between each other as they hover in space. I too opted to call it an "atmosphere," but didn't know until now that they did the same. I had no idea they even had a theory on the looks of the atom, The most I could get from google was Thompson's "plum-pudding" model, which phrase sounds like a slur. They kineticists had the true atom, and kineticists then gave the world a demonic atom suited for the big-bang devil, such a drastic shame.

Gravity weakens with distance from the source. Whatever that force level is at sea level, for example, all atoms at sea level had to abide by the will of boss gravity. No matter that there are free electrons in their midst, those atoms cannot load electrons at their peripheries if the net-positive charge there is smaller than the gravity force at sea level. In that case, gravity will keep other electrons from loading at the peripheries such as to forbid further growth of the atomic diameter.

Gravity regulates atomic size. The further from gravity, the more the atom grows larger with added electrons, the less net-positive it puts out, and therefore the lighter it weighs. This is so compellingly logical, it has got to be counted as an important law of physics.

As all atoms at sea level have their outer electrons held to the proton by the same level of attractive force, the outer edge of all atoms at sea level have the same positive force. Do you think that this situation causes all atoms to weigh the same? It's a good bet. I had to find a way for electromagnetic gravity to explain the FACT that all atoms weigh the same, and the scenario here seems to be bang-on capable of explaining it.

If one cooks with law-abiding facts, one has a better chance of generating more facts. I cook with baboon poison, corrective facts. I had a gigantic advantage. I didn't have the big-bang theory polluting my soup. I didn't dump gravitons into it. I didn't pepper it with orbiting electrons. I started from scratch with protons that could each attract a full atmosphere of tend-to-stationary electrons.

Erwin Schrodinger claimed to find a formula, using a "principal quantum number," to figure out how wide the electron orbits are, in 1926, the era of the orbiting electron. This is one of the single-most examples to inform you of how ding-bat crazy the crocks could be with their "science," that they could find even the maximum height of the electrons, from the atomic center, when electrons don't even exist. The principal quantum number is a scheme of the imagination alone. Multiply that by a hundred-thousand times, and we have the full extend of madness within modern atomic physics.

If electrons don't orbit, the only alternative is stationary electrons that move only when something causes them to move. That's my atom, the true atom, I'm not ashamed of it.

Gravity dictates how large atoms become as protons suck free electrons to themselves. Rub some electrons off of atoms, or remove them in some other way, and atoms become smaller. When they re-load, they are stuck loading only to a certain size as boss gravity dictates. Generally, they can only re-load with as many as were sent free.

The proton is the atom's "gravity" force. Captured electrons deeper down beneath the outer layer are held to the proton with more force than the outer ones. Everyone knows that, the closer an attracted thing is to what attracts it, the stronger it's attracted. And that's why gravity can't send all captured electrons flying away from the proton, unless perhaps atoms are immediately beside the gravity source. What do you think happens to atoms immediately beside the gravity source, where that source is internal, planetary heat? How almost bare might the atoms be there, of captured electrons?

As the earth interior has high heat, it also has high numbers of free electrons, a no-brainer when heat is defined as free electrons. It's not like it took me a decade of bashing my head against the desk to discover this giant leap for science. It's gigantic because it corrects a long-standing error that is Newtonian gravity. Otherwise, it's a rather small discovery because it's so easy to arrive to, and just as easy to grasp. Okay, heat in the planet is free electrons, big deal. But what else is this heat source, do you think? It's planetary gravity.

Molten-rock atoms closest to the center of earth gravity are stripped of their electrons, perhaps all of them, I couldn't know for sure, but I'll assume they are fully stripped at the center of the gravity force. Atoms higher up are expected to retain some of their electrons, which are next in line to be fully stripped. When? When they sink lower down.

As gravity strips electrons from atoms, the electrons rise up through the crust as earth heat. That's because heat can get through every material. The remaining bare (or nearly-bare) protons are trapped, they can't get higher up in the tortuous magma because gravity holds them down.

There must be a bare-proton floor in the planet above which there are other protons being stripped constantly, every minute of every day. The bare-proton floor builds in thickness day after day, and there is a question as to whether they suffer partial or complete destruction of their positive forces once a certain percentage of their electrons are stripped off. At whatever point the proton is fully destroyed, all of its remaining electrons shoot out at once.

No matter that gravity force might be well capable of instantly stripping atoms higher up from the center of gravity, it cannot strip them for as long as electrons from further down are simultaneously rising past them. In this picture, the only atoms being stripped and simultaneously declining in electron numbers are those immediately beside the bare-proton floor.

As the lowest atoms lose their electrons, they shrink in size, allowing atoms from further up to sink closer to the center of gravity, wherefore gravity strips more and more of their electrons the more the atoms sink. Cavities (space) form where the molten material meets semi-solid "plastic" rock that does not flow or sink. When some plastic rock breaks away from the hard crust, it's going to fall a distance through the cavities, into the molten mass, which could explain earthquakes.

I wonder what color bare, destroyed protons have? I suggest black because light forms always from the emission of electrons (creates the brightness of magma), and so, without electrons, bare-proton trash can emit no light.

Atoms in the earth are losing electrons for as long as they are sinking toward the center of gravity, and that sinking is assured where gravity is stripping atoms. The tightness of the atomic spaces of rock material through which the electrons flow upward assures a slow flow, and thus a slow sinking of material.

Gravity can only pull whatever positive force is sticking its neck out beyond the outer electrons. If all atoms have the same neck sticking out beyond their outer electrons, they all get pulled by the same force. Repeat after me: gravity arranges all atoms at sea level to have the same neck sticking out. It's not a grand coincidence that all atoms should weigh the same, but rather gravity arranges it. Gravity reduces the size of every atom at the same distance from gravity, and then gravity grabs whatever positive force is left. Every atom at the same distance from gravity gets left with identical positive force.

Atoms five miles higher than sea level are lighter because they have a smaller neck (less positive force) sticking (radiating) out beyond their outer edges, because they are larger i.e. they have more captured electrons.

The heaviest "atom" is the most-powerful in positive force, the bare proton. I know which of the 90-100 atoms has the most powerful proton.

The larger the atom, the more lift it gets as gravity repels free electrons upward. As the hydrogen atom gets the strongest lift in the air, or in a vacuum, it's the largest atom of all, yet this is like kryptonite to big-bang science, for as stars are made of hydrogen, they went and framed the hydrogen atom as the tiniest, rudimentary atom. Their hydrogen atom is practically a bare proton, such craziness. It's science-crazy for a relatively-huge proton to be able to capture only one electron. Who in their right mind would advance such an impossible thing?

Do people not think who hear this trash and then repeat it as truth? Safe to say, satanists have got a spell on paganish humanity because demons infest their lives.

It's clear to me that the 20th-century evolutionists needed the one-electron H atom so badly for big-bang science that they had been kicking the big-bang can around under the public radar from times before the discovery of the proton-electron model of the atom. There was noise coming from the secret rooms of evolutionists, but nobody at first knew all that was being cooked up for to unleash upon the public. Surely, big-bang schemes existed decades before it finally came out of the closet, for nobody would devise a ridiculous atom with only one electron unless hoping to facilitate a big-bang view of creation.

The one-electron H atom is what birthed atoms all having different weights. The big-bangers wanted every atom to be a multiple of one H atom, for they figured that the public would swallow big-bang cosmology more readily if the big bang built all atoms out of the same proton particle rather than coughing out 90-100 different protons each kind identical. I take the latter view because I have God in my picture; I'm not stuck on developing the cosmos from an accident.

Each atom has only one proton, logically. You can't laugh at me for advancing that concept if you don't laugh at multiple protons per atomic core. In the ordinary world, you are the crazy one if you think that inter-repelling protons stick together as clusters. On the other hand, I'm on solid ground, on the high ground, with one proton per atom.

As H atoms are the largest of all because they get the strongest lift, it reveals yet another discovery, like when you step on the correct stone, instead of falling into hell through a booby-trap door beneath your feet, God pulls up another stepping stone to another secret unveiled. You climb the stepping stones like you have a rainbow around your hair, each end having pots of gold. The booby-trap door to hell is named after evolutionist boobies.

It means that the hydrogen proton is the strongest of all, and is thus capable of capturing the most electrons. I don't know whether the H proton is the largest of all protons, but as atomic size has to do with how large its electron atmosphere is, the H atom must have the strongest positive force.

The outer layer of the H atom is held to the proton by the specific force of G, earth gravity. The latter wants to send all the captured electrons upward and away from the proton, and the proton wants to keep the electrons tied to itself. In the downward direction toward proton gravity, all the electrons, from the outer layer down to the protonic surface, repel against earth gravity for obvious reason. But some protonic charge is getting past the outer layer, which earth gravity bites into, meaning that gravity pulls the whole atom toward itself in spite of the repulsion between gravity and ALL of the atom's electrons.

The H atom does not go down toward the ground, however, unless the temperature is low enough. In the atmosphere, H atoms rise because the density of rising free electrons give it sufficient lift to counter gravity force, but when the temperature is low enough, gravity gets the upper hand due to the definition of "lower temperature" as a lower density of free electrons.

Upward flow of free electrons in the air does not give lift to metal gas atoms because metals typically have the smallest of all atoms. Only directly above molten metal will metal gas atoms get some lift, because the density of free electrons there is enormous as compared to atmospheric temperature. You can easily understand that, the smaller the atom, the fewer upward bumps it gets from rising electrons (because fewer electrons bump it up).

It is purely due to all atoms weighing the same that we can make a new law: the larger the atom, the more lift it receives per given temperature.

All-atoms-weigh-the-same reveals the relative density of all types of atoms per cubic space. Gold weighs more than lead because there are more gold atoms per volume of material. The goofers have it the opposite way, with gold atoms being larger than lead atoms, and therefore heavier than lead atoms. What a disaster. When all atoms weigh the same, whatever solid weighs more, per cubic volume, that's the one having the most atoms per volume, and, another no-brainer, the one likely with the smallest atoms...though not necessarily in every case because some atoms may be merged more deeply than others.

Th expectation from the establishment model, where atoms are made of multiple H atoms, is that all materials, per identical volume, should roughly weigh the same because the smaller atoms weigh less and the larger atoms weigh more. That is, many small-and-light atoms per one-inch block of material is expected to weigh roughly as much as few large-and-heavy atoms per same block size, but that's not at all the reality.

Atomic weight has nothing to do with the weight or mass of a proton. Atomic weight is defined as the amount of net-positive force radiating out from the atom. Captured electrons weigh nothing because they are repelled by gravity, and as such they reduce the weight of the atom rather than contributing to it.

The gravity source is from the free electrons in the crust, the heat. The heat in the earth therefore delivers/radiates a net-negative charge to the atmosphere, even though gravity has made all atoms in the crust net-positive. To explain this, which might at first sound like a questionable claim, the atoms that are made net-positive do not move upward in the crust, whereas the electrons that are set free from them do move upward in the crust, wherefore, as the negative charge of these electrons is closer to ground level than the bulk of net-positive protons, the air gets lavished with a negative charge.

The moon's lack of atmosphere, and lack of active volcanoes, suggests a coldish interior at this time, and therefore a weak gravity. Any moon in the solar system having an atmosphere must also have a hot core, and titan (moon at saturn) is about the only moon to speak of with an atmosphere. Does it have signs of heat? On titan: "Radar and infrared images have identified mountain peaks with deep craters (calderas) and surrounding flow-like features that resemble volcanic constructs on Earth."

Io, a moon at jupiter, has active volcanoes, but, according to NASA, it doesn't have much of an atmosphere due to it condensing and freezing on the ground. The claim is that Io has a thin atmosphere of sulfuric oxide, which has molecules four times heavier than the O and N atoms of our atmosphere. The coldness in combination with heavy atoms explains the atmosphere collapse to frost on the ground.

Titan, they claim, has a nitrogen atmosphere, explaining why it doesn't collapse even though its colder at saturn than at jupiter. Therefore, a moon with volcanic activity and no atmosphere to speak of doesn't disprove that planetary heat defines gravity.

Cosmic Gravity

Astronomers now know that size of rock or planet has nothing to do with orbital speed. All space rocks orbit at the same speed when at the same distance from solar gravity purely because they all fall to solar gravity at the same rate. The inertial forces of the orbit, whether great or small, are inconsequential to orbital speed, begging why Newton entered inertia into his orbital equations. I get the impression that Newton guessed wrongly that planetary inertia plays a role in orbital speed. I'm suspicious that modern astronomy is trying to hide that from us because astronomy has not given up Newton's orbital mechanics, which were foundational to the sizing of the solar system.

In other words, if Newton and Kepler believed that planetary inertia played a role in orbital speeds, then, due to it being an error, Newton and friends were bound to predicting / finding the wrong distances to the planets, which is the same as saying that they both mapped the solar system wrongly and got its size wrongly pegged.

All of the early estimates of a sun in the ballpark of 93 million miles from earth can be assailed. All of those estimates should be suspect as part of a secret, evolutionist cabal intent of magnifying the size of the solar system to compliment the gigantic universe that they were conspiring to unleash on humanity. For example:

Huygens [mid-17th century] observed that when Venus is half-lit, the Sun, Venus, and Earth form a right-angled triangle. By assuming the Earth's size was the average of Venus and Mars and using measured angular positions, he derived the distance.

Result: His calculated distance was about 157,125,000 km, which was remarkably close for the time...he was one of the first to reach a 'nearly correct' value... (google AI).

There is just no way to know how far the sun is, using a right angle from earth to venus to sun in combination with the diameters of venus, earth and/or mars. The sizes or masses of the planets are simply irrelevant to finding the solar distance. This looks like a scheme to begin deceiving the public with a sun roughly 100 million miles away.

If inertia has anything to do with orbit formation, a large planet should orbit slower than an asteroid. Yet, google AI admits, but only if I ask it the proper question, that: "Asteroids of different weights orbit at the same speed when at the same distance from the Sun because orbital velocity is determined solely by gravity and distance, not mass." Where you read "mass" in that statement, the implication is that the inertial effect of a planet's mass has ZERO BEARING on orbital speeds. The statement is admitting that planetary mass cannot help to find, nor prove correct, any claimed distance between the sun and any planet.

Yet, I reiterate: the heavier a planet, the greater its forward punch such that one could be deceived into believing that it should need to orbit slower as compared to a lighter planet having less forward punch. The punch is the thing that wants to bring the planet out of orbit away from the sun.

The inertial effect is the punch itself. The inertia of a planet is defined as its resistance to a change in its direction. It wants to go on a straight line path, in other words, instead of following the orbital path. If Newton used inertial effects in the math of his orbital mechanics, I don't blame him at all, yet it was wrong, and I think I can explain why in a nutshell, though elaboration is helpful.

The imagined fall of a planet toward solar gravity, which occurs simultaneous to the imagined straight-line path of the planet at 90 degrees to the sun (the inertial punch factor), changes the path, from the straight line, to an orbital path. Therefore, the fall cancels the outward inertial punch. That's my nutshell.

There's no more outward inertia to be concerned with. The fall, though imaginary, is real. The planet is literally falling to the sun constantly while it simultaneously moves away from the sun. You can treat the inertial effect, which is the centrifugal force, as non-existent, because the planet is not a stone tied to a string and spun around your head. The two pictures are not the same because the stone is not falling to gravity. The stone does experience centrifugal force, but a planet does not.

It's impossible for centrifugal force to exist in the 90-degree direction when the planet is falling downward. This is the key. This is what I was missing. I assumed that there was indeed a centrifugal force. If Newton thought so, uh-oh, back to the drawing board.

The only way to explain that all rocks orbit the sun at the same speed when at the same solar distance is: the rock is balanced between solar gravity and, not centrifugal force, but OUTWARD VELOCITY. There is downward velocity countering outward velocity. That's all folks. You tend to think that the outward velocity is creating centrifugal force, but not if the planet is simultaneously falling.

The straight-line path away from the sun is constantly corrected, thus cancelling the centrifugal force. The latter should therefore not be a part of orbital mechanics, which can explain why google AI is now teaching that the centrifugal force of a planet is "fictitious." For example: "Yes, centrifugal force is part of the mathematics in orbital mechanics...While it is considered a "fictitious" or "apparent" force, it is mathematically useful for simplifying calculations by balancing gravity..."

However, I don't think Newton believed it to be fictitious, at least not insomuch as he used it in his orbital mechanics. When AI quotes use "inertia" in this discussion, it's always intended as outward force:

Yes, centrifugal force was a part of Isaac Newton's early mathematical development of orbital mechanics...

In his early research (circa 1664–1669, often in his "Waste Book"), Newton treated orbital motion by considering the centrifugal tendency — the inertia-driven desire of a body to move in a straight line — and how it is checked by an inward force.

However, if that centrifugal force doesn't exist, and if he used it in his math for predicting orbital attitudes, then, like I said, the old-timers pegged the size of the solar system wrongly, for Kepler and Newton worked together on that project. It's not a wonder that Newton's math jibes with much of Kepler's math since they had similar views of orbital mechanics. Just because the math of both men jibe at key points is not proof that they had the correct distances to planets; it only means that their math products coordinated at times due to their having similar ingredients to begin with. Math can be a deceptive animal.

When two planets at the same distance from the sun are in orbit at the same speed, the larger/weightier planet must spiral out of orbit, if it possesses centrifugal force. It's that simple to prove that planets do not have such a force. It's important to acknowledge that no outward inertial effects, no centrifugal force, exists in the orbit.

I asked google: "why do asteroids of differing weights orbit at the same speed when at the same distance from the sun?" It didn't disagree with me, but agreed.

I then asked: "why is orbital velocity determined solely by gravity and distance [from the central body]?" Response: "Orbital velocity is determined solely by gravity and distance (radius) because the mass of the orbiting object (satellite) cancels out during the calculation, a consequence of how gravitational force and inertia scale proportionally." That is not correctly worded, because the mass is not canceled. Rather, the falling mass cancels the outward force, not vice-versa. If the mass is canceled, one could then claim that the outward force constantly exists. I can see why astronomers would want to portray the situation in that way, if they are trying to uphold Newtonian mechanics.

If the centrifugal force cancels the mass, then there is no longer any planetary fall in the picture. We have got to make up our minds: does the planet fall constantly to the sun, or not? If the outward force cancels the mass (or cancels the weight), then the planet is floating in orbit, not falling.

Here's another AI offering: "According to Kepler's laws and Newtonian mechanics, the required speed to maintain a stable orbit relies only on the Sun's mass and the orbital radius, as gravitational force and inertia balance out, CANCELING THE OBJECT'S MASS [caps mine]." That's incorrect where "Sun's mass" is viewed synonymous with solar gravity force.

In the quote above, you see once again that inertial forces were part of the mechanics, and that this force cancels the mass. The statement is therefore a contradiction, even if it's reflecting the true views of Newton or Kepler. It can be cited as a contradiction because anyone can fathom that spinning a heavier stone on a string will have more centrifugal force than a lighter stone. If both are spun at the same speed, the heavier one will want to go "out of orbit" more powerfully than the lighter one.

The statement is a contradiction because, in reality, both rocks in orbit, heavy and light, have the same level of centrifugal force: ZERO. See the difference in viewpoints? Newton assigned centrifugal force; the planet has none. It becomes fictitious once the orbit is formed. There may have been centrifugal force to begin with, when God pushed a planet into orbit, but as soon as the orbit began, in the first inch of travel, centrifugal force vanished. A falling planet cannot have centrifugal force.

As the planet falls while moving in a circle, it has forward velocity which does indeed possess inertial force, yet it's applied in the forward direction. However, the forward direction is now the circular direction, not a straight-line path 90 degrees to the sun. It's easy and addictive to want to imagine that the planet is on a 90-degree path while falling, but it is not truly. It's fictitious. The inertia is now in the circular direction, no longer outward, which explains why a pebble in orbit at the earth's orbit circles the sun at the same speed as the gigantic earth. Neither stone exerts outward force.

Both stones would exert outer force if they were not falling while circling. Both stones would exert outer force if tied to a string while circling. But not when they simultaneously fall while circling. The fall cancels the outward force.

I asked google: "does a small asteroid have the same inertia as a planet when in orbit at the same distance from the sun?" AI responded:

No, a small asteroid does not have the same inertia as a planet, even if they are in the same orbit around the sun. Inertia is fundamentally defined by an object's mass. A more massive object has a greater tendency to resist changes [i.e. more inertia] in its state of motion (inertia).

Google AI just snitched on astronomy, telling us that inertial forces cannot exist in the outward direction, otherwise an asteroid could not orbit at the same speed as a planet.

It seems that the old boys once believed that the greater inertia of a planet requires a slower speed (than an asteroid) to maintain orbit, yet astronomy now knows as a fact that both the asteroid and the planet have the same orbital speed under identical solar-gravity force i.e. when at the same distance from the sun. The grave problem is that Newtonian gravity is praised to this day, and even enshrined as mathematically proven.

You can force google AI to contradict itself at times because it's not a thinking human. It only repeats what the astronomers say at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and they often contradict like a chameleon changing colors depending on the issue. I asked it: "should a heavier planet with greater inertia orbit slower than an asteroid [less inertia] if both are at the same distance from the sun?" I got the following response that I think is an attempt to hide the way Newton and Kepler would have answered the question:
"No, a heavier planet with greater inertia should not orbit slower than an asteroid if both are at the same distance from the Sun. According to Kepler’s laws of orbital motion and Newtonian gravity, the orbital speed of an object depends on the distance from the central body (the Sun) and the mass of the Sun, but it is independent of the mass of the orbiting object itself."

I'm not sure at all that Newton and Kepler knew the things that this quote alleges for them. I can easily imagine modern astronomers programming the AI robot to lie on Newton's behalf such that modern astronomers are not held to account, or embarrassed, for their continuation in upholding Kepler's solar system based on faulty math. AI is the perfect tool for astronomers who get into trouble with the facts because google can allow AI to put out errors deliberately, and then blame the robot for the error instead of the evolutionists from which the information derives. How convenient for the continuation of global deception in a world where the people are catching up to those deceptions.

The faster a planet falls, the faster the orbit needs to be to form a circular path. Nothing more. Therefore, the closer to the sun is an orbiting rock, the faster it falls, the faster the orbit needs to be. Plus, the fall speed is not at all the inverse-square law acceleration rate, because the fall is not accelerating.

It doesn't matter how many more atoms a planet has in comparison to the number in an asteroid, they both fall at the same speed when at the same distance from the sun because gravity pulls each atom individually. Gravity does not pull on the rock as if it were a lone, gigantic atom such that, the larger the rock, the faster it should fall. Newton knew this, for he lived after Galileo. In fact, "Newton proposed that planets are in a continuous state of free fall towards the Sun." He PROPOSED the idea.

I asked, "did Newton realize that planetary fall cancels centrifugal force?" The response doesn't seem agreeable with my term, "cancel": "Yes, Isaac Newton realized that planetary motion is essentially a continuous 'fall' around the sun, and he developed the mathematical framework showing that this gravitational attraction balances the inertia of the planet (often described in his time as a centrifugal tendency)." The quote uses "balances" but not "cancel." The reason for not using "canceled" is likely because Newton considered the centrifugal force active throughout the orbit. See what I'm saying? He had it wrong.

As he had it wrong, I'm insisting that he could not possibly have known that near-earth asteroids orbit at roughly the same speed as earth. To show how astronomy has not yet corrected the old astronomy, I asked: "is planetary inertia part of finding planetary mass?" Response:

Yes, planetary inertia is a key factor in finding planetary mass, particularly in the context of calculating how mass is distributed within a planet (moment of inertia) and in understanding how a planet maintains its orbit.

There you have it, folks, they cling to planetary inertia to this day, which can only mean centrifugal force. It means that all mass figures for all planets and moons are erroneous...because planets have no outward inertia.

Put it this way, that if a pebble and a planet are both in the same orbit, all you can know is their orbital velocity, which cannot tell you how much work was done to place them into orbit until one first knows their mass. Therefore, the mass cannot be known by planetary mechanics. The planet needs more work done to place it into orbit than the pebble, but go ahead and see if you can figure out the work needed. You can't know it until you have the mass, and the orbital velocity doesn't tell you the planetary mass because even the pebble has the same velocity.

It gets worse for the imposters because they think they can discover planetary mass by its inherent centrifugal force, and because they thought it was equal to solar gravity force on the planet. The two cannot be equal, it's a trick. How can solar gravity upon any one orbit be equal to the centrifugal force of the same orbit if it has both a pebble and a planet? To which of the two centrifugal forces is the solar gravity equal, to the pebble's or the planet's?

Plus, their definition of solar gravity is the solar mass, which simply cannot be correct. It was Newton's mere guess that gravity force is equal to mass. Nobody can prove it, nobody has proven it.

Their troubles don't end there because the expected level of solar gravity on a planet is not only from their concept of solar mass, but the distance they think the planet is from the sun, yet even that is incorrect. What a disturbing, embarrassing mess.

The only way to know how much a planet weighs is to know how much work was done to place it into orbit at the specific distance the orbit is from the sun. Even if the solar distance and the solar gravity force are found correctly, it only indicates how fast the planet is falling toward the sun, not its mass. Both the pebble and the planet are falling at the same velocity, which is how you can know that the mass of neither can be known simply by knowing the force of solar gravity at that orbit. The gravity is identical for both the pebble and planet, yet they have different masses.

The original and specific centrifugal force to put the planet or pebble into orbit cannot be known even if the specific solar gravity force is known at that orbit. The original centrifugal force can be known only when the work done to put the planet into orbit is known, and we know that the work done to put the pebble into orbit is a lot less than the work done to put the planet into orbit, yet both are immersed into the same gravity force...meaning that knowing the gravity force cannot tell us the planetary mass. The imposters fed the human race trash in order to establish a wildly-gigantic solar system.

If anyone chooses to think that centrifugal force exists such that the only orbital thing canceled is the planetary weight, then one would need to send a heavy planet into orbit faster than a lighter planet because there's more downward force from the heavier planet. To compensate, its outward force needs to be greater, and the only way to get more outward force is to send it faster in orbit. In other words, this idea that centrifugal force cancels mass, rather than vice-versa, does not work, because the reality is, the heavier planet will orbit at the same speed as a lighter planet.

The only way to have them both at the same speed in the same orbit is by their respective fall canceling their centrifugal force. The two rocks are equal in having zero centrifugal force, thus nullifying the need for the heavier rock to have a faster speed. I discovered this solution on February 26, 2026. I've never felt better on this topic, for it was otherwise confusing me to the point of aggravation.

The pull of solar gravity on a planet is the centripetal force, as they call it. They view it as equal in force to the centrifugal force. One cancels the other. And so the old boys thought they had an opportunity to find the planetary mass with the formula below, and perhaps within this formula they reckoned it to find how much work was done to put the planet into orbit, which I think is absolutely necessary for finding planetary mass.

Their formula for centripetal force: planet mass x (planet velocity-squared) / distance from the sun, where the mass is not known but the other two factors are supposedly known. This formula would be useless without Kepler's third law indicating the relative planetary speeds and the relative distances from the sun (i.e. they could thereby find the relative planetary masses, until such day as they could find the true mass (in kilograms) by knowing the true distances from the sun).

Therefore, when seeking a planet-mass figure, they depended on having the correct planet speed as per the correct solar distance. They needed the latter two, and Kepler thought the orbital period could reveal the solar distance. Newton agreed, but it was in error. The planet speed is based on the orbital period, which was known for all the known planets, and so when Kepler thought he had the stepping stone to the true planetary speeds, just as soon as the true solar distances could be discovered. Roughly during the time that he was sharpening his pencil 12 times a day, the 93-million figure was in progress, a product of a conspiracy in my opinion.

Obviously, the centripetal formula above would get a wrong mass figure if the solar distance and planetary speeds are wrong. As they obviously have the solar system too large, they also have the speed numbers too large per planet. As the formula finds masses too large, the goofers also sized the planetary diameters too large once they thought they had the true mileage to them.

Let me show you how to check their centripetal formula, to see if it's correct or not. It's mass x (planet velocity-squared) / distance from the sun = solar-gravity force upon the planet. Mass is not known, yet the formula can find it, yet it doesn't find the mass number that the old boys arrived to by another method(s). Why not? First of all, this formula is itself flawed because planet mass is not related to planet speed, yet the formula uses planet speed as sister to the mass.

To simplify the formula so that you can see what we can do with the formula to make it cough up its own mass number. treat relative earth mass, speed, and its distance from the sun all as, 1. The formula is: 1 x (1 x 1) / 1 = 1 unit of solar-gravity force (acting on the earth to keep it in perfect orbit). That is, 1 mass x (1 x 1 speed) / 1 solar distance = 1 unit of solar gravity. The formula below keeps this same pattern, and you cannot claim that my numbers are wrong, because this is a too-simple process.

For an imaginary planet twice as far from the sun, astronomers assume a planet velocity of 1.42 times slower, or .7 as fast. I got these numbers from their claim that Uranus is 2.02 times further from the sun than saturn, where the latter is 1.42 times faster in its orbit. The speed of Uranus is then 1 / 1.42 = .7 times as much as saturn. I hope you don't mind my using "speed" at times, as it's more to the liking of people on the street, so to speak.

I strongly assume that these goofers used the same decrease in solar force no matter where the solar distance is doubled, whether near the earth or out by Uranus. So far, so good, you have my back. It means that a planet twice as far from earth should move .7 as fast as earth, according to their solar-system scheme/map, not mine.

The formula for an imaginary planet twice as far from earth: unknown mass x (.7 x .7) / 2 = 1/4 the solar-gravity force, where the 2 refers to twice as far from the sun. You can spot their speculation or belief that they could find the planet mass in accordance with, or directly related to, its speed-squared (in the brackets). Is that really correct? Does speed have any correlation to, or bearing upon, planet mass? No, absolutely not, but Newton thought so, apparently, because he thought that the planet exerted centrifugal force...which he thought was 1/4 as great with a doubling of the solar distance. How can we know that he cut centrifugal force to 1/4? Because, it's the same 1/4 decline he assigned to centripetal force per doubling of solar distance, and he considered those two forces identical.

As we can do the math for three of the numbers, .7 x .7 / 2, to find a product of .245, we can shorten the formula to: mass x .245 = 1/4 solar-gravity (or centripetal) force acting on the planet. The formula thus finds the mass number as 1 (1 times the earth mass), because 1 x .245 = 1/4. See any problem with this mass result? The formula doesn't change the mass of a planet twice as far from the sun as earth, but even if it did change the number, it can't be a true reflection of the planet's mass relative to earth mass because speed is not the basis of planet mass no matter how we form the solar-distance or speed numbers for the formula.

You need to peer into the formula to see what it's saying. It's claiming that planet mass combined with its velocity, and adjusted by the increase of solar distance, needs to equal the decrease in solar gravity at that distance. In reverse, it's saying that the increase in solar gravity with decrease in distance from the sun is equal to a special relationship between planet speed and it mass. TRASH.

The asteroid tells you that this is trash because many asteroids of many different masses can orbit at the same speed at the same orbit. Astronomy therefore knows that this formula is trash, because they have mathematicians far more skilled than street-people me, and yet they have not announced with blow horns that the formula is an embarrassing corpse.

God did not say to self, "okie-dokie, this planet is twice as far, wherefore I've got to make it so many times heavier in order to allow Newton to know how to find planetary mass." No, He did not need to make it any weight in particular, for He could put both a pebble and a planet in orbit at that same solar distance at the same speed. The mere pebble exposes the astronomers as quacks, imposters. Massive embarrassment.

Let's go back to where they have Uranus .7 the speed of saturn. You might argue that the reduction in speed per twice the solar distance in the region of saturn-Uranus is not the same reduction in speed per doubling of distance in the region of earth-mars. But it doesn't matter whether we change the number in the formula to .6 or .8, the mass number (specific mass) of the imaginary planet, or asteroid, twice as far from mars yet works out to a DEFINITE number, but we cannot have a definite number because any asteroid whatsoever, big, bigger or biggest, can orbit there.

A number in a formula is a definite number, you can't pick and chose what it is, wherefore there can be no formula to find planet mass...unless one knows how much work God did to put the planet in orbit. The further away from the sun, the less work needed per cubic inch of rock, because weight decreases with distance from the gravity source. When it comes to putting planets into orbit, it's not mass technically that matters, but weight. Saturn weighs less at the orbit of Uranus, but its mass does not change. The formula for centripetal force converts the mass to weight by use of the solar-distance figure; that's all that part of the formula is doing.

However, the old boys and the modern baboons have assumed that gravity force goes down by four times per doubling of distance, but I'm starting to challenge that claim. If I can find the true decline in force, I think I have a means to re-map the solar system, and I did attempt just that not many months ago.

The reason the centripetal formula squares the planet speed is, I think, because they decided to square the increase or decrease of gravity force per certain distance. That is, squaring the speed makes the formula conform to their inverse-square law of gravity force.

Astronomers need to be jailed if only for neglect of duty to the public.

Over-Sized Sun

I asked google this question: "does the sun pull the moon stronger than the earth pulls the moon?" Answer: "Yes, the Sun pulls on the Moon with roughly twice the gravitational force that the Earth pulls on the Moon." That's impossible.

They must have a reason for claiming that the sun has 2.2 times more pull on the moon than earth does, and I know what the reason is. They wrongly calculated the solar mass according to what gravity force they needed to keep the planets in perfect orbit, when they wrongly calculated the mass of all the planets. This claim for solar gravity is excellent for proving that their mass numbers are wrong.

In their orbital mechanics going back a couple of centuries, the heavier the planet, the more solar gravity that the mathematicians needed to assign. The 2.2 error is explained that simply. It's not true at all that, the heavier the planet, the more solar gravity is required to maintain the orbit. They got it wrong, and are not inclined to correcting themselves because it will expose NASA as a fraud, for if they got their mass numbers wrong, the distances they claim for planet distances from the sun are all wrong too. The two things are directly related in their scheme of planetary orbits.

This is a catastrophe for astronomy even without concern for the embarrassment to NASA, but as NASA acts like the leader of the astronomy, pack, you're not likely going to hear anytime soon that they got the planetary distances wrong.

They believe that mass is proportional to gravity force, meaning that, if they assigned too much mass for the planets, the latter are not as large as claimed, and neither is the sun as large as claimed. It's this simple to begin arriving to the real facts. Everything in the solar system is smaller than they claim aside from the earth.

But having several times too much solar gravity force at the distance of the earth, they were forced to come up with an explanation for how the sun can pull the moon so much stronger than earth yet not yank the heavier lunar face toward it to some degree.

Plus, having solar gravity 2.2 times stronger on the moon that the earth acts on the moon is the absolute maximum they could claim, because even that much expects that the sun should pull the moon away from the earth altogether. They argue that the sun doesn't yank the moon from earth because the moon attracts the earth simultaneous with earth-to-moon gravity. Yes, but the moon's gravity is so weak as compared to earth's such that together they are not pulling on each other by more than roughly half as much as the 2.2 figure. In other words, they lie to the world as per the levels of gravity force possessed by both sun and planets.

The same lunar face always faces the earth because it's the heavier half of the moon. There seems to be no other explanation, and it's a logical explanation. Astronomers claim the same, but do not give the correct reason for that side being heavier. They imagine that earth gravity pulls moon rock toward itself, thus making the earth-facing side of the moon heavier, which is such a stupid idea that it makes me suspect they have some secret reason for devising it, either to hide something, or to benefit some other questionable theory they hold to. Otherwise, they would just claim as I do, that one half of the moon just happens to have heavier material, so logical.

If anyone truly believes that earth gravity can pull moon rock even one inch toward earth, that's either moronic or deceptive, take your pick. Why do they insist that a "tide" of rock has been pulled? By a gravity as weak as earth gravity a quarter-million miles away? To me, that tidal reasoning sounds like self-serving crock. Only in recent times have we heard from NASA that all spherical moons (about 20 of them) have "tidal locking."

? Why might God have arranged all original moons with one half significantly heavier than the other side? Maybe he didn't. Maybe the heavier halves developed over time, after the Creation, via internal volcanic activity. There is good evidence that this is what happened to the moon in order to provide it's heavier half. But why won't NASA admit it? Why did it opt to devise tidal locking as an alternative explanation to something so logical as: random volcanic activity that happens to send more heavy material to one half of the lunar surface than to the surface of the other half.

The hundreds of other "moons" are probably not part of the original Creation, because they have shapes as unto captured asteroids. These "moons" show no "tidal locking" even though they are expected to have one half heavier than the other. I suggest they are simply too light -- planetary gravity upon them is too weak -- for the heavier half to constantly face the planet. The extent of heaviness on one half isn't enough to overcome the rock's rotation (yet, anyway) such that all rotation ceases, such that the heavier half constantly faces the planet.

None of the non-spherical moons have an atmosphere, which must be due to being too small to have internal heat. No gravity, no atmosphere. But as all material has a gravity force, according to the Newtonians, all moons should have some atmosphere, yet this is not the case at all. Beware NASA when it claims that some small moons have tenuous atmospheres, because they want oxygen and water in the solar system so badly that they might fake it. They even claim that one moon on Saturn explodes with water-vapor jets / volcanoes.

I enquired whether any large moon is devoid of atmosphere, and got this google response: "Yes, Ganymede has a very thin, tenuous atmosphere composed primarily of oxygen, which was detected by the Hubble Space Telescope. This atmosphere is extremely sparse—roughly 100 billion times thinner than Earth's..." Haha, clowns, they are making me laugh. That's not an atmosphere.

They can't explain why this large moon, which they claim to be 3,300 miles in diameter, has no atmosphere. They claim it to be wider than our moon, though in reality it needs to be downsized by as much as the planets are not truly as large as Kepler's 3rd law claims for them (the solar system was sized by Kepler's 3rd law). Why don't they admit that planetary mass cannot be proportional to gravity force when they report that mars (4,200 miles wide) has a slight atmosphere while ganymede has zero? Shouldn't ganymede have roughly 70 percent as much atmosphere as mars, since ganymede is roughly 70 percent the size of mars? Yes, according to their gravity scheme, yes.

I suppose we could say that God clubbed Newtonian astronomy over the head with one moon, titan, but, a head clubbing is not enough to make Newtonians come to their senses. Titan has an atmosphere thicker than the earth's: "Titan is the largest moon of Saturn and the second-largest in the Solar System, with a diameter of approximately 5,150 km (3,200 miles)." They have titan the same size as ganymede, yet one moon has zero atmosphere while the other is rich. How to explain? Easy: gravity force = internal heat.

"Titan's atmosphere is exceptionally thick, extending about 400 to 600 kilometers (250–370 miles) above its surface — roughly 10 times higher than Earth's. It is 1.5 times denser than Earth's surface pressure and composed mainly of 95% nitrogen and 5% methane..." Zowie, if true that it's mainly of nitrogen, it has the same atomic make-up as the earth air, for nitrogen and oxygen atoms are nearly the same size.

I'm not saying that planets devoid of atmospheres have zero internal heat, just that there's not enough heat to contain an atmosphere to speak of. If you were to study moon data throughout the solar system, and if you are moral enough to not worship the big bang, you should come to the conclusion that gravity cannot be sourced in gravitons within atoms, but must be from negatively-charged electrons in planetary crusts. Once you arrive there, you realize that solar gravity is in the electrons that the sun constantly spews.

We can appeal to NASA where it claims that the earth-facing side of our moon has about ten times as much iron than the "dark side" of the moon. That alone tells the goofers that the earth-facing side is the heavier side. Whether NASA is correct or not in this claim, it should be obvious to all that the heavier half of the moon will always face the earth precisely because the side facing the earth is the bottom of the moon.

Yes, sir, the bottom of the moon is the side facing gravity, and the earth is the gravity. The problem for NASA, and the other baboon organizations claiming the high road on astronomical knowledge: if the sun's gravity acts 2.2 times stronger on the moon than the earth does, the bottom of the moon would always face the sun, duh, more than it would face the earth.

Why does astronomy fail to tell us that the center of the moon, as the eye sees it, is the absolute bottom of the moon? They don't want us to look at it in this way. Instead, they want us to imagine rock tides pulled toward earth while the moon spins literally on an axis. They never tell us that the moon is not literally rotating on an axis. In reality, its just hanging in space with it's heavy side pointing down, with earth gravity manipulating it such that the earth forces the moon to have a fabricated or artificial (or fake) rotation.

The leading space baboons, more interested in their evolution from the big bang than in truths, needed to hush what I've just told you, that a sun having such strong gravity should pull the moon's bottom such that it faces the sun more than it does the earth. And so we can start to understand why they use "tidal LOCK" to explain the heavy lunar side facing the earth, to give the false impression that the earth and moon are locked into position such that the sun can't bring the heavy side of the moon to facing itself. It's a nasty bluff, explaining why I've never heard before this week that solar gravity is 2.2 times stronger on the moon. I completely understand why astronomy would not want us to know that detail, but, luckily, google's AI went and revealed it. It's part of NASA's fun facts.

It gets more laughable because they really don't know how strong the earth acts on the moon, or the moon on the earth, because they have pegged the cause of the gravity force wrongly. Just rattle your mind a little longer here because once they established the mass of the sun, based on its gravity force on the planets at the distances from the sun that Kepler's "law" announced, they "discovered" how far the sun is, which in turn gave them the sun's diameter. By the time today arrived, I'm considered something like a flat-earther for claiming that the sun is not 93 million miles away.

Clearly, if the sun is not as massive as they guessed it should be, using wrong math, neither is it as wide, and neither is it as far, therefore. There's nothing flat-earthy about this argument.

The bottom of the moon is telling all of earth's inhabitants that the sun exerts a gravity force upon earth that is at least 2.2 times weaker than the cosmic baboons give it credit. It's as though the moon's bottom, facing the earth, was God's prepared ace up his sleeve to prove that the apes have everything wrong. Newton gravity, wrong. Solar-system size, wrong.

If the sun must be at least 2.2 times weaker in gravity, it must also be more than 2.2 times smaller in mass, more than 2.2 times smaller in diameter, and consequently more than 2.2 times closer to earth.

Chances are largesse that 2.2 is a figure much too small. I can prove it. I've already shown that, using NASA-eclipse data alone, the sun is no more than 18 million miles from earth, a difference of more than 5 times less than 93 million. I went over and over the evidence and never found anything wrong with the method I used to find the 18 million figure, a method that is easily available to astronomy, but obviously astronomy hasn't been interested to this day in finding the solar distance using lunar-eclipse lines.

If the sun exerted exactly as much gravity on the moon as the earth, the moon's heavy face, the one with all the dark "seas," would face MIDWAY between the earth and sun. See that? Can you agree? If the moon's heavy half is pulled by both earth and sun by exactly the same force, the heavy half would face EXACTLY MIDWAY between them. There is zero evidence that the moon's heavy side faces even a little toward the sun at any time, suggesting that solar gravity is so weak, at the earth distance, that it has no bearing on how the moon's heavy half positions itself in relation to earth.

It doesn't matter how the moon developed a heavy half, whether by volcanic action or tidal heaving. Even if we entertain the latter as correct, as soon as the earth yanked the moon rocks toward itself, the sun would have "noticed." Solar gravity was on-the-spot and rough-and-ready to steal the heavy half to itself, if indeed the sun has twice as much force as earth gravity. The baboons want you to think that the moon and earth LOCKED into position while the sun was incapable, to this day, of violating the lock. Therefore, NASA needs to be relegated into the flat-earth camp, not me.

AI says: "While the total gravitational pull of the Sun is [2.2] stronger, the difference in the Sun's pull on the Moon versus the Earth is less than the total pull of the Earth on the Moon." Ya-but, this speaks only to why the sun doesn't snatch the moon completely away from the earth. It has nothing to do with the direction the heavy half of the moon will face. Lunar gravity toward earth has no bearing on which direction the heavy half will face, for lunar gravity is not sourced only in the heavy half. The only thing having a bearing on the moon's direction is planetary or solar gravity, and, clearly, earth gravity wins hands down; the sun is a mere bystander, helpless to alter the direction dictated by the earth.

The astronomers are lying to us. They know full well that id the sun had twice the gravity force, then, on a new moon, once every month, the heavy lunar half would face the sun, which means that heavy half then becomes the far side of the moon. From this, you can gather that the moon's heavy half would face fully toward earth only on full moons. Throughout the month, if the sun dictated which way the heavy side faces, the moon's dark seas would spin toward us for two weeks, then away from us for two weeks. The only correct explanation for the locking of the moon's face toward us is that the sun's gravity amounts to diddly-squat on the lunar ball.

How much weaker solar gravity must there be in order to allow earth to fully dictate the direction of the moon's heavy half? I would like to venture a guess, but there's nothing to go on, since there's no evidence at all that the sun yanks the moon's heavy half more than it does the other half. Google claimed that the moon's heavy-half face migrates slightly east and west repeatedly, as we see the face from earth, due to the moon's changing orbital speed near apogee and perigee, but google did not mention any solar-gravity effects that contributed to these migrations.

Thanks to my gravity = heat law, I have a new realization. If the sun were 18 million miles away, it would be roughly 75 times further than the moon. As the sun must be as many times less wide as how many times its closer to earth, the sun would then have roughly 300 times more volume than earth, and, being much hotter, its internal gravity force would be far more than 300 times as much as earth's internal gravity. Yes, solar gravity would weaken by the time it reached across 18 million miles, but not enough to make solar gravity on the moon weaker than earth-to-moon gravity. This is such a problem that it can have only one solution, an example of a problem becoming a tool of discovery.

If we say that the sun's average temperature is 50 times more than earth's average, internal solar gravity force would become 300 x 50 = 1,500 times as much as earth's. Although we have the sun positioned 75 times further from earth than the earth-moon distance, even if we reduce solar gravity force by 150 times (instead of 75) by the time it reaches the earth or moon, the sun's gravity yet comes out 1,500 / 150 = 10 times stronger upon the moon than the earth. The only way to solve this problem (with the gravity=heat law) is for the sun to not be fully on fire. Only the outer crust can be burning while the core is a solid, non-burning body. Is this a small discovery?

Of course, this idea is not acceptable to big bangers who conveniently invented the H atom as the simplest for the big-bang to produce, invented that way because stars are made mainly of H atoms. They will argue that the entire sun is almost all H atoms, and that the sun cannot have a solid or liquid interior. They have the internal solar temperature pegged at much hotter than the solar surface, but the math above (that got a sun 10 times too strong in gravity) does not permit it.

Why couldn't the sun have a solid, non-burning core? As heat rises from gravity far more than it goes downward, heat produced on the sun's outer edge, expected to make a liquid condition deeper down, could conceivably allow a smaller solid core. If this is the solar reality, solar gravity force goes way down from what the math above concludes, for the math was working with a sun fully burning.

I used only NASA data to calculate, from the angles of lunar-eclipse lines on roughly 10 eclipses, that the sun is roughly 18 million miles from earth. However, part of NASA data used is the lunar diameter of 2,160 miles. I don't know whether that diameter is correct. At first, I trusted the number because I figured astronomy could reliably use two telescopes to triangulate the lunar distance, and once the correct lunar distance was obtained, it would cough up the lunar diameter too.

I then realized that triangulation is a scam. It can't work. I came to believe as reliable that sunlight does bend when passing through the earth's atmosphere, wherefore it bends the most when it's passing through at the highest angle, i.e. when the sun is on the horizon. If the sun is directly above the head, there is zero bending of light. The further the sun is down toward the horizon, the more the light bends.

The angle of my lunar-eclipse line, which line is the umbra line that goes to the edge of the sun, needs adjustment due to sunlight bending when passing through the atmosphere. The good news is that the 18-million finding goes down, not up, when sunlight bending is adjusted for. That way, the astronomers can't use light bending to excuse themselves from claiming a sun 18 million miles away at maximum

Lunar light likewise bends while passing through the air to a telescope. Therefore, if astronomers set up two telescopes far apart on the earth, with the moon directly above one telescope to cancel moonlight bending there, the moon is going to be at an angle as far less than 90 degrees (straight up), for the other telescope, the further away are the locations of the telescopes. Moonlight to the second telescope will receive bent light.

Therefore, when both telescopes point to the center of the moon simultaneously, and they record telescopic angles to the moon where one angle doesn't in fact go to the moon due to bent moonlight, finding the lunar distance is frustrated. I don't think the true lunar distance can be found, therefore, by this method. Is there another method? I asked google: "did anyone try to get the lunar distance by triangulation?" It responds suspiciously:

While the term "triangulation" is usually used for manual, angular, or visual surveying, the modern, most accurate method is a direct, advanced form of it [no it's not]. Laser pulses are fired from Earth-based observatories (like in Texas and Maui) to reflectors placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts, and back. Measuring the round-trip time allows for distance calculation with centimeter-level precision

Why did this quote try to compare laser pulses to triangulation when the two are not at all similar? As no man has been on the moon, you just saw google lie to us, using a faked pulse method probably because the triangulation method is unreliable.

You might say that, well, yes moonlight bends, but astronomy can make the proper angle adjustments based on how much the light bends. Well, no it can't, unless it first knows how far the moon actually is. How can anyone know how many degrees to adjust the telescopic angle to get the accurate lunar distance if the latter is not yet discovered? Unless the correct location of something in space is known, one cannot find the extent to which light bends (from top of the air to the ground). It's not like someone manning a telescope on the ground can peek-a-boo his head out of the atmosphere to see where the moon actually is.

If the moon is smaller than the modern claim, the 18 million distance goes up, and vice-versa if the moon is wider than claimed. To put it another way, the smaller the diameter of the earth umbra where the moon passes through it, the further the sun will become once the math is done. The smaller the moon, the smaller the diameter of the umbra. Nobody can measure the umbra diameter correctly except by use of the moon as a measuring stick.

I'm not at all an expert in their orbital mechanics. But I understand physics enough to make some comments on what I'm reading, and I have the correct definition of gravity, a big advantage such that I KNOW they have planetary mass wrongly pegged. It's my job to explain this as best I can without making my own mistakes. When they assigned the sun way-too much mass, I'm not sure how many culprits there are, because I'm not familiar with all of their math. One culprit was the error they made in adding inertia as an ingredient to their planet-mass formula, where inertia was viewed greater as the planet's mass is greater, and where solar mass needs to be greater the greater the orbital inertia.

I'll agree that, the heavier an object in motion, whether in or out of gravity, the more power it has to do damage, the more inertia it has if anyone wants to slow or redirect it. Planets have high inertia when orbiting, much more than an asteroid at the same orbit, and a planet's outward thrust or punch, as it desires to take a 90-degree path to the sun, does not require more solar gravity to keep it in check, to maintain the orbital path, than a small pebble or asteroid at the same orbit. I know this goes counter-intuitive, but it's the fact, and we need to understand the reason.

The orbital situation is the perfect opposite of gravity pulling all objects of different weights at the same acceleration downward. No matter how heavy the rocks are that want to violate the circular orbit, solar gravity pulls all their atoms with equal force, such that, regardless of whether the planet has many zillions of atoms more than an asteroid, they all need to get attracted by the same level of gravity force to maintain the orbit. Every planet, every asteroid, is nothing but ONE ATOM in orbit, multiplied by many times. Each atom is kept in orbit individually such that the same gravity force keep a pebble in orbit, or a planet, at the same distance from the sun. Newton didn't know it, and, what's worse, astronomy has yet to make corrections for it.

Nobody could have known until after the discovery of the atom, and what's worse, astronomy isn't poised to make corrections because it doesn't believe that all atoms weigh the same.

In short, orbital mechanics must NOT include inertial effects of planets in accordance to their masses. By "inertial effect," it's meant that the planet's resistance to altering its path makes it wish to move 90 degrees to the sun. I asked google: "does orbital mechanics include inertial effects of planets in accordance to their masses?" Response:
does orbital mechanics include inertial effects of planets where "inertial effect" is the outward force proportional to their masses?

Yes, orbital mechanics includes the inertial effects of planets in direct accordance with their masses...accurate orbital calculations rely on Newton’s laws of motion, where a planet's mass dictates its resistance to change in motion (inertia)...

They got it wrong, but they have not corrected the size of orbits, i.e. the size of the solar system, even after learning that planetary inertia is not proportional to planetary mass. The asteroid tells them that the mass of the planet is irrelevant to the size of the orbit, yet astronomy decided it would plow straight ahead into the future with the old orbital mechanics that grant them a gigantic solar system to the liking of father big bang.

My thinking is, and I assume the astronomers were thinking the same: the inertia of the orbiting planet wants to take the planet out of orbit onto a straight-line path, while the CONSTANT fall of the planet to the sun overrides the straight-line path. One thing we know, if the planet is continually falling to the sun, it's expected to accelerate in the downward direction, and as such it would spiral out of orbit, and soon crash into the sun. Therefore, as the planet does not spiral in orbit, it cannot be falling continually, and if not, neither can it be moving continually in a straight-line path slightly away from the sun.

There's two ways to look at it. We could say that, in every micro-second, the straight line path takes the planet a little away from the sun, while the planet's fall (in the next micro-second) brings the planet back down to the orbital path, repeatedly such that the fall is disrupted every micro-second, such that it's reset, such that there can be no expectation of continual acceleration because that requires constant fall. In short, in this scenario, there is NO CONSTANT fall, yet the fall is required to cancel centrifugal force. It doesn't merely balance centrifugal force such as to leave it intact; it wipes it out, CANCELS it. There's a difference.

A second way to look at it: there is no fall at all, no simultaneous straight-line path. The planet is merely balanced between the outward inertia and the attractive pull. I think this is the better picture. The path is CONTINUALLY circular. The straight-line path, that may have been needed to get the planet into orbit, no longer exists. The outward thrust exists during orbit, but that is not to be mistaken with inertia.

I want to hit a home run here, and so bare with me. I asked google more pointedly, "does orbital mechanics include inertial effects of planets where 'inertial effect' is the outward force proportional to their masses?" I don't want AI to mistaken what I'm talking about, and so let me share part of the response where you can see with your own eyes that it interprets "inertial force" as centrifugal force, which is exactly what I'm talking about (square brackets mine):

Gravity is the only 'real' force acting on the planet, forcing it into a curved path. A fictitious [why fictitious?] outward centrifugal force is used to balance the inward gravitational pull.

Mass Proportionality: The inertial force (centrifugal) is directly proportional to the planet's mass, as is the gravitational force.

There you go, the astronomers have incriminated themselves by admitting that the outward force must be equal the downward force, explaining why an asteroid or a planet at the same orbit must have the same velocity, because, whether there's a big or small rock, the downward pull perfectly and logically cancels the outward thrust. The smaller rock gets a smaller outward thrust, and a smaller inward pull.

IN THAT CASE, specific inertial effects are IRRELEVANT to the formation of orbital sizes, and specific masses of planets are IRRELEVANT to the formation of orbital sizes, yet astronomers claimed a relationship between specific masses and orbital diameters. For example, when they guessed that mars is 142 million miles from the sun, they took a jab at how much mass mars possesses as per its speed at that distance, thinking that its inertia worked to take it out of orbit.

I just asked Google, "does calculating planetary mass depend on distance from the sun?" I was surprised to see that answer as, "no." It cited other methods for finding planetary masses, which made me suspicious, and so I re-phrased the question: "did Newtonian-era astronomy calculate planetary mass depend on distance from the sun?" This time:

Yes, Newtonian-era astronomers calculated planetary masses based on their distance from the Sun (and from their moons), using Newton's laws of motion and gravitation...

Newton calculated the masses of planets with moons by observing the orbits of those satellites. Using the distance of the moon from its planet and the period of its orbit, they could directly calculate the planet's mass.

Newton calculated the mass of planets relative to the Sun, and the mass of the Sun relative to the Earth, by comparing the gravitational "pull" needed to maintain their orbits, effectively creating the first solar system mass chart.

My question now is: when did astronomy deviate from Newtonian-era mass calculations of the planets, and why did astronomy not correct the mass calculations of old??? It strikes me hard that AI would now claim that, nope, planet mass is not done according solar distance, or lunar masses are not done according to planet distances.

For how long were the Newtonian-era mass numbers taught as fact? I showed above that, since any rock of any mass can orbit at the same solar distance, it's impossible to calculate the mass of a planet using solar distance. The next question posed to google is: "did Newton correctly calculate the mass of jupiter?"

Isaac Newton did not calculate the absolute mass of Jupiter in modern units (kilograms), but he correctly calculated its mass relative to the Sun using his law of universal gravitation and Kepler's third law.

CRIMINAL! It means that modern astronomy has NOT corrected the old science based on TRASH. Kepler's third law was the stepping stone to finding planet-to-sun distances, and so the whole heap of mass-trash was converted to kilograms once the baboons decided on the planet-to-sun mileage. I'm deeply offended. They have fed the world trash knowing that its trash ever since the discovery of the orbital periods of near-earth asteroids. They learned then that, no matter the mass of the rock, they can all orbit roughly at the earth orbit at roughly the same speed as the earth.

The response continues: "Newton’s gravitation law allowed for the calculation that Jupiter is roughly 1/1000th of the mass of the Sun, or roughly 300+ times the mass of Earth, which is foundational to the modern understanding of its mass." The only thing he had to go on was distance factor, and a formula using Newtonian mass=gravity (as one ingredient), both of which are incapable of finding the true mass, yet modern astronomy has not swerved at all from his findings aside from some fine-tuning. It's criminal.

Google AI again: "Yes, calculating the mass of the Sun depends directly on knowing planetary distances." I asked how so, and got this damning response:

The mass of the Sun is calculated by measuring the distances and orbital periods of planets (or other orbiting bodies) and applying Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion as revised by Isaac Newton. This method uses the principle that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and a planet provides the necessary centripetal force to keep the planet in its orbit.

Centripetal force is the uncle of centrifugal force. Centripetal force for planets is the force of solar gravity inward toward the solar core. It's the force needed to perfectly counter the outer inertial/centrifugal force. By now, you should be able to spot why the quote above is a nasty heap of trash, simply because the solar mass is viewed equivalent to the solar-gravity force. Even if they do find the correct solar-gravity force as per the quote above, they go and convert it to solar mass.

Here's their formula for finding solar gravity force once they have arrived to the solar mass figure. They begin with a special "gravitational constant" number that you or I cannot prove to be correct or incorrect. It could be self-inflicted voodoo for all we know. That number is in every mass-calculating formula for objects in the solar system. They multiply it by the solar-mass figure, then multiply that product by the planet-mass figure, then divide that product by the planet-distance squared. There are only four numbers in that formula for finding the solar-gravity-force number, and all four could be erroneous. Three of them are definitely erroneous, but I can't speak to the fourth, the gravitational constant, because I haven't got the stuff within me to investigate this garbage any deeper. Suffice it to say that modern astronomy is a devious, dangerous lunatic disguised as your friend.

Once they think they know how far a planet is from the sun, they can find a solar-mass number without Kepler's third law, by multiplying the velocity of the orbiting planet by the planet's distance from the sun, then dividing that product by the gravitational constant which might be a demon or friend, I wouldn't know). Are you going to trust that? The larger the orbital diameter, the greater the orbital velocity, the greater also the orbital distance such that the solar mass will also be greater. And that's why they have a sun too massive, with too much gravity, because they have the planets too far from the sun.

I said earlier that if they have the planetary masses wrong, they will get the solar mass wrong too. This should not be taken in the wrong way, for planetary masses are so small in comparison to the sun that the formula will not change the solar-mass result by much. However, when Newton and his buddies figured planet masses based on planet-to-solar distance, the planet masses were based on a too-high solar mass to begin with such that the error in planetary-mass figures was proportional to the size of the error in solar-mass figure. One mistake in the math yesterday breeds eternal mistakes unless the trash is thrown out before eternity arrives. Astronomy is not yet ready to trash their trash.

The heavy half of the moon informs us that they got solar mass wrong because they gave it too much gravity force. They are resisting to come clean.

One can easily imagine as correct that God made the life-giving sun to represent his Light on the world, and that the moon represents Jesus the God-Man always concerned for mankind by always facing the world while orbiting the sun together with it. The sun-sized moon sometimes reflects much sunlight, and sometimes no sunlight, on the earth. Why might God have depicted Jesus with a surface scarred in craters?

Lunar Gravity Farce

One way to know that man has never been on the moon is by way of knowing that the pre-rocket claim for the force level of lunar gravity was not changed after man supposedly landed on the moon. One who believes that man landed on the moon expects that they took a weight scale to the moon to check how much lower lunar gravity is than on earth. The claim has always been, since the dawn of cosmological evolutionists, that the moon has 1/6th that of earth. google AI:

The discovery that the Moon's surface gravity is approximately 1/6th that of Earth was established in the late 19th century (1880s) through improved astronomical instruments that calculated the Moon's mass and radius, allowing scientists to determine its gravitational influence

They were wrong then, and therefore they have not sent a weight scale to the moon. Or, at best, a craft has been to the moon with a weight scale, but they are not correcting what they taught prior to the space age. If this negligence is correct, there needs to be a motive for not correcting the record. Is it to spare mere embarrassment, or is it to save the planetary-mass calculations depended upon for mapping the too-giant solar system? I'll show how the 1/6th figure conforms to their mass = gravity baloney.

The moon has about 50 times less volume of rock than the earth, meaning that, by their own definition of gravity, and if this were the only factor in calculating lunar gravity, they would need to make lunar gravity 50 times weaker, if the earth and moon had the same density of material per cubic unit of volume.

When I ask, "how much heavier is the moon per volume of rock material than the earth," google AI tells us that "The Moon is actually less heavy per unit of volume (less dense) than the Earth overall, not more....The Moon is about 60% to 65% as dense as the Earth." This means that, according to their own gravity law, the 50-times above becomes 80 times less lunar gravity force than earth gravity. But we're not done because there's yet another factor to consider which drops that number down to 1/6 the force.

To begin with, the mass of the earth and moon which they claim is calculated as per: Newtonian gravity force combined with the inertia they imagined to be relevant in orbital mechanics. It means that these mass figures are erroneous, meaning further that the 1/6 they arrived to more than a century ago is likely wrong (unless their erroneous math fell on it correctly by coincidence). It serves to prove to you that NASA is not being straight with us on this matter.

When I ask google whether gravity force is proportional to mass, it says: "Yes, the gravitational force exerted on or by an object is directly proportional to its mass." I then asked, "how can the moon be 80 times less massive than earth, yet have 1/6th the gravity?" Response:

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th of Earth's despite having 1/81st of the mass because surface gravity depends on both mass and radius...Because the Moon is much smaller (roughly 1/4 the radius), you are closer to its center of mass, which significantly boosts its gravitational pull, compensating for its low mass.

Okay, it makes sense, not necessarily meaning their numbers are correct. There we see how they took 80 times less mass in order to guess (over a century ago) that the moon has 1/6 earth gravity at the lunar surface. I'm not going to get into the details that net 1/6th as the product, because I can show NASA fraudulent where gravity is sourced in heat (nothing to do with mass), and, besides, their orbital mechanics is not based on planetary inertia that nets the mass numbers.

You need to grasp this, that because they haven't got the correct lunar mass and/or the correct earth mass, and because gravity is not sourced in mass to begin with, it's worth placing a million dollars on the bet that 1/6 is the wrong lunar-gravity number. Yet the imposters claim that they literally tested the lunar gravity force by multiple methods to confirm that 1/6 is correct. What sort of laughable monster are we up against?

Nobody has proven that mass attracts mass. Nobody has shown how mass can attract mass. Nobody has found the "graviton" particle that each atom supposedly possesses. If two objects are hung near each other, they show no provable attraction force by gravity. The objects need to be placed so utterly close to each other to get any kind of reaction that the electromagnetic forces within them could possibly become a culprit causing faint inter-repulsion between them, or they could possibly mimic gravity force with some faint inter-attraction. We can't trust evolutionists not to set up bogus experiments or lie about the results, for Fake is their middle name. Nobody knows this more than Creation-based scientists.

"Newton analyzed the gravitational effects of the sun and moon on Earth's tides to estimate the relative mass of the moon." Translation: Newton wanted to know how much gravity force the moon exerted on the tides, but he sought the lunar mass by assuming it to be proportional to its gravitational pull. It cannot be true. It was an ad-hoc assumption that eventually got factualized.

You will believe NASA over me if you can't believe that its leaders would go to such an extreme as to protect the secret that the moon has not 1/6 the earth gravity. But then half the world now thinks that NASA faked moon landings, and that it puts out fake / doctored planetary and cosmic images. It's highly interested in "proving" life on Mars because that's a crux to big-bang scheming. We can see their game. NASA has begged google to hide the thousands of articles / videos disproving the moon landing, for google has in fact hidden 90-percent of more of them, as has youtube. It's done by a conspiracy against us.

I asked google: "did NASA bring a weight scale to the moon to figure its gravity force?" The response starts with a lie: "Yes, NASA brought specialized equipment to the Moon to measure its gravity, although not a conventional bathroom-style 'weight scale.'" What did they bring? "Astronauts Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt used a TGE, which is a highly sophisticated, portable gravimeter designed to measure the local gravitational acceleration. It functioned by using a sensor with an adjustable mass on a sprung lever." Ya-but, those men were never on the moon. Therefore, the response is a trick to keep 1/6 alive.

The statement above starts with a lie because a weight scale is not a "gravimeter" (does this thing even work?). Why use a specialized gravity meter that nobody knows the workings of when a good weight scale is the best and most-reliable gravity meter, duh? The "highly sophisticated" gravimeter sounds like complicated device measuring the speed of a falling object that falls for only a few inches. It sounds like a device through which they can fudge the numbers to keep 1/6 alive, with us commoners incapable of proving them wrong, since we don't know what the device is or how it works. We all understand and trust weight scales, though.

"The measurements confirmed the lunar surface gravity to be approximately 1.62695 meters per second squared (about 1/6th of Earth's surface gravity)." LIARS. Look at all of those decimal points to make the device look super-duper. Ya-but, I can get five decimal points by dividing two numbers pulled out of my hat. Lookie: 1.5 / 1.75 = .8571428571428571. Lookie me, I'm super-duper sophisticated.

You cannot possibly be so gullible as to believe that people in the 1700s figured lunar gravity to be 1/6th the earth's, exactly matching what this gravimeter supposedly discovered. Please, do yourself a favor, and open your eyes to the crockery that evolutionist-obedient astronomy has been. They framed the solar system according to their big-bang needs, but did not inform their general students of this background. Biased science is warped science.

I asked google: "can you share with me the scientists or persons who found that the moon's gravity is not nearly 1/6 the earth's?" No response, except to tell me why 1/6 is the correct "fact". It's hiding anyone's work who does not agree with 1/6th. No critical thinking allowed.

The moon's gravity at its surface can be targeted as much less than 1/6th the earth's due to the lack of volcanoes on the moon. In contrast, the earth, though much wider than the moon, has volcanic material reaching the surface on a steady basis. If therefore the moon can't get it's magma up to its surface, we readily understand that the volume of moon heat is far less than 1/6th the earth's.

Can anyone imagine Newton, with so much on his plate to begin with, analyzing the gravitational effects of the sun and moon on Earth's tides to estimate the relative mass of the moon? Are you kidding me? In the 1700s??? It sounds like a lifetime of work needed just for figuring out this endeavor's formula. The moon versus tides, investigated by one man and a drunken sailor, are you kidding me? They're trying to make Newton look like a god because they want to push his dope.

Here's a formula they came up with for finding the lunar pull on earth's seas: (twice the gravitational constant x lunar mass x earth radius) / cubed root of earth-to-moon distance. HAHAHAHAHA, so laughable, I really needed a good laugh, thank you, astronomy, I can always count on you. If ever you decide to delve deeper into this formula, I suggest your time is better spent on comic books.

The formula is an attempt to find the specific lunar gravity at earth's sea level (one earth radius from the earth core). The gravitational constant in combination with lunar mass finds, they think, the power of lunar gravity at its source. Then, they think that finding the lunar gravity strength at the earth's core needs those two things divided by the cube root of the earth-moon distance. This tells us how they figure planet-to-planet gravity force, by dividing inherent planet gravity by the cube of the distance between two planets. This applies to other moons and their respective planets too, whether or not the moons have any heat in their interiors i.e. whether they have any gravity force at all.

AI tells us to use: "Distance from Earth to Moon (avg 384 million meters)." That is, we are to find the cubed root of 384 million, which amounts to 727 times weaker lunar gravity at the earth core as compared to inherent lunar gravity in the moon. Does that number not seem way to high, way too strong a force at earth?

Imagine how much weaker Pluto's gravity is on Neptune, through such a vast distance, yet when Neptune was discovered, astronomers were pooping their pants because it wasn't behaving as Newton predicted it should, and so they started looking for a nearby, as-yet undiscovered planet that could explain the unexpectations. Alas, all they found was wee-wee Pluto.

The way to discover the power of lunar gravity at the earth's surface is to find the center of lunar gravity inside the moon. If we take a good guess that the center of lunar gravity is a round 1,000 miles beneath the lunar surface, then the gravity force at the lunar surface will be weaker by four times (according to their inverse-square gravity force) when an object is 2,000 miles above the lunar surface.

I'll spell it out for you until we reach the earth; you can go straight to the bottom line if you wish: 2,000 miles up, 4 times weaker; 4,000 miles up, 16 times weaker; 8,000 miles, 64 times; 16,000 miles, 256 times; 32,000 miles, 1,012 times; 64,000 miles, 4,048 times; 128,000 miles, 16,192 times...; 128,000 miles, 64,768 times

FINALLY, bottom line: 256,000 miles above the lunar surface, a little past the earth, the lunar gravity force has weakened by 64,768 times as compared to the lunar-surface gravity force. Yet their formula gave us a weakening by only 727 times from lunar core to earth surface by using their formula for finding the lunar pull on earth's oceans. Why is their 727 figure a whopping 89 times stronger in lunar gravity than "my" 64,768 times weaker? Actually, it's not my figure; it's the figure obtained when we follow their inverse-square law across the quarter-million mile earth-to-moon distance. Where's the problem?

I suspect they calculated the force needed to provide the tides irrespective of how much mass or gravity force is needed. Once somebody(s) had a solid (or even mushy) handle on the force needed, they realized that their inverse-square law gave a gravity far too weak. Part of that problem can be that they erred when banking on a weakening of gravity by the square root of the distance.

They plowed ahead, anyway, leaving the inverse-square law hung up in the closet for the time being. They then worked backward, plugging away until they found both a method with numbers to satisfy the needed tidal-force calculation using moon-sourced gravity. They had their lunar mass far too large, and therefore they started with too much lunar gravity, but, no problem, they could cube-root the earth-moon distance instead of square-rooting it, to cut the too-much lunar gravity down to the correct size.

The square root of the earth-lunar distance gets the moon gravity 19,596 times weaker, a big problem if they were gunning for something in the ballpark of 727 times weaker.

Personally, I don't see the logic in square-rooting or cube-rooting the inherent gravity force to discover how weak it gets by the time it reaches earth. I think we're dealing with lunatics who support and abet lunatics.

I saw a video where a magnetic-field meter showed twice the gravity force when twice as close to the magnet. That video is kryptonite to modern physics, wherefore expect other similar videos to be buried and hidden with priority. I therefore mapped the solar system based on a weakening of gravity by half, for every doubling of distance. When using that rule, and starting with a gravity source 1,000 miles below the lunar surface, the result is a weakening by 512 times when 256,000 miles from the moon, or roughly 500 times at the earth's surface. That number is remarkable close to their 727 times.

As we don't know how gravity operates on the mechanical level, I'm open to the conclusion that the video showed. I can greatly mistrust modern physics when it comes to its coming clean of historical errors, making me more open to seeing the inverse-square law of gravity as a sham. It happens to get a solar system far larger than a gravity force weakening proportionally by half for every doubling of distance, meaning that the motive behind the inverse-square law may have been the deliberate over-sizing of the solar system by up-and-coming evolutionary hacks whose mission was primarily the killing of God, not true science.

Meat-Grinder Inventors Swallowed Gravitons Whole

It is extremely important to big-bang science that it should not view gravity as an electromagnetic force, because the cosmos cannot have formed stars unless atoms have built-in attraction to each other. Particles flying out from a central point become ever-further apart such that they cannot form proto stars unless something brings them near to each other. The liars will not make videos to talk about this problem, because it's a fatal flaw.

Gas atoms refuse to come together unless gravity forces them together upon a solid surface. How could a star form under those rules? How could gravity have formed as a proto-star when there's nothing to bring big-bang protons and electrons together to form H atoms? They have a fatal flaw with gravity = mass, because mass cannot accumulate or aggregate in a big-bang cosmos, and a gravity pool (proto-star) cannot exist unless aggregation first takes place.

Even by their own kinetic model, gas atoms do not form liquid atoms until they come close and slow. Imagine how close they are when they form liquid in a small jar, and then imagine how far apart they were after even a thousand years of screeching away from each other from the big-bang explosion. They don't like to call it an explosion, but they themselves claim fantastic speeds for the particles, how can we call it any less than an explosion?

They goobers would agree that, in a small jar, gas atoms are less than a few atomic diameters apart when forming liquids. Or, if they are ten atomic diameters apart, they will not be close enough to form liquids. After a "short" time as big bangers see it, the newly-birthed particles would have been miles apart. Hello? How do we get star formation in that picture? Can you imagine how fast and furious H atoms would have been racing even if they could form in the first place from screeching protons and electrons?

Newtonian physics doesn't give these atoms any brakes in the vacuum of space, no way to slow down. The goobers are not permitted to just poof a gravity pool into existence, then poof in another, then poof in billions more without first explaining in palatable detail how such pools can form. This is science, not the town magic act. All science establishments were usurped by evolutionists by design, on behalf of their war against Christianity. Everything in their early cosmology was sheer invention simply to get the general public to swallow a Godless creation.

The big bang theory is already fatally wounded upon first inspection, when laid beside the known laws of atoms, such that evolutionists don't want to hack it closer to death by introducing electromagnetic gravity. Their envisioned gravity pools, each one forming a star, would then repel electrons away such that the "neighborhood" protons it might attract could not become H atoms. The magicians need both electrons and protons to be attracted in order to form stars, and the only place they are permitted to get them is from electrons and protons in fast flight from the big-bang point.

Newtonian gravity serves them to a small degree because it attracts both electrons and protons. Now you know why nobody in evolutionary science even discusses the possibility electromagnetic gravity.

Imagine a ball with a thousand needles sticking out of its surface, all at an equal distance from each other at the surface, but all connected to the core of the ball. None point parallel to each other by nature of the spherical shape of the ball. No matter how many needles we imagine in this sphere, even if their outer ends are in contact, they could not point parallel to each other. If we sent them outward in the direction they point, they would become progressively further apart.

Imagine protons and electrons exploding from a massive sphere where none are permitted to be inside each other. The best they can be is beside each other. You are an absolute fool if you think all the particles came out from a meat grinder, every particle inside another particle, as if zillions were all taking up the same space. You can go cry to momma, fool, I'm not taking that back.

Whether they "exploded" or not, they moved outward at fantastic speeds beginning at an in-contact positioning. It's the best the fools can do short of entertaining the meat grinder. The particles would therefore all go out at slight angles to each other; they could not go out parallel to each other, and therein is yet another fatal flaw in this concept. The particles would become eight times more sparse with every doubling of distance. That's a big deal.

How many atoms apart would they have been after one inch of travel? I told you, this is a big deal. Even if they were one atomic diameter apart after an inch of travel, they would have been hundreds of atomic diameters after a few inches of travel, and so you can begin to see how serious this problem is after a mile of travel, after 100 miles. Before long the particles would be 100 miles apart at this rate.

Evolutionists are bankrupt both scientifically and morally. They are a disaster upon God's green earth as they take praises from the stooges who honor them. If not moronic thinker, then what else would think that protons and electrons could survive such an explosion intact, or that the explosion could fabricate them all exactly alike?

Some try to make the big bang more palatable by insisting it wasn't an explosion, who talk as if they were standing there watching it happen. Instead of an explosion, it was a meat-grinder situation, where material just churned out slowly over vast time and spread out slowly too. But "slow" is in the mind of the beholder. They themselves have the particles speeding too fast for a man to imagine. They have the problem of explaining how the electrons kept pace with the super-fast photons, what a joke. The only way to make that picture work is to have the electrons EXPLODING out of momma big-bang's womb as fast as the photons travel by nature, or the photons would have left them behind in the dust.

Only one given to a scientific moronicism imagines a meat-grinder situation where the material appears magically out of nowhere, as if through a portal to another universe at the center of the grinder. This is not science, this is moronicism, the art of being unabashedly moronic, pointing the finger at everyone else for being too stupid to be a qualified moron.

I've just found google's AI telling that H atoms were formed in the first ten minutes after the big-bang initiated. HAHAHA, we can see their game here because people are starting to wonder how H atoms could have formed hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang, which has been a previous claim.

An article from CERN, as if the author was witness to the event: "As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe." How far do you think the electrons and protons were, from each other, after 380,000 years? Seriously, is the writer so moronic that he truly thinks those particles could have been near each other after so much time of out-spreading? Or is he/she just a wicked demonoid desperate to keep people from faith in Jesus? Those are probably the best two choices; I don't see a third.

As people begin to voice the problems, the big-bang evolves tumors, none of them benign, each one an admission that this Frankenstein needs fixing. In my youth, the big-bang spot was as tiny as a pin head. I haven't checked in since to get updates. That's because I'm not that moronic. Recently, I was scolded by google's AI because I dared call it an explosion. The world is now told, according to some yahoo merely at quora:

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an expansion of space, starting from an incredibly hot, dense state rather than a single point."

Sorry, buddy, you lost me. Sorry buddy, but as I think along the lines of common sense, I can't agree. Are you telling me that the material of the universe started as a batch of heat not made of material, not sourced in material, and that, suddenly, space itself started to roll out as if space is itself a material? I'm sorry buddy, but I'm keeping to my logical definition of space, as nothingness. I don't ever want to become like you. You are moronic.

They have ruined my world, and your world, and your world, and on and on they have ruined the world for billions, and want to ruin yet more that they might keep God as dead as possible in society. Those who confess their rebellion against God, and who are willing to correct their sinful habits, will be Forgiven, and will go to Phase Two of eternity. But avid big bangers have no clue what they are doing to their futures.

I think what the big bangers do is to imagine how God may have created everything from his hand while standing at one spot, but they then remove God from the picture. Without God, Creation becomes nothing but magic, impossible. Although we can't know where God came from, we can at least comprehend how an Intelligent Being could create an electron and a proton, and then cause them to reproduce. Everything in the material universe is just electrons and protons, so far as we know. All other discovered" particles are likely inventions of the goofers, or pieces of destroyed or altered protons that they imagine as new particles.

When they needed to introduce neutrons into their atomic model to "fix" their atomic-weight model, they badly needed the graviton within their gravity pools. How in tarnation did neutrons exploding forth from the big bang possibly arrive to proto stars in numbers matching the number of protons? There was nothing to attract them but the infamous graviton. I've asked google several questions trying to discover where the magicians locate the graviton within the atom, but AI skirts the question everytime. For example: "Based on theoretical physics, gravitons — if they exist — are not 'attached' to a specific location within an atom like a structural component."

I then asked, "c'mon, AI, get serious, where is the graviton in the atom?" The response admits that it's a magician's invention:

The short, serious answer is that the graviton is not 'in' the atom like a proton, neutron, or electron.

If you are looking for the particle that mediates gravity at the SUBATOMIC [caps mine] level, here is the current scientific standing based on your request for 'serious' physics:

Hypothetical Status: The graviton has never been detected or observed. It is a theoretical, massless spin-2 particle predicted by quantum field theory, not an established subatomic particle.

The graviton is a fantasy, maintained in the big-bang tool chest only to make star formation seem feasible. Whenever he has nightmares telling him that the big bang is impossible, he goes into his tool box, takes out the graviton wrench, and starts to turn the nuts in his brain a little tighter. Then he feels back on-game.

As you can see, the graviton even comes with a fancy spin for accomplishing some important task, and has been elevated up to the heavenly realm of quantum field theory. It is able to exist maybe in the atomic dirt at the "subatomic level," or maybe it's hiding in the atom's crotch, nobody knows for sure. Nobody knows how to pull it out to inspect it, but it's got to be somewhere in the atom because all atoms have gravity force that isn't electromagnetic.

There are no neutrons. Had physicists accepted the obvious-to-them fact that all atoms weigh the same, there would have been no need for neutrons, for they were invented to add weight to atoms when needed. It's ad-hoc science. Need a particle? Just invent it, then say that it's hiding, then frame an experiment to "prove" its existence that no commoner is able to disprove. The experiment claiming discovery of neutrons was bogus, and its "discovery" was in the same circles as the discovery of the orbiting electron, which should tell you all you need to know.

Things are a'changing: I asked: "how can atoms have gravity force if the graviton is not in the atom?" The chosen response from Physics Stack Exchange in non-sensical:

Atoms possess gravitational force because gravity is generated by mass and energy itself, not by gravitons stored inside them. In quantum field theory, atoms generate gravity by exchanging virtual gravitons in the space between them, or through spacetime curvature (General Relativity).

If you can understand the mechanics implied or inherent in that last sentence, you're a slap-happy lunatic. Congratulations, you've arrived to the wide front doors of Hell's Insanity Department. The first sentence is you're salvation, if you interpret it properly, Here, let me help you. Read it: "Atoms possess gravitational force because gravity is generated by mass and energy itself, not by gravitons stored inside them." Gravity force is from the mass of electrons that represent more than 99-percent of all the energy in the universe. The remainder is from some positive force that emits from some atoms, sometimes. The nuclear explosion involves emitted electrons, not neutrons.

I've yet to invent one particle to help show the mechanics of any description I offer of an atomic event or process. Everything known to physics, so far as I've delved into what's known, can be explained by protons and electrons alone, except for one thing, even two things: attraction and repulsion force.

There's no gravitons between atoms pulling them toward each other. There is only regular repulsion or attraction between them, and as yet I haven't decided whether the two are sourced in particles not yet known. It's possible. I'm waiting for a eureka moment showing how free electrons in the air might define "attraction force" as nothing more than electron-push force upon the opposite ends of a magnet from the two ends that "attract." Every once in a while, as hobbytime, I take an unsuccessful stab at it.

As gravity is from free electrons rather than captured electrons, it's true that gravity force exists between atoms, but the electrons do not cause atom-to-atom attraction, because they press against every atom in their own quest to move away from each other, and consequently the electrons cause atoms to move apart as much as possible. This picture is kryptonite for proto-star formation by natural events because the opposite to star formation happens.

Cosmic atoms thin out and never come together because they need a surface upon on which they can bond into liquid. Even rain droplets need pieces of dust upon which to form. Something needs to block the gas atom from getting away when another is forced toward it, and outer space is not facilitative whatsoever.

On earth and outside of a science lab or factory, there are three main forces causing condensation, always on an atomic surface: 1) gravity force pulling water molecules/droplets downward as dew on a top surface; 2) free-electron (heat) flow in any direction through the air into a cold object; 3) upward lift on water molecules/droplets in cloud formation, as gravity repels free electrons upward. There, you see, I've just described some important processes without inventing another particle or wacko, law-breaking idea, and it's all viable and understandable without need for kinetic-dizzy atoms.

Jack-in-the-Box Heat Particles

The filament of old-style light-bulbs having vacuums proves that heat is defined as electrons because everyone agrees that electrons emit from light-bulb filaments. The electron was discovered from electrons emitting out of filaments. There's nothing else in a vacuum to create the heat when electrons emit from the filament. The situation is compelling for the physicist to ask: is the heat from the simple presence of electrons? Is heat the material of electrons? Why not? How can we prove that heat is not electrons? Can we ignore the kinetic theory of heat for a short while as we inspect whether heat and electrons are the same? That's good science, yet no opposing schools of thought I know of developed between that idea and the kinetic theory. Why not?

Perhaps the culprit was Newtonian gravity, for as it claims that electrons are attracted by gravity, it was easier to convince scientists to ignore anyone proposing a heat=electron theory. Plus, as electrons move and have kinetic energy, the kineticists could argue that heat mixed in with electrons doesn't necessarily prove that the physical electron defines heat, only that it causes some heat by its motion.

Light bulbs having vacuums within get burning hot to the touch directly above the filament, and are relatively cool directly below the filament, because gravity repels electrons upward. Let kineticists respond to this claim, and they become ridiculous. The electrons are not only moving, but rising, yet they ignore the obvious inference. The light bulb is telling them that gravity is electromagnetic, which in one fell swoop destroys the concept of Newtonian gravity. And why not? Why can't gravity be a negative charge? I've had this claim for decades, but I can't tell you one reason as to why gravity can't be electromagnetic. If I knew one, I would share it with you.

The humble light bulb proves that gravity repels electrons. It therefore proves that electrons are the gravity source, for there is nothing else known that repels electrons. Why didn't evolutionists hearken to the humble light bulb? Why did they close their eyes to the rising electrons? When they admit that the sun spews electrons, and sends them farther than Pluto, why did they opt to believe that the electrons are under the propulsion of "escape velocity" rather than being repelled by solar gravity? Because, electromagnetic solar gravity is kryptonite to the big-bang evolution of the cosmos. There is the true monster which gobbles up the realities and hides them in its belly.

Electrons in the earth repel electrons emitting from light bulbs, flames, or any other hot item. The heat on the sun repels solar electrons and thus forms the solar wind. That electron wind enters earth atmosphere as heat, and the earth repels the solar electrons back into space mainly on the planet's night side. Tidy. Logical. Viable. Has the ring of truth.

I would have had an impossible time with an electron-heat claim if I could not explain where atmospheric electrons came from to produce everyday heat. I didn't merely get lucky with a solar wind that provides them. It's fundamental to my claim. The entry of solar-wind electrons into the air so threatened kineticists that they decided to invent some trash about how the earth's magnetism disallows them to enter the air.

And they also devised an erroneous claim that the solar wind has half electrons, half bare protons, what a bunch of retards. If indeed the solar wind is stacked with protons, they must become H atoms in their view, due to the ample electrons in their midst, but there is not a massive flow of H atoms from the sun.

Just think of how they attack their own big bang when claiming that bare protons travel all the way from the sun, in the midst of electrons, much slower than they perceive protons and electrons going out from the big bang. They say that these particles joined together way-back then to form H atoms, but then say they don't join together to form H atoms in the solar wind. Truth-gobbling monsters, they only wish to hide the reality that solar electrons define heat.

If bare protons were in the solar wind, they should be attracted to the negative pole of the earth. That should be their predication, but of course there are no bare protons accumulating at one of the poles. As the Arctic is significantly warmer than Antarctica, it stands to reason that the north pole has a positive charge that does in fact attract some electrons. But this is another story. The point is that, for heat to be defined as electrons, there needs to be a daily supply of them into the atmosphere. It can't be a one-time supply because the heat needs to escape the planet by as much as it enters. Therefore, it needs a daily or ongoing supply of electrons, and the solar wind logically satisfies this need. We are breathing in solar material. It's in our veins, in our organs, in our soup. The solar wind is life to us in many ways. Give glory to God who invented this machinery, but great shame to the kinetic monsters.

The modern physicist is a traitor to science when witnessing heat going mainly upward from a filament in vacuum. As a mere actor and not a true scientist, he poses that a light-bulb vacuum has enough air atoms within it to cause an upward DRAFT (laughable) sufficient to burn your finger away. Imposter scientists knew that, whether they used a gas in the bulb versus a vacuum, the temperature at the top of the bulb is roughly the same, whereas their theory of heat, from the motion of atoms, predicts that the few air atoms in a vacuum could never get the bulb's glass as hot as a full-blown gas at atmospheric pressure. If they lie where necessary to protect their sacred and erroneous theories, how is that a true scientist?

In a typical vacuum, atoms are roughly 200 diameters further apart than at normal air pressure. At that distance, there are more than a half million times fewer atoms in the vacuum. If that many fewer atoms collide with the hot filament, there's going to be far less heat striking the container walls, according to their kinetic theory of heat. Yet people in my generation know that bulbs with vacuums get very hot to the touch. When I was younger, all bulbs came with vacuums within. We knew this because breaking a bulb would cause an implosion of the glass.

The kinetic theory of heat cannot explain why faster (hotter) atoms should rise more than travelling in any other direction. There is no buoyancy principle applicable to lone/separated gas atoms. The goofers lie when they say that hotter air rises amid cooler air due to the buoyancy principle. Buoyancy forms when gravity acting on a body of air or water forces water or air to flow with force underneath an object such that the object is simultaneously forced upward to an extent. Even metal objects are forced upward to an extent, though gravity wins that conflict to make the object sink.

The point is, there is no rushing air underneath a lone atom. There can be no buoyant force on a lone atom, and the imposters know it. As gas atoms do not experience buoyancy, the kineticist cannot claim that a small remnant of air in a vacuum can create an upward draft, for such a draft implies buoyancy.

You can celebrate what I'm saying at any time. You are learning the undeniable evidence for the rise of electrons due to one possible explanation alone: the earth provides a massive negative charge that goes as far as keeping the moon in orbit.

Hotter air amid cooler air rises because the hotter air has more rising electrons mixed in with it. Hotter air means more free electrons, not faster air atoms. As the electrons rise on a very hot day, they give some lift to air atoms, expanding the atmosphere upward to a higher ceiling. The electrons fly away into space, but air atoms remain behind tied to earth gravity.

Friction doesn't speed atoms in order to define frictional heat, but rather friction releases electrons from atoms, by typical erosion. Combustion releases electrons because it always involves the merger of atoms, and atoms always release heat when merging, which explains why liquid formation from gas atoms always releases heat. Why should the bonding of gas atoms release heat into the air, according to kineticism? There is no explanation anywhere within sight, but what they can do is invent some explanation pitted with such stretchy argumentation and/or high-brow jargon as to keep the reader from being able to follow it in hopes that, no matter how the explanation sounds off-kilter with known realities, you'll decide to trust what's framed as originating in their far-superior intellect.

As per their kinetic view, I envision two gas atoms drawing near to each other at a slower-than-normal speed, and, attracting each other from a distance, entering a bond. This is how the kineticist imagines liquid formation. Try to give a reason as to why the two atoms, upon bonding, start to travel faster in order to explain the known heat formation due to liquefaction? I can see no reason, and so I know right away that they have invented some off-kilter explanation. Google's AI now makes it easy to find how they think in ways where google previously made it near-impossible to find.

The kineticist himself will argue that it's impossible to create heat energy out of nothing. But then where does that "heat of liquefaction" come from? I asked google a trick question: "why do gas atoms travel faster when gas atoms bond into liquids?" I was hoping it would explain the extra heat, but the response is: "Gas atoms actually travel slower when they bond into liquids, not faster." It's referring to the reason that kineticists give for liquid formation, slower atoms. It's not referring to anything related to the heat of liquefaction.

I re-phrased: "why do gas atoms outside the liquid travel faster when gas atoms bond into liquids, in order to explain the extra heat of liquefaction?" The response still doesn't answer the question, why, but rather makes a statement of "fact" that starts to reveal a fatal flaw:

Based on the principles of kinetic molecular theory and thermodynamics, gas atoms do not travel faster when they bond into liquids; rather, they slow down and lose kinetic energy. The "extra heat" (latent heat of liquefaction) is released not because of higher speed, but because the atoms transition from a high-energy, free-moving state to a lower-energy, bound state.

The statement is seemingly admitting that there is NOT extra atomic speed as per the formation of "latent" (what's that?) heat, and moreover the response is, instead of answering the query, fixated on the lower speeds (lower energy) as the cause of liquid formation which it here calls the "bound state." That's two strike-outs in a row for google AI.

Not to be defeated, the kineticists programmed AI not to answer the question as to why the gas outside of the liquid gets hotter. After giving some smoke-and-mirrors treatment, it summarizes with an off-kilter explanation where heat energy is supposedly released without faster atoms, which goes counter to their own claims, which is why this is an invention out of a magical hat: "Gas atoms do not get faster; they slow down and release energy as they become trapped by attractive forces, turning that released kinetic and potential energy into heat." Nice try, laughable.

Translation: the attractive forces in the liquid bond slow the atoms (they supposedly vibrate back-and-forth or all-around), and since that lost motion energy cannot be destroyed, it turns to heat. Ya-but, nice try, for if the slowed atoms manufacture heat by some magical means not included in the response, why won't AI admit that the adjacent gas atoms go faster? That's what I'm asking, why do they go faster? There must be no science online to explain this problem, yet AI "knows" enough to say, just shut-up and believe that slower atoms produce added heat.

Heat is coming out of the liquid somehow, but AI has no idea how it forms because the kineticists didn't provide it with the information. In their secret rooms and kept in a dark drawer, they probably do have a complicated, hokey explanation, in case they need one to convince the curious physicist in their own ranks who might start asking questions, but, apparently, they decided not to publicize it.

It gets worse for these magicians, for it's a no-brainer that atomic attraction force will slow atoms to a stand still. The quote above, where it says that the faster gas atoms transition to a "lower-energy, bound state," refers to the slower liquid atoms thanks to their inter-attraction. But the goofs will not admit to the students that CONTINUAL, applied attraction force is expected to CONTINUALLY slow atoms, making kineticism impossible. It is moronic to think that atoms continually bounce off of each other even when under inter-attraction from all sides. Such an idea wins the moron-of-the-century award, but big-bang needs it, and so this is what the world was fed.

Kineticism is protection against the caloric theory of heat that, in an age where electrons are common knowledge, could at any time break wide open into declaration of heat as the material of electrons. The danger to big bangers in such a revolutionary movement is where heat material needs to be weightless, which gets too close to negatively-charged gravity. There is no other way for heat to be weightless, while defined as electrons, except from negatively-charged gravity force. This is the beauty of it all: electron-heat material reveals true gravity, even at the expense of big-bang cosmology, yet this is why the battle against them can't be won easily.

It's self-serving / ad-hoc convenient for kineticism to admit a LITTLE (not total) slow down of the newly-formed liquid atoms only to take a stab at explaining the "latent" heat formation from the concept of, a little energy lost in the liquid must produce a little heat elsewhere. Instead of admitting that the motion energy is gobbled up by the attraction between atoms such that it can no longer exist elsewhere, they insist that it somehow continues to exist as some form of heat, perhaps a form of magical heat they have invented for this cause, because they can't argue logically that slowed liquid atoms form faster, neighboring gas atoms. They will admit that both the liquid and the gas gets warmer in the liquid-forming process, but, with their atomic bang-bang theory in view, they cannot explain WHY. There's nothing in the bond process that should cause the gas atoms to move faster i.e. get hotter than prior to the bond.

The mystery is solved where atomic bonding ALWAYS releases electrons. I can show why that must be so. The reason they cannot claim the release of electrons during liquefaction is that they would struggle to keep their H atom alive, for they assign one electron per one H proton, and thus H atoms have no captured electrons to spare if electrons are what go out to increase gas-atom speeds during hydrogen liquefaction. It would leave the H atom bare of electrons if they did escape to form the heat of liquefaction. Kineticism is unable to make such a claim, for bare H atoms repel rather than bond to form liquid.

Heat of liquefaction is a disaster for kineticism, as is the reverse, heat of vaporization, where they claim that vapors form from faster-vibrating liquid atoms, yet vaporization makes the adjacent environment (the gas) colder. What's sucking up the heat, man? How do faster atoms jumping out of the liquid cause slower atoms in the gas? The answer is: that's not happening on either front.

Atomic bonding absolutely requires captured electrons upon protons. The interplay between positive and negative forces between bonded atoms is what maintains the bond. The H atom is a massive failure in science. It's like saying that a three-inch magnet can attract only one iron filing, after which the repulsion of the one filing prevents other filings from coming on-board. A spiritual defect invented the H atom, and spiritual defects facilitated the global hoax.

To boot, they teach that the H proton can capture the lone electron only if comes on-board in a perfect, long-standing orbit. The stupidity of big-bang science is larger than the universe. To slap people like me away, should we suggest that electrons can simply stick motionless upon the protonic surface, the kineticists teach that such an atom has "collapsed." It's broken. Brainwashing in effect, take heed.

I re-phrased hoping to get an appropriate answer: "As the definition of increased heat is faster gas atoms, how do gas atoms speed faster when bonding to liquid form?" Response: "Condensation is an exothermic process, meaning it releases energy to the surroundings. When the gas atoms, which have higher energy, move into the liquid phase, they release 'latent heat' to their surroundings, causing the [liquid] particles to transition to a lower-energy state." It again didn't answer the question as to why or how gas atoms increase speed; it only made a bare-naked claim that "latent heat" is produced in the gas.

It's nice of them to tell us that this type of heat is lying down instead of pouncing or running. Actually, what they mean by "latent heat" is secret heat, coming out of nowhere. I can explain it easily as captured electrons that cannot form heat, but which do pop out like jack-in-the-box to form heat (in the gas) because released captured electrons is the true definition of heat. They do not constitute heat while captured because they can't get into any material. In order to become heat, it needs to invade a gas, liquid or solid. Captured electrons are secret heat, laying low, in the den, on a chain, in prison. They give birth to the latent heat. Boo, I'm here. I was hiding in order to make fools of kineticists, but look, see, I'm here, I really do exist.

Captured electrons must contribute to gravity force, but their negative forces are perfectly offset by the protons they are in-capture to. Therefore, I define gravity force as the free electrons in the planet, wherever there is heat. Newton knew not what heat material was. He could not fathom that the moon's heat is its gravity force because he had no idea that heat produces magnetic particles. We can excuse him for not understanding, but what's the excuse of 20th-century astronomers who had the caloricists as their guides? Yet, they rejected the caloricists, booted them out.

Caloricists were telling the world, prior to the discovery of the electron, that heat is a weightless substance that also creates the light-wave aether. They had it perfectly correct in spite of the electron not yet known to them. They were booted out unceremoniously. They are ridiculed to this day, more so if they try to make a comeback.

I asked google, "why is caloricism invalid"? Response:

The caloric model of heat is considered invalid because it incorrectly describes heat as a weightless, indestructible, and conserved fluid (caloric) that flows from hotter to colder bodies. It was replaced in the mid-19th century by the mechanical theory of heat (kinetic theory), which correctly identifies heat as a form of energy related to the microscopic motion of particles.

The electron was not known in the mid-19th century. The electron is indeed weightless. The electron is indestructible in broad applications, but even if it can be destroyed, I don't see how it has any merit in discrediting electrons as the heat material. Electrons do flow like a gaseous fluid under their own repulsive locomotion, from a higher-electron-density (hotter) region into a lower-electron-density (cooler) region. Just like that, all three reasons given to discredit caloricism are wiped out.

A kinetic model can be easily proven wrong in many ways, including one of the most-damning: kinetic gas atoms cannot transfer their weights, yet it's known that gases transfer their weights downward to the ground, or to the bottom side of a sealed container. As much as a flying object can't transfer weight to the ground, ditto for air atoms that merely crash about above the ground, and which do not repel each other. Weight transfer of gas atoms absolutely requires that they ALL be in "contact" with one another via their inter-repulsion. The repulsion between air atoms, and the downward pull of gravity upon them, turns the air into one flowing organ. Ditto with free electrons in the air, they flow as one organ, all electrons in "contact" via their inter-repulsion. When you slam a door at one end of the house and hear a door jiggle at the other end, it's because particles in the air are inter-repelling. The house space is one organ.

In their atomic model, gas atoms turned to liquid only kiss each other while bonded, positioned a slight distance from each other, a strange idea birthed for the sheer need of avoiding a nightmare scenario expected if the electron orbits of one atom enter the orbital regions of adjacent atoms. CRASH is the word, leading to the destruction of the material.

They opted not to have atoms sinking into one another (merging) when it comes to atomic bonds from undergoing chemical reactions. They had no choice. In those cases, the atoms are said to merge and share electron orbits, but we need to add here that the mergers are so deep that flames (or even explosions) occur. This is not just a little latent heat coming out. This is God's gift to our cold bones, flammable materials. The heat from the flame is how I know it's made of a dense body of freed electrons.

Jack in the box. Boo, I'm here. I was down there keeping the proton warm with all my friends, but we pushed out and now I'm here where you can see me. See? Yet kineticists remain blind like jackasses in a dark box.

We also need to add that the merger of H and O atoms, in a chemical reaction, release more heat than any other chemical reaction, which is an embarrassment to the established atomic model because it assigns just one electron per H atom. The reality is that the H atom is the largest atom, having the most captured electrons by which to release heat.

A visible flame emits light when the excess captured electrons, in merged regions, are flying out forcefully. A hydrogen flame emits much invisible, ultra-violet light, strong light, not because it has one atom per proton. Don't be a jackass in the dark.

Gas atoms can't bond unless they first make contact, and when they do, they sink into one another to a distance dictated by the interplay of their two electromagnetic forces. When the repulsion forces between atoms equals their attraction forces, they cease to merge deeper. One atom begins to sink into another because the protons of each attract the other's electrons. The inter-repulsion between protons increases as the protons come nearer to each other during deeper merger. That's logically expected to cause the balance point, the point of deepest merger as protonic repulsion equals the inter-attraction. Generally, though other factors I know nothing about might be active: the larger the merging atoms, the larger their merged sections, the more electrons they release.

Maximum atomic merger explains why the same amount of heat is released every time a gram of gas atoms turn to liquid. They always release the same number of electrons because depth of merger dictates how many are released. Deepest merger is forbidden by proton-to-proton repulsion. It's clear to me that only a small fraction of potential heat comes out of liquids during the mergers, suggesting shallow mergers.

The reality is: when two atoms merge, they do become smaller in volume as a whole. This is why heat is released, for the smaller volume is due to, or creates, merged regions. You need to imagine atoms possessing electron atmospheres, where, instead of orbiting, electrons hover above the protonic surface due to their inter-repulsion forces. That's right, so logical. The proton is forcing electrons inward toward itself, yet the electrons repel each other simultaneously such that they refuse to make contact. Hovering in pure space all around the proton is the result, which is technically a true atmosphere...where captured electrons serve as the "gas."

If two or more electron atmospheres (of two or more atoms) merge, their merged areas suffer double, triple, or even quadruple density of electrons, yet the proton cannot hold such denser electrons to itself because denser electrons are closer electrons, and closer electrons repel each other with more force. That's why jack in the box comes streaming out. He's pushed out by his buddies.

The electrons in the high-density regions, the merged regions, repel each other away, into the space outside of the merged atoms, and so, voila, heat is released into the same gas that forms the liquid. Captured electrons manifest as heat.

Why do atoms always reclaim their heat when evaporating from liquids? The very same amount of heat that goes free when a gram of gas turns to liquid is the heat level absorbed by the gas atoms when a gram of gas is evaporated from the liquid. Why? Because the air is constantly filled with free electrons, contrary to what we're told. You can keep an electron-impoverished liquid in your jar for a million years, and when you put it on the stove to boil, the steam molecules popping free from the liquid body regain the electrons they lost a million years ago. They regain them from free electrons ever in the air. The solar wind, your best friend, has been raped in broad daylight by kineticists.

Only a brainwashed person denies the entry of the solar wind into the atmosphere. This idea stems from kineticists and big-bangers struggling to keep the big-bang alive. I wish I could say that God is going to put them out of their misery, but the fact is, their misery is all to their eternal future, for they wish to kill God eternally and must therefore reap eternal torment as their just reward. I don't make the rules. Go argue your cases against Him.

Gas atoms can only hold so many electrons. If you force some off, the protons will, given the opportunity, reclaim only as many as were taken off. If you rub objects to release some electrons, the objects that become net-positively charged will reload them from electrons in the air. From where else?

You can rub a wire brush anywhere in the world, in the deepest cave, on the highest mountain, in the driest desert, and it will reload with electrons. Where from do those electrons come? google AI: "A rubbed metal wire brush generally becomes positively charged, but because metal is a conductor, it does not hold a static charge well and often immediately discharges or neutralizes."

It doesn't say "reload," but instead says, "discharges." That way, you read nothing about electrons reloading into the positively-charged item, and, that way, the world is less likely to ask questions such as: where from do the electrons come? The world is taught that there are almost no electrons in the atmosphere. The wicked struggle to keep that lie alive. They work hard keeping God as dead as possible in the hearts of the people. They will die defending kineticism.

The AI response mentions lost electrons amply, but not once does it tell that the wire brush LOADS electrons. See that? It avoids that picture. Instead, it says, "discharges or neutralizes," which is meant to say, "goes back to its normal condition." "Discharges" looks more like "losing electrons" than "loading them." Beware the tricksters, deceivers, who, when they see their own errors, don't talk about them. In this case, they see their error in teaching air devoid of a free-electron sea, but they refuse to correct themselves.

Red Moon of Armageddon

If the moon had zero gravity, it would orbit slower. Lunar gravity means that the pull between moon and earth is stronger than where the moon has no gravity, and consequently the lunar speed needs to be faster with a moon having its own gravity, or the moon would spiral into the earth. As we can see that the moon suffered a high-heat period in the past, since roughly 6,000 years ago, the moon must have orbited faster during that period.

I wonder. Has anyone else realized that gravity is a negative charge from heat? Surely, there are other people who've realized that electrons define the heat material, which leads forcefully to the realization that gravity is from internal planetary heat.

I'm disappointed in Creationists for agreeing with evolutionists who wrongly teach that lunar craters were made by asteroid impacts. Clearly, asteroid impacts cannot all form round craters. If the moon was peppered with as many asteroids as we can count craters, there should be a high number of skid marks on the moon, many deep ditches carved out by low-flying asteroids. Duh.

It's now interesting to me that prophecy predicts a blood-red moon at the brink of Armageddon. I can't accept that it's an unusual effect of sunlight whatsoever, for that lunar condition is simultaneous with a darkened sun. Therefore, I believe that the moon will become molten again, at its surface...i.e. at which time the lunar gravity will increase, causing the moon to spiral toward the earth for as long as the moon remains hotter than it is now. I assume that the moon will take a circular orbit again once it's heat source dies down to normal. What might God be up to with this?

It could explain why Isaiah predicts a moon as bright as the sun in the post-Armageddon world, for God may have decided to allow the moon, after spiralling inward, to get so close to the earth, becoming so much larger as we see it, that moonlight (reflected sunlight) will make the nights look like daytime.

Isaiah also says that the sun will be seven times brighter in the post-Armageddon period. This is extremely problematic where brightness is proportional to heat. I don't know whether it is proportional, but, surely, a sun seven times brighter seems like a destroyer of all life. Only the penguins at the south pole might survive, if they can tread water all day and night. Talk about global warming and melting of the ice caps. What is the solution to the Isaiah problem?

As light is a wave through the solar-wind aether, it's possible to make light brighter without increasing the number of solar electrons flying off as the solar wind. Just make the electrons in the sun emit harder/faster when they emit from H atoms, for the harder they emit, the harsher = brighter the light wave through the aether. When you look at the sun with bare eyes, that's the harsh I'm talking about.

I'm suggesting that God may know how to emit solar electrons harder from H atoms without increasing the number of electrons, though it sounds impossible so far as I can imagine. I suspect that God is smarter than me, what do you think? Any chance? For sure, evolutionists are far smarter than God, we can see it written all over their arrogant faces. Absolutely, they can rule the universe far better, which is why they will be held responsible for Armageddon, the near-wipe out of all mankind, because they've asserted in their hearts that they can do better than God.

? History is a stage where God allows His enemies to be the lead actors, where He appears from behind the curtain only in the final hour to save some of the audience from a horrible end. Lesson learned. Afterward, God shows how to lead humanity properly, in contrast to the job that evolutionists mustered. At that time, I assume, the people will learn what utter science lunatics the evolutionists had been in their teachings.

You might say that, when the moon begins a spiral toward earth, it's final, it won't be able to get out of it in order to form a near-circle again. Yes, but then the earth will be simultaneously spiraling away from the sun when the latter is dark, for a dark sun means nearly zero solar gravity to keep the earth in orbit. Therefore, with the moon spiraling inward to earth, and the earth spiralling outward from the sun, the earth could correct the lunar spiral when God turns the sun back on, when the earth suddenly changes direction due to a re-ignited sun. Child's play.

Ya-but, what corrects the outward earth spiral? One option is to make the sun produce more heat when it's turned back on, for more heat is more gravity, which can correct the outward spiral. Pure child's play. God will become the talk of the town, the evolutionists will be forgotten.

Will the increased solar heat be permanent? Will the new distance of the earth, further from the sun, be permanent? I don't see why not. In that case, at least some of the brighter solar light will be needed to increase the solar-heat volume to whatever the earth needs at its new position further from the sun.

google AI: "The intensity of heat radiation from a hot object is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from that object. This is known as the inverse square law." I don't think the inverse-square law applies to non-radiated heat, what they call "convectional" heat. In my thinking, heat volume is eight times lower for every doubling of distance from the heat source, because space is eight times larger when twice the distance from any spot or sphere (light source assumed spherical).

A decrease of eight times the density of heat particles (free electrons) amounts to twice as much as inverse-square (four times). Therefore, with electrons in view as the definition of heat, light decreases by four times when increasing the distance by two times, but heat volume at twice the distance goes down by eight times, meaning that a brighter sun due to increased heat alone produces only half as much heat per rate of brighter light.

Therefore, a sun seven times brighter at the earth could send no more than 3.5 times as many solar-wind electrons into the earth's atmosphere. Possibly, God will increase the height of the atmospheric ceiling in order to compensate, to weaken the intensity (velocity) of the in-coming electrons, to deflect them around the planet at a high altitude.

A higher atmosphere was likely in effect prior to the Flood, for as God make chickens with wings, they were likely able to fly prior to the Flood. The rising Flood waters, along with the higher heat from the causes of the Flood, may have pushed a few miles of upper air into space, to be lost forever. At Armageddon, planetary upheaval could release more oxygen, which not only allows chickens to fly, but makes living creatures stronger, healthier, which can explain why people lived longer before the Flood. A richer intake of oxygen with every breath sounds like the ticket to good health and bodily vitality. Isaiah tells that people in the Millennium will live far longer than today.

It's easy to prove by experimentation that a lamp produces four times less light at twice the distance from an observer. This has been proven. But it's impossible to prove that heat goes down by either four or eight times when the heat source is twice as far from a heated object. For, most of the heat at the heat source rises i.e. it doesn't go direct toward the heated object. Light goes out equally in all directions, making the experiment possible, but heat does not go out equally in all directions, making the experiment impossible whether done in air or a vacuum.

For example, if we imagine a hollow, glass sphere surrounding the sun 1,000 miles from its core, the sphere's volume is eight times less than a glass sphere 2,000 miles from the solar core. That's what I'm talking about. Ditto when contemplating the spread of heat to twice the distance: there's eight times more space for the heat to spread out, predicting eight times less heat per cubic inch of space by the time it gets to the heated object, if, that is, earthly heat could go evenly in all directions.

The solar wind does go evenly in all directions, because solar gravity dictates it. However, by the time the electrons reach the earth, they are no longer following the eight-times rule, which is the inverse cube law, or 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. Instead, solar electrons spread out by more than eight times per doubling of distance. The increasing volume of space, with distance from the sun, alone decreases solar-electron density by eight time. Yet there is another factor decreasing the density: the inter-repulsion between the flowing electrons. That is, they spread out in the forward direction as they flow along. They can't spread out backward toward the sun, nor sideways, because there are electrons already in those directions which are as dense, or denser, then the electrons in the forward direction.

Astronomy thinks that newly-issued solar-wind electrons take a couple of days to reach earth. Therefore, if the sun goes dark for a week, stars will disappear from the sky for a few days, because, when the last solar electrons pass beyond the earth, there will be a volume of space all around the earth devoid of the aether than carries starlight to us.

Perhaps the turning off of the sun serves the necessary purpose of avoiding the over-heating of the planet when Armageddon is accompanied by God's wrath via turmoil in the planetary interior. Terrible earthquakes, thunder and lightning, have been prophesied for that time. I expect planetary heat spewing hot waters into the atmosphere for to create severe storm conditions. Lightning is due to excess heat in the cloud-forming zones. Heat is electrons. Excess electrons cause lightning, safe to say.

I asked google: "is the changing convectional heat from a hot object inversely-square to its distance from the heated object?" When I asked that same question without "convectional," it responded, yes, meaning that it's referring to radiant heat, not typical convectional. Here's the response with "convectional" in the question: "No, the convective heat transfer from a hot object is not inversely-square to its distance from the heated object...If you move an object further away from a heater, the radiative heat you feel will drop off according to the inverse-square law, but the convective heat (heat carried by rising air) will likely decrease much faster or become negligible due to the dispersion of the air currents,..." Due to rising heat in the air, that is.

The solar-wind aether well explains how the stars will become dark when the sun becomes dark. This is not a minor point. Rather than turning off all stars, a gigantic event, God turns the heat down in the sun only, and simply allows the solar wind to sail away past the earth. The stars then disappear from our view, from one end of the sky to the other, as the last trains of electrons sail by. It's a perfect way to explain the prophecy, for not only is the sun to be darkened, but the heavens too.

Imagine standing there, facing the darkened sun. The day has turned to night, and stars appear that could not be seen while the sun was shining. As the last electrons reach the part of the atmosphere where the sun is positioned in the sky, stars begin to disappear there first, and a circular shape of non-star sky grows gradually larger, passing your had from the sun part of the sky to the opposite side. The astronomers will then know that God is real, and they are fools in deep trouble.

Prophecy seems to contradict itself where it has a darkened moon and a red moon. Yes, but after the aether passes past the moon, it's red light will vanish for lack of aether between it and the earth. Therefore, safe to assume, the moon will become molten before the aether passes by the earth, perhaps even before the sun is turned off.

I think that those who think this prophecy refers merely to a solar eclipse, and a rare-type lunar eclipse a couple of weeks later, are mistaken.

Reduced Electron Force With Electron Motion

After writing the paragraph above, I was out on the front deck getting some sun, and now have something to tell you. I saw steam rising from standing water on the deck, even though the air temperature is below freezing. The sun was melting snow on the deck. The steam was coming up only as the breeze blew by, and it blew the steam along visibly, but when the breeze halted, I could see no steam rising. The kinetic theory of heat gets hung-up when trying to explain wind-cooled materials.

Evaporation was increased by the wind. I know what's truly taking place at the molecular level, because I know that heat particles exist in all materials. In the same way that air atoms in a chimney pipe push each other out of the pipe when a breeze blows across the chimney opening, ditto for the heat particles in the water: they come out when the breeze blows across the water surface. I'm talking about a chimney without a wood fire beneath it. When the air in the chimney is at the same temperature as the wind, there is yet an upward draft into the wind. The wind is incapable of "sucking" the chimney air out. Instead, the chimney air must push itself out.

Every atomic tunnel between water molecules is a chimney pipe with a chimney opening on the water surface. Free electrons reside in those chimney pipes.

They invade into the chimneys under their own inter-repulsion forces, and push each other out by the same forces when the free-electron pressure on the outside becomes lower than the pressure they apply within the chimneys. It's a no-brainer. Denser electrons forming higher electron pressure move to low-electron-pressure areas. Hotter materials lose electrons to colder material; it's the simplicity that bang-bang adherents, and big-bang lunatics, do not want to hear.

The electron "theory" of heat is so mechanically viable in every way that it would not only challenge the kineticists, but scar them deeply, if only somebody capable would explain it to the world. I'm doing my part, but I haven't got reach into scientific societies, and my inclination to include God in these writings, and to call the big bangers what they are, science lunatics, will only get the door slammed into my face.

The reason for air coming out a chimney is known, though not properly explained. It's explained as Bernoulli's principle. They claim that air pressure decreases in the direction perpendicular (downward in this case) to the horizontal air flow. The air in the chimney is left with higher pressure such that the air atoms (and free electrons in their midst) push each other out, faster as the wind gets faster because, the faster the wind, the less the downward air pressure. The mechanics are not correctly explained, but the gist is that greater pressure in the pipe sends the air out.

The kineticist will tell you that steam forms in greater quantity, in the breeze, due to air atoms crashing against water molecules, eroding them away into the air in greater numbers. That works on first glance, but keep in mind that the breeze was only 20 mph or less while the kineticist claim is that water molecules vibrate at around 1,200 mph. We can't envision much extra evaporation thanks merely to a 20-mph breeze.

In reality, heat particles exiting at the water surface is what causes this literal erosion we call, evaporation. The water's heat particles simply give lift to the surface molecules, breaking their bonds, and setting them free as steam. It's perfectly-viable mechanics that cannot be assailed. When the wind blows, the water's heat particles eject with more force.

The kinetic model gets hung-up because it teaches that faster atomic motion defines increased heat, yet when the air sweeps across solid surfaces, both at the same temperature, instead of their becoming hotter, they get colder. There's no explanation for this in the kinetic theory. The kineticist doesn't have sufficient morality to inform students of this problem. He only tells them where the theory happens to work logically, credibly.

The longer the air bangs against a solid surface head-on or otherwise, the more that air adds energy to it, but you can let the air do it all day long, yet the solid material does not increase in temperature. Instead, it goes down in temperature to a certain low, defined as when the electron pressure in the atomic spaces of the material's surface equals the electron pressure in the wind. The material ceases to get cooler at that point. In other words, the caloric model is able to explain that which takes place in reality.

If you have a concrete wall eight inches thick, and if the wind blows on it continually when both are at the same temperature, the free electrons at the outer surface come out first, then get replenished from free electrons deeper into the concrete, which then get ejected out too. So long as the wind keeps blowing, the depth of material decreasing in free electrons is greater, until replenishment to the wind-side surface ends.

The replenishment rate to the surface goes down consistently for as long as the wind blows, and eventually the replenishment will cease, which explains why the concrete can become cooled by only so much by wind. The replenishment ceases when all of the atomic spaces in the concrete have electron densities equaling the electron density on the outside. As long as there's a higher density in the concrete, the electrons will flow to the surface in attempts to replenish the ejected ones. There is no material that can stop heat flow within it.

All atomic spaces are tunnels for these bitties. Hot water poured into a mason jar causes the electrons to push out the outer surface of a glass in a second or less. Just because you can't feel the heat for a few seconds doesn't mean it's not ejecting immediately. Some probably is. The electrons do not need to race from the inner side of the jar to the outer before heat ejects, for the jar's atomic tunnels are filled with free electrons before the hot water is poured into the jar.

Feel and study the caloric for yourself as it enters the skin of your fingers. Caloric rules. Kineticism is a corpse in-waiting to be buried.

When the breeze blows against your face, it feels cooler because the skin becomes cooler. It's not just a sensation of cold, it is colder skin. Heat particles have been drawn out of it by the breeze. In the sensation, God is saying, cool is nice, cold is dangerous. He made it that way for a reason, so that people wouldn't risk being far out in the cold too long without enough clothes, which is what we would do more often if we had no cold-skin sensation to warn of the danger.

Brainless evolution had no idea that it needed to create a warning system against our freezing to death, but the body has countless designs that only an Intelligent Creator could have applied to it.

Consider a metal ball rolled fast past a magnet versus slower past the same magnet. The faster it roles, the less time the magnet has to curve its path. The ball is less affected the faster it rolls by. Now reverse the picture; imagine sliding the magnet past a stationary metal ball. The faster you slide it, the less the ball moves. You can slide it fast enough that the ball doesn't move at all. Ditto for the electron "magnets" passing in the wind past the top of a chimney pipe.

The faster the wind, the less time the moving electrons have to repel downward into the chimney, resulting in lower repulsive affects (work) in the downward direction. When the air is still on the outside, the particles in the chimney don't come up because the downward repulsion from the outside equals the upward repulsion. The particles in the chimney are left with a pressure advantage such they push one another out the chimney. My advantage over the kineticist is this repulsion force...in both air atoms and free electrons.

Just go ahead and try to explain why air flows out using the kinetic theory. In that picture, the atoms above the chimney pipe have zero repulsion force, and there are no free electrons to speak of. Why should air atoms moving as wind create less pressure in the downward direction? I see no solution. I see a corpse in-waiting to be buried.

The only thing the keeper of the corpse can say is: the moving air above the chimney should knock in-chimney atoms downward, not cause them to come up. This kinetic beast stinks like a corpse because it is a corpse. The keepers are infected with its bacteria, and it's gone deep into their brains.

They wrongly claim that air pressure is reduced when its moving as wind. They have it backward. The wind's particles are more dense than the particles in the chimney simply because the particles in the chimney are made less dense when ejected from the chimney. If they were truly ejected due to a lower air pressure in the wind, we would be required to explain why the moving air should go down in pressure. I don't see how the kinetic view of air atoms can explain such a thing.

They might have fooled themselves if they attach an air-pressure gauge to a pipe, then run moving air down the pipe. If indeed the pressure on the gauge goes down, it's only because the tube between the pipe and gauge is a "chimney." The tube-and-gauge will always be installed perpendicular to the pipe, i.e. perpendicular to the air flow, such that the tube is indeed a "chimney." Therefore, the gauge would register the air pressure in the tube, not necessarily the air pressure in the pipe, but the scientist conducting such an experiment would assume the pressure in the pipe to be as low as the gauge indicates.

Due to motion, the air atoms and electrons in wind WORK LESS in the downward (and upward) direction, not at all meaning there exists less air pressure in the wind. The repulsion in the wind between air atoms, and between electrons, is yet as active as air pressure, same pressure as when air is motionless, but the speed of the particles passing the chimney opening cancels some of their downward-directed work, not at all meaning that the downward repulsion force is canceled. The force yet exists in full, but works on each in-chimney atom for less time due to speed across their paths. Less time of repulsion = less work done. That's what I'm saying.

The reason that the establishment claims an upward chimney draft due to reduced air pressure in moving air is: it's all they've got to shoot with. And by shooting it, they kill their own animal, because they can't explain why there should be lower air pressure in moving air. In moving air as they see it, the atoms are still as dizzy as always, jumping on each others' backs from every direction, scraping each others arses simultaneously. What's the difference in that picture as opposed to when they crash-bang at 1,500 mph in stationary air?

I asked google a question to get this hokey response:

Yes, air pressure generally decreases as it moves through a confined pipe. This reduction in pressure, known as pressure drop or pressure loss, occurs because the air experiences resistance to flow.

Friction: As air moves, it rubs against the internal surface of the pipe, converting some of its potential energy into heat and causing a loss in pressure.

That's mechanical nonsense. Air pressure cannot change in a confined pipe, because the air cannot spread out. Therefore, being fooled by the pressure-gauge "chimney" into believing that pressure drops in the pipe, they created a non-sensical explanation using the only thing they've got to use: friction in the pipe. There is nothing else in the pipe aside from air and friction. But how in tarnation can they make sense of a pressure drop due merely to friction, are they nuts? The only thing friction does is add heat to the moving air, which in turn raises the air pressure slightly.

Caloric

In "Count Rumford and the Kinetic Theory of Heat," at the link below, the author gives a brief description of the caloric model on the first page. I quoted from this page earlier above, but would like to add here his sharing of how kineticists considered the attraction of liquid and solid atoms "inoperative" when the atoms are in gas form. Perfect, absolutely perfect. There is no attraction between gas atoms, and it can be proven simply by judging kineticism to be an invalid theory, for apart from kineticism, gas atoms can only inter-repel. They cannot be neutral, and cannot attract.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3143157

Wikipedia's article of the caloric theory makes sure to say, in the first sentence: "The caloric theory is a superseded scientific theory that heat..." They always make sure to give the impression that it was a second-class theory not sustainable before the superior kinetic theory.

Wikipedia's article on Phlogiston:

The phlogiston theory, a superseded scientific theory, postulated the existence of a fire-like element dubbed phlogiston contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion...Phlogiston theory attempted to explain chemical processes such as combustion and rusting, now collectively known as oxidation.

The article says that phlogiston (1600s) was abandoned at the time of the caloricists (late 1700s), but probably due only to its not being understood or described fully / properly. On its behalf, I'll say that all materials have phlogiston -- captured electrons -- that come out during both combustion of other oxidations. Oxidation is always the merger of O atoms with other atoms, and atomic merger ALWAYS releases captured electrons as heat. Therefore, phlogiston is not a fictitious material, but is stored caloric.

In the Caloric article, we're not told why the propagator of caloric was disappointed with phlogiston (square brackets mine):

In this paper Lavoisier argued that the phlogiston theory was inconsistent with his experimental results, and proposed a 'subtle fluid' he named “igneous fluid” as the substance of heat. Lavoisier argued that this “igneous fluid” is the cause of heat, and that its existence is necessary to explain thermal expansion and contraction.

When an ordinary body — solid or fluid — is heated, that body ... occupies a larger and larger volume. If the cause of heating ceases, the body retreats ... at the same rate as it cools. Finally, if it is returned to the same temperature that it had at the first instant, it will clearly return to the same volume as it had before. Hence the corpuscles [atoms] of matter do not touch each other [right, but wrong], there exists between them a distance that heat increases and that cold decreases [correct]. One can scarcely conceive of these phenomena except by admitting the existence of a subtle fluid, the accumulation of which is the cause of heat and the absence of which is the cause of coldness. No doubt it is this fluid that lodges between the particles of matter [correct], which spreads them apart [correct] and which occupies the space left between them [correct]. ... I name this fluid ... igneous fluid, the matter of heat and fire. I do not deny that the existence of this fluid is ... hypothetical.

The expansion of materials, proportional to the heat intake or heat release, taught him that atoms could move closer together, and so he thought they were not in contact. He didn't yet have the caloric "atmosphere" in mind, and so I'm assuming it was realized later. Atmospheres explain why atoms suddenly attract as opposed to repelling as gases. The liquid atoms continue to send out repulsion toward each other, but also attraction. He had it part-right where contact was not in effect, but only where protons do not touch each other as they near each other with material cooling. Atoms were in always contact, however, as solids. The atoms merge deeper in the cold, and move apart slightly while retaining merger when more heat is added. He knew that, when heat is sufficiently added, the solid became a liquid, and the liquid a gas.

It's all a perfect description of the simple reality, no confounded kinetic theory is required whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether the kineticists can celebrate the fact that kineticism is able to explain some of the realities, because the premise of the theory is IMPOSSIBLE. Constant atomic motion is impossible, even a child should know this if he isn't brainwashed first by stupid adults. Attraction forces gobble up all motion.

You can strike an object hanging in a vacuum as hard as you wish, make it and its atoms vibrate until it pierces your ear drums, but the vibrations disappear fast...because the atoms are under both attraction and repulsion force. They wish to settle where they are balanced between the two. The vibrations don't go on for millions of years.

These people are the same evolutionists now trying to convince the world, in a last gasp for breath, that the many soft tissues found in dino fossils could indeed have survived intact or millions of years. DEMENTED SCIENCE for the love of their evolution crock, as if eternal death away from God is preferable to them than eternal life with God.

I understand that motion energy cannot be destroyed, and I know that kineticists will say that attraction force doesn't destroy motion energy. But there is such a thing as motion cancelling motion which they don't want you to know. Motion is NOT destroyed when the motion of one object cancels some or all motion in another moving object. When they collide, their motion energy is used up cancelling some of their motion. Atoms cannot collide a million times (a fraction of a second in their minds) without cancelling each others motion completely.

Where gas atoms inter-repel without any attraction between them, the repulsion demands of them to take up a motionless state at equal distances from each other. You can understand this. In spite of the repulsion constantly in effect from every direction, demanding stillness, the atoms don't vibrate at equal distances just because the kineticist claims that atomic motion cannot be destroyed. Two balls of the same weight and velocity striking head on cancel each others' motion; the energy is not destroyed, but is utilized (work is done) to cancel the motion they both possessed to begin with.

Only an idiot scientist claims that 20 pounds of force eastward cannot stop 20 pounds of force westward in a head-on collision. However he wishes to explain the loss of motion, it's the reality. If a motionless object is put into motion westward with 20 pounds of force, then 20 pounds of force eastward will put it back to the motionless state. There is no energy left, after each item cancels the motion of the other, to cause the objects to bounce away at the same velocity by which they strike, but this is how he views atoms in motion, which is more troublesome in solids than in gases because all vibrations of in-touch atoms tend to the head-on-collision type, the type that cancels motion most effectively.

The motionless state is part of motion mechanics. If he wishes to be a good physicist, he must argue that motion energy can cause non-motion as much as it can cause motion. Cancellation of motion is evidence of motion in effect. You need motion to cancel motion. Kineticism survives based on the fact that nobody can see whether atoms vibrate ceaselessly, and because the world is constantly brainwashed with it. It's a very-important doctrine to big bangers, let's put it that way, because it's easier to understand why they shamelessly violate the laws of physics, with that in mind. .

If 20 pounds moves east while 20 pounds of repulsion force comes against it, non-motion is the result just as much as 20 pounds striking it by physical contact. When gas atoms begin to attract as they first become liquids, they can attract for only so long during merger. They of course move while merging, but the final depth of merger is dictated by the repulsion forces between protons that steadily builds as merger continues. When merger ends, the atoms cannot go on vibrating forever while trapped between the balanced attraction and repulsion forces; anyone can understand the logic here. Whatever motion exists is constantly slowed by those forces, and moreover, as per some new vibration (wasn't active previously) expected at the deepest part of merger, one vibration eastward from one atom cancels the westward vibration from the neighboring atom. It's a shame I've got to bother you with these pictures, but how else will the world be rid of kineticism, short of the return of Jesus, unless it's properly assaulted? I proudly throw the first rock.

When sufficient heat is allowed to drain out of liquids, the atoms merge so deeply that they lock, which defines a solid. What do we suppose causes this locked position? It doesn't sound like we should allow atomic vibrations to be part of it. It seems to be more than merely a deep merger. If the only thing happening, with decreasing temperature, is deeper merger, I'd expect a liquid to proceed slowly from easy-flowing liquid to mush-like, then to mud-like, to gel-like, to hard gel, and finally to a hard-locked material. Instead, liquid usually goes from perfect liquid to locked soft solid to locked hard solid in roughly one step, or at least at the same temperature (freezing point).

google AI: "Most metals and alloys proceed directly from a liquid state to a hard, crystalline solid state during cooling. While some complex alloys or specific, highly engineered metallic gels can exhibit a transitional, gel-like state, the typical industrial process for molten metal solidification is a direct transformation,..."

I suspect that God has bells and whistles at the atomic level that we will not find nor understand on this side of the rapture. There are countless shapes for protons that God could choose from for allowing special properties in materials. To say that God was generous with the Creation is an under-statement. We don't deserve it.

If I'm not mistaken, the article goes on to say that Lavoisier could not explain why caloric did not create a detectable repulsive force. Did he not understand that caloric is the creator of all gas pressure? Caloric causes air atoms to act more strongly in inter-repulsion than the atoms do apart from caloric in their midst. In other words, there's no use looking for the repulsive effects of free, atmospheric electrons, as if this repulsion exists separate from air pressure. Air pressure IS the repulsive effect of free electrons. The higher the air temperature, the more the atoms repel with higher air pressure as the result.

Same article: "Caloric theory's inability to explain evaporation and sublimation further led to the rise of kinetic theory through the work of Count Rumford." Caloricists could not explain evaporation and sublimation properly because they didn't yet know of the weightless electron. google AI: "Calorists, following the foundational work of Antoine Lavoisier, generally considered caloric to be a weightless (or imponderable) fluid from the inception of the theory, which was formalized around 1783–1789." Yes, but did they realize that the weightless heat particles are also repelled by gravity? My bet? Yes, at least some of them realized, but whenever kineticists speak on the weightless quality of caloric, they NEVER dare mention the concept of anti-gravity particles. They sense it's best kept out of our minds.

I asked google: "what year did calorists realize that caloric is repelled by gravity?" The response gives two different definitions of weightlessness, but does not elaborate on the anti-gravity type:

Antoine Lavoisier and his contemporaries proposed "calorique" (caloric) in the 1780s as a weightless, self-repellent fluid. It was believed to be self-repellent, meaning it naturally spreads out, and it was often considered to have no weight, making it impervious to gravity or even repelled by it.

"Impervious" doesn't necessitate an anti-gravity condition. In order to explain evaporation, that condition is key. One would think that caloricists advanced it FREELY as an anti-gravity material, unless they FEARED opposing Newtonian gravity. See that? In private, they may have accepted anti-gravity particles, but in public they were hesitant to oppose Newton. In any case, here's the true definition of evaporation, from yours truly:

Sufficient free-electron density in a liquid to produce a forceful, upward stream, due to both to their inter-repulsion and repulsion from earth gravity, colliding with liquid atoms at the liquid surface, and knocking or carrying them into the air.

Where they were unable to give such an explanation, I assume that caloricists viewed caloric in a liquid as a mild force unable to knock water molecules into the air, otherwise I don't understand why Wikipedia tells that they could not explain evaporation, such a simple process. True, rising electrons is a kinetic process, but it's not a part of the kinetic theory of atoms. My claim is that most of the rising electrons at boiling point are in, and causing, the boil bubbles.

Count Rumford thought wrong that the low melting temperature of mercury supports the kinetic model. Melting point is when sufficient free electrons in the atomic spaces push liquid atoms apart sufficient to allow them to unlock. Rather than think that there wasn't enough heat at mercury's melting point to unlock the atoms, he could have been more generous by allowing the possibility that mercury's atoms unlock at temperatures much lower than for other metals. It is a mystery, but why should it favor kineticism?

As a thimble of liquid mercury forms small roundels when dumped onto a table, it reveals a great affinity between atoms which to me looks like high inter-attractive force, and yet the atoms unlock at a low temperature when the heat within the material isn't applying much pressure to push the atoms apart. It again argues for an unknown locking mechanism (for all atom types) that is distinct from a tightening together of atoms from deeper merger, though the deeper merger is likely the cause of the locking.

Perhaps mercury atoms are very spherical, for merged spheres can have less lock ability than locked hot-dog shapes, for example.

For all we know, some protons may be horseshoe shaped. Whatever was the pleasure of God, that is how He shaped protons. We are not limited by a big-bang accident when it comes to the nature of atoms. We should expect special design for special purposes and good reasons, for God is not prone to insufficiency or flawed design, though I do accept that this Creation is a cheap make-shift as compared to what He can do for the next universe, for He knew that this Creation would be abused by pagans and evolutionists.

When a piece of steel is made red- or yellow-hot by simply adding enough heat, the light is not from the release of captured electrons from metal atoms, but from free electrons screeching fast out of the atomic spaces (or pores). Visible light requires fast-emitting electrons. Apparently, the caloricists ("calorist" properly) were well able to explain light from caloric particles because they believed it formed the aether.

Asking google how calorists explained light formation from heated objects, the response includes: "The emission of light was believed to be related to the condition of the metal's surface, where caloric escaped." So, yes, emitting heat particles caused light in the aether, and the inspectors understood the normal (mechanical) wave (i.e. not Einstein's photon-wave) that would result as one light wave traversing through the aether with each emitted heat particle. Therefore, little of what my atomic model teaches is new. I've just fallen upon the caloric models all on my lonesome because they are the obvious reality when one rejects kineticism.

Caloric as the Aether

When asking google how kineticists viewed light through the aether, the end of the response has: "Ultimately, this model required the aether to have contradictory properties — rigidity for wave transmission yet no resistance [granted by it] to the movement of celestial bodies." They expected planets to slow down while moving through it, which doesn't apply to weightless particles that can move aside. Caloricists made the bad mistake of viewing the aether as a rigid solid, with particles rigidly locked, it seems. But they were on the right track. Kineticists needed only to make adjustments, not to throw the entire realities out only to replace them with a laughable, crash-bang view of atoms. The aether has some rigidity simply because electrons repel each other, but the particles are more easily moved than air atoms.

It was the kineticists and Einsteinians who pissed their diapers while seeking to obliterate the aether. It was they who were the baby scientists when "proving" its non-existence just because their experiments suggested that light moves at the same speed in every direction. They claimed that if for example the aether moved eastward in the cosmos, light speed eastward should be slower. But the kineticists were acting like baby-brainers because disproving an in-motion aether is not proof at all that the aether can't exist. If they put their minds to it like adults, they could have understood the realities. Instead, they pissed out the photon and later crapped out the particle-wave duality, and now we all need to wipe this mess up.

Caloricists couldn't know whether the cosmic aether was stationary or moving until it dawned on them that the source of earth's aether particles is the sun. In the cosmos, devoid of air currents, the free electrons do take up fixed positions, but they do so while they fly through space. When they arrive to a planet, they crash into it and move on beyond. Logically, stellar winds throughout the universe merge with neighboring stellar winds to create "river flows" where they meet, one flow knocking the other flow such that they both curve accordingly in direction.

And that's the kicker: the caloricists didn't realize that stars are the source of the aether. It wasn't all one, fixed organ, but an accumulation of aether flows, "one" flow per star, and "one" flow per our sun. Yet the one flow goes in all directions from the surface of every star. When the solar aether strikes the earth, it spreads out into the air, tending to spread out evenly.

I at least have a mechanism that rids the atmosphere of as much heat as enters daily, but kineticists do not. When have you ever heard modern science tell you how the earth loses daily heat from the sun? I asked google: "how does total velocity of atoms slow down?" I asked that question because, if atoms never slow while the sun continually grants them more velocity daily, the earth temperature will continue to rise daily in such a view.

The response: "The total velocity (kinetic energy) of atoms slows down primarily by reducing the temperature of the substance, which decreases the average speed of particles. This happens by removing energy through cooling, causing atoms to vibrate less, move closer together, and, in liquids, freeze into a rigid, slower-moving solid structure." That's not really a complete answer. We want to know how the earth cools too. But, the response gives no clue aside from: "As a system loses energy to its surroundings (conduction), the average velocity of the molecules decreases." Ya-but, how does the total earth lose bang-bang atomic energy? I therefore asked pointedly: "how does the atmosphere lose heat?"

Response: "The atmosphere loses heat primarily by emitting longwave infrared radiation out to space..." It's a trick for lack of a better response. There can be no comparison in light-wave quantity between that which arrives steadily from the sun versus a steady, wee-wee loss in infrared light. To make sure that modern science is killing itself with this problem, I asked: "does ongoing heat loss into space by infrared radiation equal the light-quantity intake from the sun?" Sure enough: "Yes, over long periods of time, the amount of heat energy the Earth radiates back into space as infrared radiation is approximately equal to the amount of energy it receives from the sun. This equilibrium..." TRASH. Any honest physicist can readily see that this is desperate trash.

The reality is: the sun pumps electrons into the air on the sun side of the planet, and the earth pumps them back out primarily on the night side via gravity-force repulsion. That is the true equilibrium.

We can say that the early caloricists were the teens, and that the kineticists were the babies. The caloricists were struggling to be men, while the kineticists were intend on destroying their science. Where the sun puts out a flow of heat particles, the aether is not expected to move one way or the other in their lab, when they check out there which direction light travels fastest in. In that picture, where the aether is moving zero mph, in their lab, light speed is expected equal in all directions. The only thing the experiment proves false is the faulty view of the aether of caloricists.

Outside of the house, the aether moves at the maximum speed of wind speed. Where the air goes, there goes the atmospheric aether, but rather it's the other way around: where the aether goes, there goes the air, for the aether is what causes variations in air pressure.

They know that wind can affect light waves as per star twinkling, meaning that aether motion does affect light direction. That fact expects that light can curve in space due to aether flows there. The light of a planet on the far side of the sun, as it shines toward a telescope on earth, could conceivably bend as it traverses the solar atmosphere, because the aether is very thick there.

It is hasty to claim that solar gravity bends the planet's light due to gravity's attraction on photons. That's what a Newtonian-gravity proponent would like to cement in your mind, to protect against you're belief in electromagnetic gravity should anyone ever present it to you.

Nothing of what I'm saying is difficult to arrive at and conceive, more than 200 years after caloricism, and so the fault lies with 20th-century physics for not correcting caloricism just because evolutionists prefers kineticism on behalf of big-bang cosmology.

Caloricists seem unable to have fathomed that weightless aether particles will not always vibrate as light waves pass through them. google AI: "Calorists...explained the initiation of light waves through the aether as a disturbance caused by the rapid motion, vibration, or agitation of particles in a hot or luminous body. This motion was believed to communicate a vibratory motion to the surrounding, all-pervasive, and weightless medium known as the aether." In outer space, it seems to me that aether electrons are simply knocked forward with no bounce-back defining vibration.

When a light wave is set up from one electron emitting from an atom, it pushes on an aether electron, which it turn pushes on the next aether electron. As it's weightless, one aether electron can't resist being moved, wherefore there should be no backlash on the aether electron to its back. Absence of backlash is more so when these electrons have the open cosmos to their front. In my mind, backlash can result only if there is resistance to frontward motion. The only explanation for the super speed of light in the earth atmosphere is: almost no resistance to forward motion of aether electrons.

There is no surface to contain the forward flow even an iota when starlight travels as far as other stars. Light speed of star-to-star waves is therefore expected (by me) to be much faster than light speed in a confined lab where light-speed experiments always involve mirror surfaces at close range.

When an electron emits from a light-bulb filament, and strikes the wall, there is a single row of straight-ahead electrons that acts as the wave. The many waves in all directions train one another (forbid sideways spread) such that they all go in straight lines. As the one wave strikes the wall after passing through the last aether electron in the row, there is a rebound of motion energy backward toward the filament because the last electron splashes down into a wall atom. The "excitement" it causes in the atom's electron atmosphere sends those captured electrons lashing outward (= reflected light) toward everything in the room, including the filament. This wave, and all following waves, therefore has some resistance to flow.

Nobody knows how fast or near-instant a light wave is from star to star, or from star to earth. The distances involved are so great that I imagine zero springback to slow the waves. Possibly, there could be some springback when sunlight strikes the earth. Starlight to earth could be as fast as instant, which I say just because I like to get the backs up of the typical big-bang nut. Put up yer dukes, quacker, I'm picking a fight.

I suggest that specific light speed depends on the travel length of the light wave, therefore, and the only reason that modern science brainwashes us with a light speed that is finite, or maximum, is because it serves big-bang science, arguing for star formation billions of years ago. But if starlight is instant to earth, out the window goes the evidence for such old stars. All of 20th-century physics, chemistry and cosmology are bent as much as possible such that it stoops in worship to father big-bang. Don't be so naive as to deny it.

When a telescope sees an explosion on the sun, astronomers say that the explosion took place eight minutes ago, because they think sunlight takes eight minutes to reach earth. They then wait to see how long it takes for the electrons of that explosion to reach the earth, and they'll tell you two or three days, even four for the mild explosions. And that's how they time the speed of those electrons. If the exploded electrons take three days to arrive, they figure 93 million / 72 hours = 1.3 million mph, meaning that they need to reduce that speed by much for typical solar winds not due to solar-flare explosions.

"Non-explosive (or "steady-state") solar wind generally travels at speeds ranging from 300 to 800 kilometers per second (km/s), which is approximately 1 million to 1.8 million miles per hour." The 1.8 figure is clearly too high if solar-flare speeds are that high, and, in fact, we can get AI to snitch on astronomers where it gave me this response: "The explosive solar wind, often associated with Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) that accompany solar flares, can travel at speeds ranging from 250 km/s (560,000 mph) to nearly 3,000 km/s (6.7 million mph)." If flare electrons travel as slow as a half-million mph, how can normal solar wind travel at more than a million mph? I know why they lie on this topic.

All we need to do to show that they lie is to ask google for the escape velocity at the sun, the speed by which any object or particle needs to be moving, directly away from the sun, in order to keep moving and never come back, which is to say to permanently overcome solar gravity. "The escape velocity from the surface of the Sun is approximately 618 km/s (about 1.3 million mph or 383 miles per second)." Now you know why some astronomers try to claim the slowest solar-wind speeds more in the range of 1.3 million mph, otherwise, the sun must be losing electrons due to some other factor besides escape velocity. I've got the big-banger biting his nails.

To be sure that AI is giving the correct information, not misunderstanding the question, I asked: "what is escape velocity for a rocket taking off from the sun?" "The escape velocity for a rocket taking off directly from the surface of the Sun is approximately 618 km/s (about 1.38 million mph or 2.2 million km/h)."

Lucky for them on the one hand, they can claim some extra speed where electrons repel each other such that they will also accelerate one another, because their inter-repulsion is constant, never turns off. Unfortunately for them, solar-flare science has found speeds of lower than 600,000 mph, a big wack to the backside of big-bangers. It means that electrons are not escaping the sun by escape velocity, but because they are anti-gravity, repelled away by solar gravity. See that? He's biting his nails because he knows there are no other options. Choosing scientific facts based on personal motives is not science, it's the devil.

The problem gets worse for them if the sun is not as far as 93 million miles, for the solar-wind speed goes down, the closer the sun is. The closer the sun, the smaller it must be made, the less will be the escape velocity due to lower gravity force. But as the solar-wind speed goes down too, where it takes a few days to arrive but traversing less distance, safe to say that, even with a closer-smaller sun, the math will tell that escape velocity will not be achieved. The anti-gravity electron is the fact of the universe, and it does not permit star formation from a big-bang accident devoid of Intelligence.

Consider how dishonest the astronomer is when telling you that the sunspot, at the center of a solar flare, is black because it's colder than the rest of the sun. If you considered this nutty when you first heard it, it's because it is nutty. By his own reasoning, he expects the solar flare to have higher temperatures than the surrounding solar surface precisely because the explosion has higher kinetic energy, yet he turns with straight face to claim that the flare is COLDER (yikes) in order to explain the black color. He's not explaining anything; he's avoiding the truth with an invention, and not even giving hint that he's got a doubt in his quackery.

The sunspot is not black, and it proves that light is a wave through the solar wind. Imagine the material of the flare reaching its maximum height, where it spews electrons toward earth in the same way that the solar surface normally does, into the solar-wind aether. Then, as the flare material starts to fall back toward the sun, the material's electrons are spewed toward earth at gradually-reducing velocities because, whatever their spew-velocity, the downward direction of the spewing material reduces the spew-speed toward earth.

The falling material accelerates for as long as it falls, and so the light emission toward earth weakens progressively until there is no longer a solar-wind aether near enough to the spewing electrons to form light waves. The falling material then goes black, not because it's black in color, but because the absence of light to our eyes appears black. It's not the relative "coldness" that blocks light, its the absence of aether beside the emitting electrons.

If solar-flare material were spewing photons, it could not go black. It is predicted to go black when the falling material's speed away from earth is faster than the electron-spew toward earth, and so, in this way, the sun, which the astronomer thinks is his best friend, spits right into his face for refusing to be wise to this reality. If you tell him, he will reject it.

This is far worse than a spit in the face, for if merely the sunspot ceases to emit light toward earth just because it's falling at a relatively slow speed, think of what this rule does to the belief that stars are moving away from earth at screeeeeching speeds. The sunspot is in his pants burning his arse, trying to tell him that stars cannot be moving faster from the earth than the sunspot is, because, if they were, we would not see them. If a star is moving away from earth faster than its stellar wind is emitting toward earth, the star does not emit light toward earth. Now you know yet another reason for the big-banger's need to rid the textbooks of the aether.

Therefore, the red-shift spectral lines that the astronomer views as his personal star speedometer are clubbing him to the back of the neck. There can be no-more painful loss than losing his reliance on the stars to murder Biblical Creation.

It's this easy to make a baboon out of a proud and self-respecting astronomer when we are armed with the weightless electron. Everything we witness in the material universe starts to make sense mechanically without ridiculous inventions and stretchy explanations.

For those of you who think I'm crazy for going against most of the establishment tenets, you ain't seen nothing yet until I challenge you: prove to me that a photo of a galaxy is in fact a galaxy as opposed to one exploded star. You can't do it. If red-shift science is proven wrong by the sunspot, then red-shift science does not indicate a galaxy versus a star. The galaxy was invented to make the universe appear incredibly large in hopes that people would view Biblical Creation as a farce.

These imposters first teach that the most-distant galaxies are the fastest in speeding away from earth, and they then claim that red-shift stars having the largest red shift are the galaxies. It's very convenient to be able to invent their own facts with governments helpless to forbid them. And this is what the imposters are now doing on steroids with the aid of computer art.

Yes, there is evidence that NASA produces computer-generated or, more accurately digitally reconstructed and simulated images of galaxies and other celestial objects. However, these are not "faked" to deceive the public, but rather created to visualize data that is otherwise invisible to the human eye, such as infrared or X-ray data, or to simulate future observations.

NASA has released "simulated Roman deep field images" (using the future Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope), which are entirely synthetic and designed to show what the telescope will see, containing hundreds of thousands of simulated galaxies.

Believe what you will on this issue, but I'm well settled in the belief that deceivers rule astronomy. The response goes on to show how they can make stars look like galaxies: "Telescopes like James Webb (JWST) detect infrared light, which is invisible to humans. NASA scientists take these black-and-white data sets and assign colors (blue, green, red) based on the wavelength to create a visible image. This is known as 'representative color'." Sure, just add vibrant color to the invisible, gaseous outskirts of stars, and, voila, a beautiful galaxy to the praise of NASA.

In the big-bang scenario, galaxies immediately beside our own are expected to travel away from earth much-much slower than galaxies up-stream from ours. That's because galaxies beside us, all generally at the same distance from the big-bang spot as our own galaxy, are moving away from the big-bang spot roughly parallel with the outward direction of our galaxy. The galaxies up-stream from us, further and further from the big-bang spot, are thought to move faster and faster the further away from the spot they are.

When they point their telescopes to the sides of our galaxy, every star having a large red-shift will be deemed, not immediately beside us, but a galaxy more to the outskirts of the universe. Every star with a minor red shift will be claimed as our immediate-neighbor galaxy, even though they have no way of knowing which of the two bodies is closest to us, aside from their red-shift "evidence." See any problem there? It's not as though they can first verify which bodies are furthest versus nearest, and then use red-shift science to double verify, Instead, they ad-hoc claim the nearest galaxies as the ones with the least red-shift when there's no way to prove that light-shift is an indicator of stellar speed.

They didn't come this far with big-bang deception just to give it all up. They are going to continue deception in whatever ways necessary or advantageous. The more that Creationism frustrates them, or the more that people continue to believe in a Creator, the more they will seek advantageous deception. They wear the same cloth as Democrat / liberal activists; they will cheat and lie to retain power for the purposes of advancing a Godless world.

As the sunspot indicates that no star they call a galaxy is moving away from the earth any faster than a sunspot falls to the sun, red- and blue-shift spectral lines must be an indicator of something other than the Doppler effect i.e. whether stars are moving away or toward earth.

Here's how they explain it:

The rate of redshift in a galaxy's light spectrum acts as a direct indicator of its recession speed — how fast it is moving away from Earth — because of the Doppler effect and the expansion of space. As a galaxy moves away, the light waves it emits are stretched to longer, redder wavelengths, with a higher redshift value corresponding directly to a faster speed.

What we can do is show how delinquent / suspicious this shift science is. The response above adds: "For galaxies relatively close, the recession velocity is proportional to the redshift multiplied by the speed of light." HAHAHAHA. A mathematician can spot right away that multiplying the amount of red shift by the speed of light offers nothing of value whatsoever. It's a trick. The same thing can be arrived at by multiplying the amount of red shift by a jack rabbit. There is no difference between this-much red shift x speed of light versus this-much red shift x a jack rabbit.

If we give the amount of red-shift as 5 units for a star, and multiply it by the speed of light, we get 5 times the speed of light. If we then find another star with 6 units of shift, we get 6 times the speed of light. If we multiply 5 x one jack rabbit, we get 5 jack rabbits, and if we multiply 6 x one jack rabbit, we get 6 jack rabbits. Either way, using speed of light or jack rabbits, it means nothing; they may as well not use light speed in a formula because the result is only and always proportional to the units of red shift.

Putting in the speed of light helps to make you think they really know what they're doing when in fact the amount of shift can tell you NOTHING about specific star velocity. The larger reason they place light speed into the formula is because the formula has nothing else, only shift and light speed, meaning that, without light speed tossed in, there is no formula.

On earth, they can test the dopplar effect with a train, and then arrive to some mathematical formula that suits the experimental findings, but they cannot go to the star to test if there is any merit in what they are doing with red-shift. This is an example of taking advantage of any possible method of deception, and framing it as good science. There can be no way to use a deceptive technique unless the deceivers pretend to have the science hammered out reliably. That has been their true preoccupation, giving appearances of good science, not the pursuit of truth with actual science.

As stars repel electrons, all stars therefore repel each other, each with negative force, but this then makes the big bang unnecessary to explain the expansion on the universe. As stars shoot electrons at each other, it helps to move stars away from each other. To eliminate this threat, big bangers needed to claim deceptively that the sun is more or less neutral in charge. And that's what they do, no surprise.

However, we can also find the following quote that must be an attempt to simultaneously discredit a sun capable of repelling its own electrons: "The Sun primarily emits a net positive electric charge. This occurs because the solar wind, which is a stream of charged particles (plasma) released from the Sun's upper atmosphere (corona), carries away a slightly higher number of electrons compared to positive ions (protons)...Although the Sun holds a positive charge, it is considered a neutral body in the broader context of the solar system..." They have the sun perfectly framed to deny both: 1) repulsion force acting on the solar wind, and, 2) cosmos expansion by stars possessing identical electromagnetic force of either type. Self-serving monkeys in the name of science.

Don't be deceived, for there is nothing in the sun that can send its electrons away aside from other electrons, and there would be no free electrons to send away if the solar surface had as many bare protons as it has free electrons, which is essentially their claim. It is nonsense that the solar surface should send bare protons away that do not bond with free electrons. That's why I think that the solar interior destroys or cripples hydrogen protons such as to release their electrons fully or amply. That scenario leaves the sun with negative charge by the simple explanation of destroyed or decreased positive force.

As the baboons do not regard solar electrons as solar heat, they have only one other option in getting solar heat to earth: radiated heat, from light waves alone. But light waves do not add heat to the earth. They can only push aether electrons into an atomic surface. A light wave from the sun adds no electrons into the earth's atmosphere. A light wave warms a tree trunk by pushing electrons outside of the trunk into the trunk. The result of a light wave is that the air outside of the trunk becomes colder by as much as the wall becomes warmer. That's all. The astro-physicist is out to lunch with this theory that solar heat is purely from sunlight.

There can be no such thing as solar photons penetrating the atmosphere apart from colliding with the protons of air atoms in the first small fraction of air entry miles above the ground. The average re-direction of the photons, upon collisions with air atoms, is outward into space. It is impossible to argue that we should be able to see the sun as a crisp sphere (when the brightness is darkened) if the photons that arrive to the ground have deflected off of countless atoms in random directions. That does not provide a clean picture, but rather a fog.

On the other hand, if light is a wave through electrons, it can "go through" atoms by piggy-backing on their outer electrons, circling the proton and finally emitting back out on the opposite side of the atom to continue the journey STRAIGHT toward the ground until it strikes another atom and repeats the piggy-back ride, always staying in a straight line on each occasion of exiting an atom's electrons. God created piggy-back light waves, an amazing feat. "Transparent" atoms. It is impossible for straight-flying photons to reach the ground in a straight line. Caloric wins again against Frank-Einsteinian physics.

It makes great sense that God, the Designer knowing the needs of living things, would make both oxygen and nitrogen atoms perfectly spherical to better allow straight-moving waves after circling on electron atmospheres. Gases that emit colored light when white light passes through them suggest that light waves traversing around electron atmospheres cause some jiggling (excitation) of the electrons such that they emit some colored light. For example, the blue color of oxygen gas making the sky blue. I suggest that God arranged for that color because He thought it was best. Reality is not one massive accident. There are secret-to-God reasons for the way the world is, and we can glean some of those secrets. He made the sky pleasant for us, did you notice? Army green would have been the wrong color, would you agree? The devil might have chosen a black sky.

google AI has this claim: "The Moon’s surface charge is not static; it is positively charged during the day due to solar ultraviolet/X-ray photoelectron emission (knocking electrons off) and negatively charged at night as it interacts with the solar wind." As you can see, not only does it not mention bare protons striking the night-time moon, but it doesn't allow them to counter the negative charge of the solar-wind electrons on the night-time moon, proof that there are no protons in the solar wind.

When convenient to explain the negative charge of the moon, solar wind protons are nowhere to be found. When convenient to protect their moon-landing hoax, solar-wind protons are nowhere to be found. When convenient to protect their Newtonian gravity, protons are as numerous as electrons in the solar wind.

How fast do they claim for the solar-wind speed past the earth? Over a million mph. How big are protons in their own sight? As large a H atoms. What do you think H atoms would do to the tin foil on the Apollo landers, or to the fabric of space suits worn by the astronauts, if travelling at a million miles per hour? This is a bad joke, folks, by demonic retards whose souls are devoid of common humanity.

We can entertain their own view of H atoms as 15 times lighter than air atoms. It means that H atoms at 1 million mph would do as much damage as air atoms at 1M / 15 = 67,000 mph. But, not to worry, for when it comes to this problem, the imposters have conveniently claimed that solar-wind protons are several trillion times less sparse than our air, not expected to do damage to tin foil over the course of a few days. Still, no matter how sparse, the protons would be striking constantly at such speeds.

The first part of the quote above is laughable, as sunlight striking the lunar surface can only cause a positive charge in the first 1/8th-inch depth of dust. That fails to speak of the internal charge. As gravity force is negative, and if the moon has any gravity at all, that's how you can know that the moon radiates a negative charge everywhere.

The following is more self-serving trash: "Solar-wind electrons are roughly a billion billion times less dense than the density of atoms in Earth's air at sea level." Impossible, for solar electrons represent the earth's heat. The above is calculated "science" from the secret think tanks of Godless imposters. They want to diminish any possibility that you might take someone like me seriously as to the vital importance of solar electrons. This quote protects NASA's moon-landing hoax.

The quote goes on to claim roughly 25 electrons per cubic centimeter at the earth's orbit. That's not even enough to provide the bottom layer of electrons per one atom. It's laughable. One can estimate how utterly sparse the electrons would be at the solar surface if indeed they are as sparse as 25 per cc at the earth's orbit. All particles streaming from the sun spread out by eight times per doubling of distance from the sun. For example, half way between the sun's core and the earth, the density above works out to 25 x 8 electrons per cubic centimeter. One quarter the way: 25 x 8 x 8. And so on.

When roughly 730,000 miles from the sun core, or 128th of the total 93-million distance, the density of electrons works out to be 25 x (8 to the power of 7) = 50 million electrons per cubic centimeter. They claim the sun to be less than 900,000 miles wide, meaning that when we are 730,000 miles above its core, we are practically upon the solar surface, yet the math is getting only 50 million electrons per cubic centimeter. LAUGHABLE. LIARS. IMPOSTERS. To get the density at half of 730,000 miles, which puts us beneath the sun's surface, we just multiply 50 million be 8 = 400 million. That is, at the surface, modern astronomy is claiming less than 400 million per cubic centimeter, if we go by their density at earth orbit.

I ask google, "calculate the density of solar-wind electrons at the solar surface if there's 25 electrons in the solar wind, per cc, at earth orbit." I'm not going to check the complicated math that the response shows, but will go to the bottom line: "Assuming the solar wind maintains a constant radial velocity as it moves outward, the density follows an inverse-square law with respect to the distance from the center of the Sun...The density of solar-wind electrons at the solar surface is approximately 1,161,000 electrons/cc." That's much smaller than my 400 million, and, after re-checking and re-checking, I don't see how my math is wrong.

To check its math, I asked google to "calculate the density of solar-wind electrons at the earth orbit if there's 1,161,000 electrons per cc at the solar surface." The answer it gave is 25 electrons per cubic centimeter. However, I haven't bothered to check its math method.

As it suits astronomers to claim more electrons at the solar surface than that ridiculous number, that's what they do. For example, quoting from Harvard university, AI says: "the electron number density at the base of the corona/upper chromosphere ranges from 10-power-11 to 10-power-12 per cubic centimeter." The higher number there is 100 billion.

We naturally ask google to "calculate the density of solar-wind electrons at the earth orbit if there's 100 billion electrons per cc at the solar surface." The response: "The density of solar-wind electrons at Earth's orbit is approximately 2,150 electrons per cubic centimeter based on a solar surface density of 100 billion electrons per cc." As you can imagine, I'm disappointed with merely 2,150.

Next, we ask google AI to snitch on the imposters by simply asking how many atoms there are at the earth's surface: "The air we breathe contains about 10 to the power of 19 molecules in each cubic centimeter." That's 10 billion billion, or 10 quintillion. How can there be that many more atoms on the earth's ground than free electrons at the sun's surface? IMPOSSIBLE. The sun is one huge piece of hot machinery, yet we are to believe that it can't muster far more electron density (numbers) than merely the air density on earth?

We're not talking density of total material, but density of numbers. Just think of how many electron diameters there must be from atomic core to atomic core, and yet your neighborhood astronomer claims that solar-surface electrons are even further apart than that. Surely, you could be generous enough to allow the possibility that the solar surface is rife with free electrons such that they nearly touch one another. Surely, any unbiased person doesn't have a problem with that. It's not as though an astronomer has been to the solar surface with a scoop and a counter. It's not as though the concept of solar electrons defining solar heat is certified fairy-tale material.

AI coughed up a different solar-electron density in response to my question, "average density cc of free electrons within the sun." Instead of the 100 billion above, we now get: "While the core has an extremely high electron density, this value drops rapidly moving outward [as if they've been down there]. By the radiative zone, densities fall, and in the solar corona [solar surface area], the electron density is much lower, ranging from 10 billion to ten quadrillion." It doesn't seem as though there's nearly a consensus on the number. The latter option is much larger, otherwise known as ten to the power of 16, but AI failed to tell me that number when I first asked. AI tells that this latter number gets 150 million electrons per cc at the earth orbit, a lot more than the 25 I was told initially. If I use my own math method starting with ten quadrillion at the sun, it gets hundreds of times more than 150 million, but even that's not enough.

Therefore, when AI at first gave 25 electrons per cc, I'm accusing that it seems programmed to respond with deliberate error hoping nobody enquires further.

They build fences to keep any potential calorist sneak from invading their turf. One such fence: the earth's magnetic poles will not allow the solar wind to enter the atmosphere. For as long as they can convince the world that this is true, I'm going to have a problem hopping that fence to burn down their wheat fields. But if I had the help of 300 foxes with their tails on fire, it could do much better. The earth doesn't have two magnetic poles, the idea was invented expressly to build this fence.

You will say, get off, everyone knows the earth has two magnetic poles. No, it's only because they brainwashed you into thinking it true. If they're going to make you believe that the planetary magnetic field repels/redirects both solar protons and electrons around the earth, I have a green light to ask why there's no solar protons imbedded in the snow at one pole or the other. I'm making a point: who's to argue that the magnetic poles should cast the solar wind away from a collision with earth rather than facilitate a collision with earth? How convenient for big-bangers who don't want electrons to be defined as solar heat to choose the first option.

Moreover, a compass in the southern hemisphere points to the north pole, for a compass in the southern hemisphere has its normally-horizontal needle slanting down toward the ground in the north direction, because the south pole does not attract the opposite end of that needle. Only the north pole attracts the needle. As we don't know whether the compass' negative versus positive end points to the north pole.

I'm not decided on whether magnets can attract electrons. Maybe they can attract a few. It seems to me that magnets could both attract and repel electrons because magnetism is expected to be caused by electrons and protons working some kind of funny business. The north pole is possibly positive because the Arctic is far warmer than the Antarctic, possibly because the north pole attracts some solar electrons. It makes sense.

In the same way that they faked the moon landing to fool the Russians into thinking they had far-superior technology, so they fool us into believing that they know how to count the electrons with an instrument aboard the space station. It's trick after trick once they see that they can get away with them. Thanks to the naive who trust this beast, and to their fellow unGodly soldiers, we are inundated with false science. If the baboons could truly count free electrons, they would know that the air is stacked rich with them. As suits their need, they say: "In summary, there are essentially no free electrons in the lower atmosphere, making their steady-state concentration very low." Everything is geared in their textbooks to hiding caloric.

We might even glean that, in order to protect their moon-landing hoax, they needed to greatly reduce the number of protons at the lunar surface, and because they need a half-proton half-electron solar wind, they were forced to lower the number of solar electrons too, which was all the better in that it guards against any rising up of the caloric model.

It's very convenient and fully expected by me that NASA would put out the message that all planets are essentially neutral in charge from their interiors. In this way, it makes me look like a quack for claiming that planets have negative gravity force. It's me versus NASA, who you gonna believe?

But think. How can they detect whether a planet is sending out positive versus negative charge if they construct the detecting device on earth in the midst of gravity, then set it to zero in earth gravity? Besides, I can't fathom what material could possibly be used to detect a negative gravity so slight as out in planetary orbit. A typical compass on earth is hijacked by a magnetic pole, and may for reasons unknown not be attracted by earth gravity such that one end of the needle points to it more than the opposite end.

That's a mystery in itself I would love to crack: what's the difference in the two types of charges? Why doesn't a magnet attract a rubbed object?

I asked google: "what device is used to detect internal planetary charge?" It gave me five instruments, none of which can detect planetary charge from orbit, but rather are for close-range detection. That settles it in my mind already: they do not know whether a planet is sending out a negative charge as its gravity force. I also asked what device is used to detect the internal earth charge, but got devices for measuring ground-dirt charge, not the same thing as deep-internal charge.

This looks pertinent: "In terms of detecting charges or anomalies inside a planet (subsurface), instruments like Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and magnetometers are used, but for the specific context of internal electronic charge buildup in spacecraft/materials, the CEASE instrument is specialized for this." It's pertinent because none of these devices can detect negative versus positive in-planet charge. Therefore, don't let them deceive you when they say planets are neutral in charge, for these empty-suited imposters always claim what's best for big-bang cosmology, their priority. You're not supposed to know it, however.

The youtube video below shows that a bell's sound becomes more bell-like when the bell is heated, and I think you can make out that it's due to the atoms vibrating while further apart per added heat. The heat is acting to unlock the merged atoms to a degree, allowing them to vibrate more when struck by an object. But nobody should be able to argue that tapping the bell slightly with a light object, as we see in the video, should be able to create sound while the kinetic atoms that supposedly vibrate at many hundred of miles per hour make no sound at all. That's because the atoms are not vibrating until the bell is tapped:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-u9ro50TM

By more "bell-like," the tone has longer vibrations in combination with higher pitch, suggesting that higher pitch is more-forceful sound waves, which is attested to where high pitch is more painful to eardrums rather than low pitch. Sound waves form when atoms emit outward into the sound-wave "aether," and light waves form when electrons emit into the light-wave aether. Stronger, more-frequent light waves hurt the eyes.

Lead is not a good bell material, suggesting the lead atoms are very close together and/or unable to vibrate much. The sound of tapped materials could therefore systematically reveal how deeply and/or strongly atoms are merged.

AI: "Pure copper alone is generally not considered a good material for traditional, resonant bells because it is too soft and dampens sound, resulting in a dull 'thunk'".

NEWS

Bill Gates "butter":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj48hgxuRN4

The video above is about Savor:

Savor is a food technology company developing sustainable, animal-free butter made from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane. Supported by Bill Gates, this lab-grown alternative aims to replicate the molecular structure, taste, and cooking properties of dairy butter without cows, farmland, or deforestation.

Raise your hands everybody who wants non-animal, non-plant "fats" mixed with methane, on their pancakes?

Fox news reporting in Iran is like a sports desk, but the video below is the best Iran commentary I've seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYH9yzBHan4

Trump isn't invading Iran for Israel, but for his own agenda, which includes American over$ight over the next Iranian regime, and his Ga$a-rebuild program.

If you're wondering whether the murder of Iran's religious leader will inspire Muslims to invade Israel, so am I. If you're wondering if prophecy is less likely in the near future if Iran goes back to the shaw, so am I. I suggest that Shi'ites could offer Julani of Syria a pact to drop their differences with Sunni Arabs while both groups invade Israel before Israel takes Syria. If ever that type of pact could seem imminent, maybe now is the time, and maybe even more if the West topples the Iranian presidency.

Iran is not at all guiltless, and nobody should support the current regime due to it's animosity against Israel. This is not to say I support Netanyahu's war attitude. In fact, he could be tempting the abomination of desolation to come to his prophesied mission.

The British royal house was full house with Epstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMNXIfUsJSE

Epstein tries to rope the Nobel Peace company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxy88Z3lNg4

Whereas Fox news avoided Epstein like the plague to protect Trump, lately, some on Fox have been forced to cover some stories, including the story where Epstein paid off the border people in the Virgin Islands to allow girls as young as 12 years old to visit the island without visa complications.

Epstein owned and operated the Zorro ranch in New Mexico after the three-time, former governor of New Mexico, Bruce King (Democrat), transferred it to him. His son, Gary King (Democrat), was the attorney general of the same state until the end of 2014, and he then ran for the governor's office but failed. Members of this King family were joined at the hip with Epstein crimes, quite apparently. But the new guard in New Mexico has lately opened an investigation into this ranch, and there's quite of bit of disturbing gore coming out which you're sure to hear about, expected to be everywhere in podcasts where the owners don't mind violating Trump's will on this matter.

The New Mexican authorities are not being helped by Trump's DoJ, if you can believe it, even though this help was requested. I'm hoping that God stalled on exposing this crime ring until He could drag Trump through the mud of exposure when it hurts him the most.

Late this week, the WEF president, Borge Brende, was forced to step down due to communications with Epstein. Who made this man the president and CEO? And why? No crimes were identified, but suspicions are that he agreed to step down to avoid public disclosure of crimes or allusions thereof.

Trump continues to sound like the best friend of Bill Clinton, as if Trump is afraid that Clinton could say something. I don't know how the voters can stomach this man. I don't know why they can't pick a better man for the White House. Are they going to chose a Trump appointee for the 2028 elections? Are they that stupid? Can't they see that most everyone Trump appoints unashamedly turns out to be a deep-state croc? Can't they see that, come election season, he once against starts to sound like he's highly in tune with the voters? He's playing them, OBVIOUSLY, telling them what they want to hear, trying to snag their trust, AGAIN.

---

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

---