Previous Update

Updates Index


April 16 - 22, 2019

No Heraldry Here, For a Change
The Real Physics You've Been Denied
Time for the Resurrection of the Ether
The Respectability and Works of Negative Gravity
God is a Genius

There was an ant walking across my floor. I was going to step on it, put it into a dust pan, and toss the remains out the door, making a nice, crunchy snack for some other lucky creature. After all, it's just an ant. If there were enough of them, and they had the opportunity, they would eat me alive with no concern for my life. Heartless. But just as I was about to squish this tiny monster, she said to me, "No, wait. I promise not to go into your garbage, or your food cupboards, or invite my friends there, and I won't sneak into your ear as you sleep to feast on your brain. Let me live."

I let it live. As days went by, the ant kept its promises. I started to put out scraps for it, and became like a father to it. I thought to give it a variety of foods, not the same old same old, and it continued to respect me in MY house. It came and went, and I protected it, because I came to love this little ant. But if it had decided to snub its nose at me like a liberal, out via the dustpan it would have gone. It's only a tiny monster, after all, a worker of destruction. I think this about sums up why God allows humans to be treated like refuse. They are only little monsters to Him, after all.

Yes, deceptive people unwilling to be helpful to others, seeking their own gain, are rife in liberal, God-rejecting camps. They are all monsters in God's eyes, and will be treated like garbage.

I was trying to tackle the question: why did God make so many animals to eat one another alive? There was only one answer, the same one I arrived to shortly after my conversion: if God made all animals to be non-threatening to one another, all plant eaters, all living at peace and programmed to be a perfect reflection of God's good will, then the human race would not be able to witness that God is deathly serious about treating humans as a mongoose eats the head of a snake while it's still alive. That's how upset God gets with the liberals we see in the news today. They are ruining the world, without ceasing, deception after deception, open hypocrisy after open hypocrisy, while egging one another on in an open conspiracy to throw God to the trash-bin of history.

I do have a wish, that the current history would come to an end, with no more monsters of any kind. And I have a second wish, as you might, that we won't need to pass fearfully through the door of death. Hopefully, and even likely, for a Christian who respects God's wishes, trust in Jesus will get them through the gates of death with a quick and splendid surprise, with the smallest levels of fear. Splendid. What is the definition of that word?

I noticed that the ant still had the "old man" affecting it. How do I know? Because, as a Christian having received the Holy Spirit, I still have it. Under duress, the old man gets the better half of us. Paul didn't say that God would remove the old man from us. Instead, Paul said that we need to do battle against the old man. What logic is there for God to keep the old man in us, since it's tending to make us sin? This old man is the sinfulness within us. I don't know whether it's intertwined with us, or just stuck to us like glue, or hanging around our necks, but it's still there. Maybe, God wanted for us to drag this thing along so that we would not forget the need of Jesus' sacrifice. The first thing on the agenda in the Real New Age is the celebration of the Lamb. The logic is, maybe, that the worse we feel about our "performance" as Christians, the more we will appreciate the Lamb, at the Celebration. In the meantime, we recognize our NEED of the Lamb lest His sacrifice goes into irrelevancy prior to the Celebration.

The more we feel the need for Jesus, the more, hopefully, we will seek not to enter the garbage can of sin to eat of the scraps there. If you recognize your potential for sinfulness, and you also fear it as punishable before God, blessed are you. But woe to the person who continually throws this off as nonsense, or as irrelevant to life. This is the focal point of life: the Lamb. There is no other life. The one who has understood his/her sinfulness is half way to salvation from death. Blessed is the one who understands that escaping death is the only thing that matters, because all others will not have life. Jesus would have us to understand that escaping death is our calling. Take the Warning; stay in the faith until death comes around to you. More than that, stay in the faith because you appreciate, and even love, the standards that God gives for community life in the global anthill.

When the Bible says that God will use Jesus to purchase us, it doesn't mean that He comes to own us if and when we believe, for He owns us already whether we accept or reject Jesus. Otherwise, he has no legal right to heap human souls like garbage into Prison. We really do need to stop viewing God as one too soft and gentle to heap souls as trash. The devil's job is to own us, to bring us to prison with him. And when we sin willfully, he owns us without doubt. We are as good as in prison already. But with an understanding of our need of Jesus, and an acceptance of Him, begging for a pardon with promises of good behavior, he purchases us from the devil. That's how he comes to own us, to take us off the shelf, and to put us to good work.

The youth can be the most vulnerable. They have things to do when they see the possibility of worldly success. They have most their lives in front, and don't want to be obstructed by the calling of Jesus to deal with their sins, and to turn to His direction instead. By what coincidence does He call us not to pursue those worldly ambitions? Because, he knows that they work against our salvation. Worldly success can make us feel that we don't need Jesus. Ask Trump about that. He doesn't recognize his need of Jesus, and being old now, after a life of worldly pursuit, his character has been shaped like a deep trench he cannot change. And this is his grave, that he dug for himself all-life long.

Trump likes to portray himself as one whose given himself to America, and that he's not concerning himself with his corporations. But the first thing done: he gave his corporations such a great tax cut that they could not have hoped to increase their profits by as much value as this ANNUAL (not one-timer) tax cut alone. Secondly, his sacrifice is not for Jesus. He's therefore only digging his trench wider to that it can fit his like-minded supporters. It will be a garbage heap. You can't want to be in there, if you've ever received Jesus. You don't want to throw Jesus away just to bash Democrats along with Trump. We can bash them merrily all without him. A liberal is a piece of toxic junk. Bash-bash. It's just the truth that needs to be spoken, and we don't need Trump to lead the way. When he comes on television to announce that he's asked Jesus for forgiveness, I'll change my tune about him.

We hope the best for every piece of trash (it's what I was), and some of them are leaving the Democrat camp as their leaders become too lunatic, but it's not enough. You can't embrace or celebrate former, influential Democrats who enter the Republican party if they yet reject Jesus, for this only wickifies the Republican party.

We celebrate the wounding of the Democrat machine today, Thursday, at Barr's news conference. Barr had done well to bring the Mueller probe to an abrupt and embarrassing end, and it was great to have Rosenstein very visible standing behind Barr, as the latter's assessment of the Mueller report rolled out. We could all tell what was going through Rosenstein's soul, how small he felt, yet I think he's plotting against Barr if he can find a way to wound him back. The Democrats are so utterly stupid for demanding the fullest Mueller report be publicized, for Trump's supporters welcome this.

A full, public revelation of these papers is expected to backfire against the Obama circle? Nadler has already announced his desire to question Mueller, and, we hope, this will be a fire for our advantage. We all want to know what was on Mueller's mind, and why he took so long with a report where there was never even a remote possibility of Trump's guilt. Why didn't Mueller ever come out to say, every month or two, that, thus far, we have found no guilt of collusion? Why was Mueller like one trying to frighten Trump for a long haul when there was ZERO CAUSE?

The fool leading the Democrat house is now holding the chains that Mueller once rattled. No one's a-scared of Mueller anymore, and so the next job is to humiliate Nadler as he rattles them. Watch how Candace Owens does it. The way she speaks with controlled ANGER is how we all should cut the fools down to size before their very faces (many Republican leaders are way too calm, way to soft, way too nothing):

Bongino apes Barr this week by saying that Russians did try to wrap Trump into some collusion program(s) of their own making. But where's the evidence? Says who? The CIA? But wait, Dan. Nightly you spit at the Intelligence community as it concerns Trump, and I spit along with you, and yet here you have no doubt that Intelligence is speaking the truth on Russian interference??? I don't get it. Where's Barr's evidence before making such accusations against a super-power in such a highly-charged, global news conference? Barr has no evidence that isn't given to him by Intelligence, and we cannot trust Intelligence at this time, especially not at this time. Barr has apparently just shown that he doesn't want to be inconvenienced by a closer look at Russian interference. He'd rather accept it as a fact, and move on. That's because these guys like to make Russia the bogeyman. It makes sense that Russian interference was a creation by the same rats who supported Mueller. This was part of the framing of Trump, yet even Bongino, who speaks his mind, is accepting this as a fact.

Trump has no one to blame but himself for choosing an attorney general who wasn't screened in the first place. What employer hires an employee of the caliber of the attorney general without first screening him for his positions on key matters of law? One appropriate question: will you go after the Obama team, and especially Hillary Clinton, as per their attack on me, a presidential candidate, and his voters? It's a perfectly admissible question if Trump thinks the Obama team is guilty of coup attempts. Instead, Trump failed his voters miserably. So, he took a bashing for his failure. He needed to be humbled, besides, because he thought he was like king Midas in his abilities to create golden successes.

Mueller accused the Trump campaign of knowing that it would/could benefit politically from Russians hacking Democrat computers, yet Mueller does not mention that the Hillary camp paid a legal firm to secure Russian testimonies against Trump for its own political benefits. This amounts to a Republican excavating machine that pushes the dirt on top of a nasty troll now hiding out in his trench. It could get much worse for Mueller's team if its knowledge becomes obvious that it knew Russians didn't hack the DNC in the first place.

It seems to me that there may be a legal benefit for Assange if WikiLeaks publicizes its evidence that Seth Rich stole the DNC material. In such a case, Trump's FBI could force the DNC to give up its system to the FBI, at which time the world discovers that it's obvious the Russians didn't do it. This is the sort of thing expected of Trump if he's to me any man of golden works.

Did Rosenstein think to check the DNC computers first, before appointing Mueller? Did Rosenstein ever ask the DNC for its server system? Doesn't it make Rosenstein a useless, irresponsible, eyes-closed, and even conspiratorial player, at the head of the DoJ? So what is Barr going to do about it? Still the waves? Move on from the battle?

That's why Trump deserves to be bashed and bashed and bashed, for while he pretends to care for the country, he'd rather have peace when he should be guns-ablazing. I have no idea what ails his supporters who refuse to criticize him on this point. Barr will either go against the obvious crimes sincerely, or will try to make a good show of it (but on whose behest?). We will see Trump supporters, or those pretending to be Trump supporters, putting out the message, hoping that it will catch on with other supporters, that it's time to move on...but this is to be expected from those who worked for the corruption behind this entire affair. The secretly-guilty will come out seeking to convince sincrere Trump followers to move on. Carl Rove already started this. Will Trump jump in and join them? I have no confidence that he will not.

One can already see that Trump supporters are willing to accept Russian interference, the hack of the DNC. This is exactly what the guilty want to see. The discovery that this interference is itself a fabricated part of the coup attempt is what the guilty need to hide, and, for this, their pawns will disguise themselves as Trump supporters, pretending that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Russians are responsible. They will egg Trump supporters into this mindset. This situation is where the world needs WikiLeaks. It's just a matter of Bill Barr acting as a man of normal honesty, respectability, and giving Assange the opportunity to present his material on the DNC hack. AFTER ALL, Mr. Barr, as WikiLeaks released the DNC material, it should know who was truly behind the material.

It may turn out to be ironic, for the guilty, that while the arrest warrant, and the Moreno scheme, against Assange was started under the leadership of Rosenstein, the arrest came under Barr's watch. It could be a severe back-fire into Rosenstein's face, if Barr is worthy of his new position.

We well remember, as it was not that long ago, when Rosenstein came upon leaky television to leak that a dozen Russians had been formally charged with interference crimes. Clearly, Rosenstein's team wanted to engrain that false thing into the minds of the public, and Trump supporters were deceived into taking that position, happily so long as Trump comes out smelling like roses on the collusion charges. Imagine what crime it would be to fabricate charges on Russians who did nothing of the sort, in an effort to create the very grounds for a fatal attack on Trump?

Mueller tends to confirm Trump's displeasure with his lawyer(s), for the president has thrown his legal team under the bus, saying that it refused to act against Mueller for fear of giving appearances of obstruction. If this is true, then I'd throw them under the bus too. It is not even close to obstruction if correct information is released to protect oneself, politically or otherwise, against an attack-machine from foes. In fact, releasing true information to protect oneself is an aid to proper justice, and serves to prevent the attack dogs from utilizing false justice or corrupt tools of the trade. Every lawyer is familiar with corrupt tools of the trade. Wherever there is a lawyer, there is potential for black, prosecutorial tools. Everyone has the right to protect self with truthful things. Truth can never be deemed obstruction of justice, and Trump knew this, let's not be fooled. He had the option of hiring other lawyers who had no problem with attacking Mueller with truth. Why didn't he hire other lawyers? Trump has used one excuse after another to justify his own inaction. The weapons-capability of the Democrat enemy has been drastically reduced with the end of the Mueller probe, allowing Trump to go on the offensive at this time with virtually no excuse. What will he personally do?

No-brainer: anyone, Democrat or Republican, who stresses moving on at this time, should be placed on a list of potential guilty parties, part of one conspiracy or another, afraid that further investigations could discover them. "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that nothing he saw in special counsel Robert Mueller's report would make seeking to impeach President Trump a 'worthwhile' effort 'at this point.'" Right. Not only would it be a futile political move, but it could easily discover the sins of his Democrat colleagues, including his own. Therefore, the time for heavy equipment has arrived. The Democrats are putting up a white flag from their trench. Time to call in the machines, fill the trenches with dirt over their living bodies, and finally rake the land flat and nicey as though they never existed. Then, and only then, we can move on.

Hoyer: "Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment." He's delusional. He wants to move on based on the illusion that the Mueller report has given Democrats the advantage in 2020. Sekulow, curiously enough, said exactly the same, that there is an election in 18 months, as though this matters at all. It does not matter. The issue here is not Trump's political survival. The issue is not the next election, thou political animal. The issue is God's righteousness, justice and the purging of wicked leaders. Do that, and assure political success as merely the by-product for decades to come. Then, continue to purge and prune the tree of diseased branches. Everyone loves a clean political party, and so you have got to take an axe to your own orchard's sick trees. The voters are puking from eating of sick trees in the congressional orchard. The political animal is the sick dog tied by a chain to the sick tree. Trump is one of those sick trees.

Pelosi: "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country." That's laughable. Since when has Pelosi or her peers cared about dividing the country? In other words, this is the Democrat white flag, a signal for Trump to pounce. There are endless ways for Trump to pounce. He calls up Barr on the phone, "hey my good man," and requests as many documents as possible that speak to Mueller's and Rosenstein's guilt, which reveals further who they were marching for? He asks for all papers finding Obama and his team guilty. It is so simple, so easy, to do, yet for over two years this fake president has refused. He is not the president of this nation, because that's defined as one who cares for the people. Instead, Trump is an infestation in the White House, a parasite seeking his own prosperity.

He recently said that he not only wants 5G radiation, but 6G, because, apparently, the corporations and spy agencies he works for want it. Yet, this high radiation causes cancer more than the current levels of cell-phone radiation. Not everyone gets cancer from cell phones, but some do. Increasing the radiation to 6G will murder more people needlessly, because 6G is not a need, certainly not a need justifying the severe illnesses of more people. Radiation jiggles the cells of your body, and jiggled cells can be altered chemically. You don't want to fool with that when you haven't a clue to what it's capable of doing. But Trump doesn't care.

The best thing that could happen is for Democrats to continue this fight, or the Bush-circle goons will get Trump and Barr to move on, leaving corruption alive and well. McCabe came out to continue the fight this week, saying that Mueller's report justifies his decisions when he was part of the FBI's program against Trump. It's incredible that he would come to argue in this way in front of the entire world, rather than apologize. He's delusional if he thinks the people agree with him. I dare say, there is a large percentage of Democrats who want to know what really happened, politics aside.

This battle is a good thing, because Intelligence operates best when not in battle to protect itself. We are seeing its vulnerabilities. But how is the victory at this late time, this week, any better than had Mueller been attacked by Trump in mid-stream, months ago? Wouldn't that have been a more-glorious victory? The fraidy cats won this battle, but the Dem-stenchers have seen Trump's cowardice, and are set to re-attack. Their first line of attack is to make Barr feel like a terrible law man, a Trump puppet, for coming down in favor of Trump. That's nonsense. Trump is innocent of the charges, and so, naturally, Barr will come down in Trump's favor. There is nothing wrong with Barr being happy about the Mueller result. They are trying to make Barr equal, urging him to come down half the time against Trump, otherwise they will continue to portray him as a Trump lap dog. The stenchers never stop. They never cease to create trouble, and need to be dead. Who is the One Appointed for this deed? Not Trump.

There is only one thing for Barr to do to clear himself from the charges coming to him daily now from the stenchers: show that Mueller had no basis for entertaining the so-called "links" between Trump team-members and certain Russian individuals. In other words, don't lament the attack on Barr at this time, as it will only egg Barr to defend himself with just the sorts of revelations needed against his foes. Some of the guilty parties in the Democrat camp see this threat from Barr already, and are therefore willing to give up the fight, and move on to the "issues." It's the buzz-word of the guilty.

Mitt Romney this week: "Romney wrote, in a statement posted to Twitter, that it was “good news” Mueller’s team found insufficient evidence to charge Trump..."The business of government can MOVE ON,” he said. "Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President," Romney continued.. Caps mine. It's got Bush circle all over it.

I've been watching a few Democrats going against Barr. If I were him, I would take the media bosses to court for defamation. I would tell the people that the media needs to think hard on allowing defamation of character with no-good reason. Free speech to this drastic point is destroying the country. It is not a good thing to exchange ideas when the ideas are calculated, political-animal falsifications in the first degree. It's not petty self-protectionism to take these cases to court. It's necessary, freeze-the-swamp activism. It's what you do when you care enough for the country to spend some extra money you have on-hand, which most people don't have, which is why the government should be taking them to court. Trump has a little extra cash, doesn't he?

How many of you know that, if people are fed inaccurate information, their thinking, and their view of reality, goes wrong? How many realize that this edges closer to insanity? The Democrat voter was been fed inaccurate information for so long they he's now literally insane, unable to grasp the realities. Is this a good product of free speech? How near-murderous have Democrats become from false propaganda? Is this exchange of ideas really good for the nation? How menacing has the typical Democrat become when he speaks from his reasoning based on false information? How prone is such a person to making clones of himself in other leftist stupids? And the naive youth? Free speech, you say, is a good thing, something to be proud of, but without limits? Are you nuts? Free speech using truthful information from people bent on truth, wonderful. Massive (media-released) free speech for the devil, say your final prayers. This is a good time to use your salt online, to defend for truth, to move people toward true things, good things, because the devil is roaring his swan song.

Clapper was on CNN saying that the Mueller report is "very devastating," laughable. Clapper wants to continue the war, apparently not feeling heat yet from what might yet become investigations into his nooks and crannies. I suppose the strategy now is to make Barr shrink back from calling for these investigations, by portraying them as political crusades. Yet the attorney general may have easy access, if he wants it, into Clapper's governmental communications. Before the first minute arrives in the video, Clapper starts on Russian interference, the thing his fighters have decided to promote simultaneous with the assault on Barr:

Near the end of the 2nd minute, Clapper shows his favoritism not toward impeachment, but at buzzword, 2020. Just focus on 2020, Clapper says, because, he means, if Trump wins again in 2020, the shadow government will not only go mad, but be in fear of nakedness before the people.

I beg of you to see MSNBC below as evidence that leftist media anchors are being forced to look like lunatics, by those who give them marching orders to deny that Mueller found Trump innocent. It's right at the start of the video where the anchor asks Sekulow his first question (the question itself is framed with insanity):

As you can see, grasping at straws, trying every-which way to come out of this tail spin safely. If I were Sekulow, I'd tell them to stick it -- not answer one question -- unless they first admitted that Mueller exonerated Trump. Although Mueller wrote that he can't exonerate Trump, he has no choice, because he could not find sufficient evidence of guilt. That amounts to an exoneration. It's unprofessional and self-serving to include, in a final report, that he won't exonerate in the face of insufficient evidence of guilt. This is Mueller trying to communicate that he almost had a case, as though he had a personal stake in the process and its outcome.

If Bongino is correct starting at 10:40, into the 13th minute, then this should become a focal point for Barr's unraveling of Mueller until he's wholly naked before the people:

In the 17th minute, Dan speaks on Mueller's almost-total neglect of the Steele dossier throughout his report. I would suggest that the dossier was intended as the tooth and claw of his plot, but that when the dossier was discovered as paid for by Clinton, Mueller had to drop the entire thing for her sake, and for the sake of those who depended upon it at the FBI, including his good buddy, Comey. That is the most delightful part of Mueller's failure, like sticking a sock into his mouth, and half-way down his throat as he goes off choking to death in the privacy of his torment. Perfect scene.

If Barr does not immediately arrest Mueller and those he worked for, Barr is a farce. Barr's not stupid; he already knows that Mueller and company are guilty of seditious crimes. There is no excuse not to arrest Mueller and the Obama FBI along with Obama and Hillary themselves. Anything short of arrests means that Barr is a sham. I give him three months (probably doesn't need that long) for finding sufficient evidence to arrest Obama. If Barr were reading this, here's how I think he would react: "Arrest Obama? Are you crazy." Barr doesn't have the steel. He's maybe more a munchkin than a police chief. But with God, nothing is impossible.

There's a good point at the 41st-44th minute. It shows that Mueller's task was initially to advance the Steele dossier. That must have been the "insurance policy."

We are now at Mueller II with Nadler opening the first chapter. Oh what fun. Nadler looks like a bumbler in this role, perfect. Expect a failure. We are learning that the CIA has six ways until Sunday to fall flat on its face. The invisible CIA monster turns out to be a clown, the funniest thing, in a monster suit. Shame on Pompeo for not exposing it when he had the golden opportunity. Shame shame. With him at the state department, Trump's government has been impoverished. The eloquent Trump has done almost nothing right. Remember: he didn't win the election, Hillary's crimes, and his false promises to clean swamp, did.

It's really foolish to read a CIA claim on the news as though it were the Infallible Word of God. But did you know that Americans are prone to doing exactly that? If a president doesn't view CIA claims as the word of God, that president could be in trouble six ways until Sunday. And that is exactly why Trump and Pompeo need to be replaced with much better souls. Trump saw with his own eyes that the CIA was party to his demise through the use a false claims and information, yet this president now acts the part of not questioning the CIA's claims of Russian interference. And no one on Fox asks whether this interference claim is a mere ploy. We must conclude that, even if the claim is false, Americans are by and large willing to accept the lie since, after all, it's got to do with Russia.

But this ignores the question of who did hack the DNC if Russia did not? Did the CIA urge Seth Rich to do so? Why has Trump not demanded that the FBI inspect the DNC communications system? Did you know that, while spending millions of dollars to get Trump, the Mueller team did NOT secure -- DID NOT SECURE -- the DNC communications system to assure his team that the Russians did hack the DNC. What kind of an investigator is that? But when it came to seizing Trump's communications by force, Mueller would have had not a problem with it. What kind of an investigator is that?

It's because president Rump agreed with the Intelligence people -- that Russia interfered in the election -- that Rump is about to be hammered all over again. Instead of playing his trump card, he played for a losing hand. The leftist media can now re-energize its base of cut-throat actors, and Nadler's House has been given the green light to continue the Mueller investigation based on the claim that Russian interference had the goal of helping Trump win the election. Perfect. I say, whiplash president Rump on his backside, make it red as red can be. Make it hurt, because this president doesn't know how to play his hands when he has the winning cards. Time after time, this jerk gives his dark enemies the light of day.

Is it unreasonable to expect Pompeo, as the CIA chief, to ask his employees to find evidence of Brennan's guilt over a spectrum of issues, since Brennan was revealed as part-and-parcel with the dossier scandal, and since Brennan was obviously a pro-Hillary Obamaite during the election season? Is it unreasonable to expect Pompeo to protect his own president from the entrenched deep state within the CIA? Yet Trump the Rump chose this useless tool to be his state-department chief too. How can he be a bigger jerk?

We can fully expect Pompeo not to task his employees at State to find Hillary emails that discover her possible guilt on a spectrum of matters. True, if Pompeo has been secretly working to that end, both at the CIA and at State, we don't expect him to divulge such a program publicly, nor what he found. However, if he's been doing that, it would have been discovered by pro-Obamaite employees, and leaked. Therefore, he did NOT carry out that good task, meaning that Pompeo is a willing stooge of the deep state whether he wants to be or not. And that's why Trump chose him for State, because they are like-minded, yellow-bellied traitors to Republican voters, and moreover they have obstructed justice by their sins of omission.

Take a look below at how the FBI tried to set up Michael Caputo, to frame Trump, and ask how many other Trump people were ensnared by such methods, yet Trump has yet to repay his team members with the arrest of even one FBI agent:

Keep your eyes out for John Solomon this week as per this video:

Time for a break:

That was talented.

Thought this was clever:

Science Time

How to know that evolutionary scientists teach as many lies as anti-Christian liberals (they are one and the same people, same natures, same rebellion). See the physics professor below starting at 3:40. Note that when he blows hot air ONTO the skin, it feels like hot air, but when he blows the same air, at the same temperature, ACROSS the skin, it feels cold. He doesn't explain the reason, because his view of atomic physics doesn't have an answer, or at least not the correct one.

I can explain why air moving across your skin, or across any material, causes a loss of heat in that material. The evolutionist goons cannot explain this by their view of atomic physics.

It's a known fact that, when air currents pass along the opening of a ground-hog's home, air in the tunnel is forced out under pressure because the air pressure in the moving air is reduced. That is, there is a pressure difference where the still air in the tunnel meets the moving across the opening on the tunnel. For some reason, air pressure is reduced where air is moving. Why do you think that is? The stupids have no answer, because they have rejected the reality that all particles inter-repel. Instead, they have committed themselves to the error that all atoms inter-attract.

I have a great advantage over modern science. I will be proven correct in the atomic theories I have proposed in the past. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. I stand up against the tens of millions of people who think they know what they are talking about, as a bloc, and they will be proven wrong, and have been proven wrong, yet they cover-up the problems to their atomic claims.

To explain the above, we need a thought experiment. I use thought experiments because it's cheaper and easier/faster than buying the needs for real experiments. It's less reliable to do thought experiments, but in many cases they are acceptable. For example, we can be sure that, if we slowly roll a magnetic ball bearing a half-inch away from another magnetic ball bearing, the latter being stationary to begin with, the rolling ball will cause the stationary one to move as it rolls by. This is a thought experiment; we have reached a conclusion without buying magnetic ball bearings, wonderful.

Let's assume that the bearings repel one another. Next, we fire a magnetic bearing at the speed of a bullet a half-inch past the stationary bearing, and it now moves so slightly that the eye cannot pick up the motion. It's another successful thought experiment; we instinctively know it's correct. We conclude that the specific amount of time that the bearings spend close to one another determines how much (or how fast) the stationary bearing moves. Put it this way: the longer the repulsion force of the moving bearing is applied to the stationary bearing, the longer the latter can accelerate to a higher speed, and the more distance it covers. Isn't it fun to do cheap experiments?

Now, we take that same physics reality, and we "roll" air atoms past the opening of a gopher hole. When the air atoms above the hole are motionless, they repel the still air atoms in the hole constantly, with equal force set up in both directions. Neither air body moves toward the other. But when air atoms move across the hole, they exert repulsion force upon the air atoms in the hole for less time as they pass...meaning that the repulsion force into the hole is reduced, causing the atoms inside the hole to repel one another out of the hole.

This pressure-difference is set up when air moves along a wet surface. Although air atoms cannot be inside the atomic spaces of the wet material, yet there are electrons in those spaces. These are the same free electrons as in the air. They come from the solar wind, enter and fill our atmosphere; they have worked their way into the atomic spaces of all materials, and this is defined correctly as the heat particles within every material.

The evolutionist goons, who wish to destroy God, have got it wrong when they say that heat is defined as the MOTION of atoms. This is so wrong it's unbelievable that the theory is still with us today, after a century of new realizations. It's a cover-up; they don't want to admit their error. They need their kinetic theory of heat for their precious theory on cosmic evolution. The kinetic theory requires, and grants them, their need of atomic attraction, which is false, yet they need this to explain the formation of stars and galaxies from material moving away from itself due to the big bang. Do you see it? The big-bang explosion goes counter to star formation, unless the goons can convince you that atomic inter-attraction brought material together as stars, and then star clusters. The STUPIDS. They arrived at scientific "truth" merely as required by their evolutionary theories.

They will agree that electrons in the air move as air currents dictate. Wherever the wind blows, there go the electrons too, pushed by air atoms. But they don't like to talk about electrons in space, event though its a fundamental part of all space. They would rather you not think of electrons filling the atmosphere, because these are their dread enemy. The electrons in space behave as though they were not there. It's as though they provide no inertia. They seem to offer no weight. It's as though they don't exist, and this allows the goons to ignore them (to not mention them) when they teach or speak on vacuums.

They will agree that electrons repel one another. In that case, electrons in atomic pores -- the gopher holes -- of all materials will push out into the open air whenever the electrons in the air are moving across the surface of any material. There is some space between every atom. When the air is motionless upon a material, the repulsion of that air's body of electrons will be equal to the repulsion forces of the motionless electrons inside the atomic spaces. The interior electrons will therefore not exit into the air, as they WILL EXIT if moving air is forcing electrons to move across the openings of the atomic spaces. As these free electrons (heat particles) exit the material, the material becomes colder at the surface.

But if you blow warm air TOWARD the surface, rather than across it, you will force electrons into the material, making your skin, for example, feel hotter. The sensation of heat is the entry of electrons into your skin; the sensation of cold is the exit of electrons from your skin. You are learning some new truths today.

Although I am not the first to discover it, it was my personal discovery, made all on my lonesome (not borrowed from anyone), that electrons are repelled by gravity. This is an awesome truth that destroys evolutionists in their tracks. This is why they don't want to talk about electrons in the air. The little bitties (the electrons) behave as though they are not there. If you put a bird into a vacuum, all the electrons are there, but the bird can't fly. The electrons won't help the wings to get "traction." In order to have traction in a space, its particles need to be pulled down by gravity. The latter has tightened all air atoms together to a fair degree so that everything need to do some work to get through their air. The small levels of restriction to motion offered by air under gravitational forces is what allows birds to fly. You can know this just by doing a cheap, mental experiment. We can destroy evolutionists using this cheep-cheep method.

If air atoms were not pulled by gravity, they would forever repel away from one another, into space. If you can (I know you can) imagine a stationary atom apart from gravitational attraction, you can poke it with your finger (it's another mental experiment). What happens to it? If your finger pokes it at five mph, the atom will be set into motion at five mph. But if the same poke is applied to an atom pulled down by gravity, it will move at less than five miles per hour. There is air resistance to your poke, thanks to gravity. Apart from gravity, every and any thing floating in the air offers no resistance. A piano floating in the air will offer no resistance to your passage. Got it? This is why electrons in the air offer no resistance to passage: they are repelled by gravity.

They are continually repelled up and into outer space. If it were not so, the earth's equatorial regions would fry in a week with the constant addition of electrons from the solar wind. The evolutionist goons are dogs for denying your this reality. It has crossed their minds, but they have covered it up because they need a physics model that can kill God. DOGS!

Someone might say that, when all air is removed from a container, all electrons are likewise removed, wherefore my thought experiment with the bird in a vacuum is rendered futile. Wrong. Scientists know that light-bulb filaments release electrons. They can therefore release unlimited numbers of electrons into a vacuum, yet the temperature inside the vacuum does not continually increase. Turn off the bulb, and the vacuum comes down to room temperature. Ditto if there is a vacuum inside the bulb. The electrons go through the glass of the bulb, but also through the walls of the vacuum chamber. What do you think happens to the electrons in a bulb? How many electrons do you imagine released over the course of 5,000 hours from a lit bulb? Do you expect electron dust in the bulb? If not, then where do they all go, having originated from the wire outside the bulb, and then forced to "boil" off of the filament? Is this a prohibited question? Touch the top of a light bulb, and you will get a really good idea on how many nasty electrons are being repelled upward in that bulb. Why do you think the bulb is much hotter directly above the filament as compared to directly beneath the filament?

Under what locomotion do electrons pass into or out of a vacuum chamber? That's easy. Under their inter-repulsion forces. If they are more dense (closer to one another) outside the chamber, they repel into the chamber, and vice-versa. For the closer two (electro)magnetic bodies are to one another, the stronger they inter-repel.

You are learning a great secret today only because the goons who wish to take your mind for their devil are keeping well-kept secrets. A vacuum is filled with electrons that do not offer a winged creature any flight, and which do not resist the passage of any object. They are not attracted by gravity, therefore, and, because we all know that heat rises, we can begin to realize that gravity repels electrons. What does this tell us about the true nature of gravity? Ahh, it must be a negative force, just like the electron. What in tarnation could be inside every planet and star to produce such negative forces? I know. More electrons! The core of the earth is a massive heat source, and all heat is defined by FREE electrons (electrons not CAPTURED by positively-charged, atomic cores). There's your real gravity source.

I've done a lot of plumbing. Every plumber knows that heat rises through a copper pipe more than it moves in any other direction. The plumber has been lied to. He's been told that heat rises in solid objects due to rising hot air around the object. LIE. The heat will rise also in the inner wall of the pipe, where outer air has no affect upon it. Heat will rise in a pipe heated in a vacuum. I guarantee it, because I know the secret: electrons in the atomic spaces of the pipe are repelled upward by gravity. Go ahead, goon, conduct the experiment and prove to yourself that heat rises in a pipe even in a vacuum. Or, ask one of the youtube physics online to do the experiment, for they welcome such special requests.

Of course, temperature in a vacuum is anathema to the goons who claim like a thick bloc (its a conspiracy) that a vacuum can have no heat. A vacuum will become just as warm or cold as the air on the outside, no matter what the temperature in the vacuum to begin with. This fact stares them in the face, telling them what goons they are for teaching the kinetic theory of heat. Yet they persist with this error, they really should be jailed.

Let's do another mental experiment. We put a balloon into a vacuum chamber with 99.7 percent of the air removed; the balloon has air within it at a temperature slightly more than the temperature in the vacuum. We arrange for the balloon to neither sink to gravity, nor to rise to the top. It floats in mid-air within the vacuum chamber because the upward force on the balloon due to the extra heat within it perfectly matches the pull of gravity upon it. But wait. As there is virtually no air in the vacuum, what's causing the balloon to resist gravity? You see, the facts are slapping the faces of the goons all over the place, yet they refuse to teach the obvious realities.

The balloon floats in the vacuum, and, with hotter air within, will rise in the vacuum, even though there is no air around the exterior of the balloon to give it buoyancy. The obvious reality is that the heat in the balloon is repelled by gravity. The greater the heat within it, the greater the upward force, away from gravity. Go ahead, do the experiment. I am confident that the balloon with rise. This is why Einstein looked like a quack, because he knew the laws he was breaking when rejecting the "ether."

He and his colleagues claimed that ether particles cannot exist because there is no evidence that the earth passing through it is slowed by the ordinary resistance to motion afforded by particles. Then, in the 1950s, NASA discovered the ether, and called it the solar wind, yet science refused to deny Einstein his no-ether views. The solar wind is a flow of electrons that the earth must pass through. It doesn't cause a slowing of the earth because the electrons are not held down to the sun by any force. The electrons are free as birds; you could poke any one of them and not waste energy doing so. It uses up zero energy to move a floating, weightless piano. There is energy used up in moving a finger against the piano, but none of the energy is transferred into the piano. In order for energy to transfer into the piano, it must resist your poke. Do the right thing, poke all goons in both eyes, then kick them out of the schools with some firm, kinetic energy to their backsides. And have fun doing it.

Put it this way. If we toss a baseball, at 50 miles per hour, toward a floating, weightless piano, the ball will not bounce off the piano. The ball will instead push the piano along at 50 miles per hour, proof that none of the ball's energy enters into the piano. For if some energy enters, the ball will slow down or even bounce away.

What happens if we propel two weightless pianos directly at one another, both moving at 50 mph? They will make contact, transfer their energies into one another, and come to a stop together. Although they are weightless, they yet have mass. Ditto for the electron. Mass combined with velocity amounts to force regardless of whether there is gravity in the picture to produce weight. This is yet another reason that the world must reject the evolutionist goons who teach lies to all, for they teach that atoms in collision (kineticism) never lose total velocity, whereas experiments show wholesale that the opposite is true: any moving objects making contact will suffer a net loss of total velocity / momentum, and continual collisions produces complete stoppage quickly. Yet the goons imagine all atoms in continual collisions without any slowing down. That's because they are liars, just like the political liberals whom they lead. Yes, anti-Christ evolutionists are largely in the Democrat camp, and leading it.

These goons are complete quacks, teaching that a photon particle travels as far as seven times around the earth in just one second, and that it never slows down regardless of the number or nature of collisions it may have with relatively huge atoms. What a lunatic. For a century, this lunatic idea has been respected, shame on the church for allowing this to take place. Imagine how small and vulnerable their photon is. Imagine how much destructive force is applied to it in a dead-on-collision with an atom? Only a lunatic would teach the survival of this photon as respectable science, and that lunatic was Einstein. He did away with the ether, and replaced it with the photon, because he was convinced that there could be no such thing as a light wave, in the absence of the ether. He rejected the obvious reality that he knew and understood, that ether particles not held to gravity offer no resistance to the planetary orbit, and he replaced it with his mean, massless photon.

Ahh, he needed a massless photon to explain the very thing for which he rejected the ether particles. Basically, his photon (fast bullet) was virtually identical to the soon-to-be-discovered solar wind particle (slow bullet), yet the goons didn't replace the photon with the electron ether. Why not? Why can't light waves move through the solar wind? There is no answer. That is, it is clear as light itself that light waves can move through the ether. Photons are unnecessary, therefore.

Photons cannot act as the light-wave medium because they travel as fast as a light wave through the light-wave medium. In other words, a light wave can maybe move as much as 186,000 mph (doesn't always), and therefore requires the particles of the light-wave medium to be moving slower. A light wave cannot form unless the ejected electrons at the sun's atoms jolt into the outgoing, ether electrons. The ejected electrons must therefore be speedier than the outflowing ether; otherwise, black sunspots form. Solar-wind electrons do not move anywhere near 186,000 mph, but are thought to move at reasonable, logical speeds.

If the goons had taken to heart the scenario presented earlier on the magnetic ball bearings, they might have realized why light waves are, unlike any other waves, forward-only moving. Probably, this idea was presented to their leaders, but they rejected it, covered it so that people wouldn't hear of it. The idea is this: if an electron emitted from an atom passes by free electrons in space at a fast-enough velocity, it's repulsion force will not cause motion in the electrons it is passing. It's identical to firing a magnetic bearing past a stationary one, so fast, that the stationary one stays put. It does not move sideways, in other words.

Just so you understand me: if there is no motion in electrons passed by an emitted / ejected electron, neither is there a wave in any direction through these stationary electrons. A single wave is defined as a domino effect: the motion of one electron toward another electron, pushing the second one into the third, and so on. If no sideways motion (perpendicular to the travel of the emitted electron) takes place, neither does the wave spread out sideways. In other words, the wave will go only straight ahead.

The emitted electron repels a weightless electron directly, or nearly directly, in front of it, and, precisely due to the weightlessness of all electrons, the second electron almost simultaneously (almost-zero lag time) pushes the third, and...almost simultaneously pushes the millionth one, and so on until the wave reaches the earth from the sun. It couldn't reach the earth if electrons were attracted to solar gravity.

Each ray is simply a train of particles, all rays tending to keep one other trained in straight lines. Any slight sideways motion is corrected (or offset) by the slight motion in the opposite direction (think left versus right) of a neighboring that all rays are trained directly forward.

In the case of sound waves though atoms, I suggest that atomic vibrations (the source of sounds) are incapable of moving atoms fast enough forward to prevent sideways motions of neighboring atoms. To put it another way, sound waves tend to get trained in straight directions too, yet each wave is capable of bending around an object, as it arrives to one, because the domino-effect speed of wave-medium atoms is too slow to prevent a sideways transfer of energy. It's just the expected reality.

The conclusion seems to be that any light force visible to our eyes has electron emissions, as well as a domino-effect, fast enough to prevent a sideways transfer of energy. It means that the ridiculous wave-particle theory of light should be put to bed as the lunatic that it is. Or, one can view the straight-ahead light wave as a "particle" only where the wave possesses a final particle acting as a bullet...the one entering an atom (the latter marks the wave's end of the line). The final electron pierces into an atom as a bullet would in water. Light waves are not to be viewed rounded, as you see in textbook drawings. A single wave is a single straight line, but only the last bullet in the line enters the atom, per wave. Each wave has one emitted electron at the light source. After one electron enters an atom, the electron behind it enters too, but only due to another electron emitted back at the sun.

Electrons splash into the electron atmospheres of the atoms, which has nothing to do with the demented idea that electrons orbit around protons. It is impossible to splash into a set of orbiting electrons. Instead, electrons cover the entire surface of all protonic cores, like the earth's atmosphere covers the planet's surface. Every protonic core is covered in a sea of captured electrons. Admit it, accept it, it's the only viable option. Orbiting electrons are impossible, thou ninny.

The fools have invented this orbiting theory because they require it for their photon. The speedy electron, in their sick minds, is able to catch a screeching proton, and then send it out again in what we call light reflection, without going out of orbit. It's not a wonder the lunatic Einstein assigned it zero mass; otherwise it would knock electrons out of orbit. But a hammer to a nail can do the very same, thou ninny. There are no orbiting electrons, admit it, confess it, teach it. Do you think it makes you cutting-edge to believe in electron shells? Are you also a black-hole proponent? How far will you let them take you to exciting lalaland, that is the question?

Gravity cannot pull light. Once you understand that light is not a photon, you will know that black holes are impossible. First of all, they shoot themselves in the foot by claiming the ability of stars to pull in their photons, for if that's true, then stars should all alter the speeds of their own photons. Some stars will pull their photons more than others, and consequently, the photons of all stars will go out in various velocities. But you've never heard them tell you this before, because it ruins cosmology's model where they perceive light everywhere at roughly the same speed.

Take a look at any photograph of what they claim to be a galaxy. Are you sure it's a galaxy? Doesn't it look just like an exploded star? I'm proposing what will come strangely to your ears at first, but with time, once you become progressively familiar with their lying ways, you will be better able to accept that they have invented galaxies too, for they think they need the gigantic size of the universe to murder God better. And I developed a sure-fire way to prove that the sun is not nearly 93 million miles away. They enlarged our solar system too, because they wanted everything oversized. It means that the solar wind's velocity, as they tell it, is wrong.

The way to prove the real distance to the sun is within the grasp of all honest astronomers, if they are keen enough to realize where astronomy is deceiving them with erroneous sizes of the earth's shadow in lunar eclipses. Anyone with access to eclipse data, that I don't have access to, can prove that the diameters they report for the width of earth shadow are false. From eclipse to eclipse, NASA reports the diameters of earth shadows from mere mathematical predictions with a sun presumed at 93 million miles away in the first place, which is jackass-backward. What needs to be done is to measure the diameter of the earth's shadow with other methods -- from the correct lunar-eclipse data itself -- and then work the other way to find the distance to the sun. The way to do this is ever-so-easy, by forming two lines, one from a lunar eclipse (edge of moon to edge of shadow to edge of earth to edge of sun), and another from a solar eclipse (edge of lunar shadow to edge of moon to edge of sun). Where the two lines meet, that's the approximate position of, and distance to, the sun. NASA knows that it's lying, trust me. It's no different than the Democrat / deep-state goons lying about everything they need to.

They claim an earth shadow that is smaller than the reality in order that a given lunar-eclipse line spreads at a higher angle, with distance toward the sun, than is the reality. By creating the premise for this false line, the truthful inspector will be thwarted at finding the true solar distance. The false lunar-eclipse line won't be met by the solar-eclipse line until the distance of 93 million miles away. At least, that's the aim of their game. It is very possible to determine the precise size of the earth shadow by the time taken for the moon to traverse it (assuming they have correctly measured, or correctly passed on, the lunar diameter).

I can't remember exactly how long it takes the solar wind to arrive when starting at the sun. The way they time this is by noting certain sunspot activities, and measuring the time taken for the expected waves from the activity to arrive to the earth. If it's two to three days, they divide 93 million miles by the hours involved, and that gives them the solar-wind speed in mph. But if the sun is less than 10 million miles away, the math makes the speed go way down. The world has yet to learn that NASA has been led by outright liars, men of satan. I delight in being viewed as a nutcracker at this time, by the mainstream, in return for the last laugh, my bonus, but my only purpose is to be convincing for passing truth along to NASA's, and to evolutionism's, victims. I urge you to think for yourself, not trusting seasoned scientists, for their establishment is infested with satanists. Surely you know and understand this.

Let's go back to the light bulb. Scientists admit that the filament can't hold all of the electrons being forced across it, wherefore the electrons are released from the filament. That's the source of light, the emission of electrons from the filament, but they act daft. They play too stupid to realize this. They are incredibly unworthy of the respect they crave as "scientists." Where do the electrons go? Where do they come from? After 5,000 hours of bulb operation, that's a lot of electrons released. How could all of those electrons have had their source in an electrical wire? Wouldn't that impoverish the wire? Wouldn't it change the nature of the copper wire, to lose that many electrons? Where does the wire reload with other electrons after it loses them across the filament? From the air, right? Yes, and everytime your breath, believe it or not, you inhale electrons that were once in the sun.

Yes, the electrons lost from the electric wire are replenished from atmospheric electrons when they pass through the coat of the wire. And so there is an unlimited supply of electrons for dumping across the filament. But where do you think they go when they escape the filament? They can't all become part of the atoms of the glass of the bulb, and they do not become electron dust. They therefore have got to pass through the glass. Besides, if they all became a part of the glass, the bulb should increase in weight, if the stupids are correct in their claims that electrons have weight.

In fact, these stupids are the very ones who obliterated the old caloric theory of heat in-part because they weighed heated objects, finding that they did not increase in weight. They therefore concluded -- as stupids would who use only half their brains, and the wicked half to boot -- that caloric cannot be the explanation of heat, because they expected caloric to have weight, or better yet, because they pretended to believe that caloric MUST have weight. Yet they also knew the possibility that some materials might not be attracted by gravity. Why wasn't that an option???

We are dealing here with a very different material when we are dealing with heat. It's not atomic material, clearly. Why did they not allow, as a viable theory, the idea right before their faces in the light bulb, that heat might be going to the top of a bulb due to being repelled by gravity? In those days, and until recently, bulbs had vacuums, meaning that there were no upward drafts formed in the bulbs as an explanation for rising heat. So, you see, they are guilty of hiding the viable option, the clear front-runner theory, and chose instead a theory that assisted their cosmic evolution: all atoms attract one another, and all materials are pulled by gravitons (= hoax) existing in every atom. FOOLS. Worthy of human jail, and of Hell. Lying to the human race on behalf of a quest to rid God from humanity.

The electron was being studied by Einstein at the very time that he was murdering caloric and the ether. And he was awarded a prize for his work in the emission of electrons, yet he was loath to announce that light resulted from the emission or excitation of the very electrons he was studying. Instead, he invented the photon as the splash-down particle from the sun that caused atoms to lose (emit) electrons. We can forgive him in those early days of the electron's discovery, but the wicked have had decades upon decades to figure out what's really going on, and to announce it, but have left things unchanged. The fabulous photon (science-fiction) is still with us.

On second thought, Einstein had the light bulb, and could witness, and even play with, the heat source at the top of a bulb. He knew electrons were coming off the filament, yet we are to believe that the big genius could not figure out something so easy as the repulsion of electrons from gravity??? It makes us suspect that he and his colleagues had figured this out, but that they had to invent other explanations for dissemination to the human race.

I obtained a 25-watt bulb from Sylvania, back in the 1990s, which the company told me still had the vacuum system. I coated the bulb with wax, and turned it on. The heat burned a small hole directly above the filament, but left the rest of the wax intact. How could the people around Einstein not have known exactly the same thing? What was their explanation? Why was it their explanation? Or did they just not talk about it lest some people / scientists realize the reality? How many men did they shut-up over the decades who did realize the reality?

Why do you think it seems ridiculous of me to propose that gravity repels electrons? The answer: the imposters in science-dom have made sure to ridicule this idea. They would say, "everybody knows" that gravity attracts everything, and anyone who disagrees goes against the most brilliant minds, and back to the dark ages. In real fact, they are not brilliant, but wicked. If they do not conform to the wicked theories, scientists are neither promoted nor respected, everyone knows this now. It's a dictatorial sham.

They view all materials as jiggling atomically. The level of jigging they view as the amount of heat. They say that, if we add mechanical energy to a material, the latter increases in temperature because we have stirred the nest, so to speak, increasing the levels of jiggling. That is how incredible bankrupt they are in brilliant minds. They really believe that heat is merely the jiggle factor of atoms, even when they see that, sometimes, adding mechanical energy does not increase temperature.

For example, if we blow air across the surface of a materials, we expect an increase of the atomic jiggling as air atoms collide with the atoms of the material, yet, as the professor said above in his video, the material actually gets colder. Forcing air flow across the surface of a material adds energy to the material, yet it gets colder. Why? What could possibly reduce atomic jiggling as air atoms are forced to collide with material atoms? There is no answer. And if they do have an answer, expect it to be strained gibberish.

Adding mechanical energy to materials is otherwise known as friction. This is defined as cutting loose some captured electrons from atoms, and causing them to become free electrons. There is enormous heat energy on the surface of every material, but unless it's released from the atoms, it's not free to be heat. It cannot enter your skin unless it's first released from the atoms. Rub a substance, and electrons will enter your skin as heat. It's that simple. Blow air across a material, and free electrons already in the atomic spaces will come pouring out (the material gets colder, the environment around the material gets warmer). All materials have both captured electrons upon atoms, and free electrons between atoms. It's so easy to comprehend.

Spin the living daylights out of a drill bit in air, but it won't get warmer. Spin any object back and forth, make it as dizzy as you can, in air; jiggle the Hell out of its atoms, but the object will not rise in temperature. That's because the imposters are liars. Everytime we turn on a drill, the bit gets an enormous amount of energy in the form of motion sickness. Turn the drill off abruptly, and the bit pukes from having to go from super fast to a stopped position. This is going to have an effect on the atoms. The stupids can't argue that, just because the bit didn't contact wood, it's not expected to have more jiggle. By accelerating an object abruptly from stop to 3,000 rpm, you bet your dinner that it's going to puke from being dizzy. How can that not be a violent mechanical act upon the drill bit? Yet, if anything, the bit becomes colder due to the air flow across its surface.

Vibrate a guitar string all day long, but it won't get warmer. Shake a drum stick all week long, but it won't get warmer. Every liar knows that vibrating or shaking a thing is going to jiggle its atoms with more energy than when its at rest. Yet the liars have not sought an alternative explanation for heat's definition because they need their lie for evolution. The only alternative is that heat is a material, but once people get that idea into their heads, they have no choice but to believe further that heat is repelled by gravity. The fools have proven this to us with their century-old experiments in which they found zero added weight to heated objects. There you have the reality, but they have denied it to this day. Heat is a substance of particles, like a gas, not having weight. It's just so easy to grasp.

Heat enters everything. There is no perfect insulator. Every atomic space is too big to keep heat particles out. It plows and worms through all materials, no matter how thick. It'll open the paths wider when under enough locomotive force. It causes materials to grow larger as it penetrates. In fact, expansion is integral to the definition of heat. One can expand wood with water between the pores of wood, but only heat substance can squeeze into atomic pores.

The quacks will tell you with a straight face that materials are almost all space. There is enormous space, they will say, between a few orbiting electrons and a protonic core. I laugh in their faces. I shake my head if you have swallowed this. You have allowed them to make fools of you. There is less hope for you if you have actually tried and "succeeded" (hee-hee) to figure out how solid objects could look and feel so solid if they are actually 99 percent space. Boy are you a lost puppy. You really need loving, tender care.

Tell me that you can't possibly be so stupid as to believe that a satellite can orbit around a body zillions of times per second without flying out of orbit. Tell me it isn't true. Let me shake you silly to your senses. SLAP-SLAP, snap out of it. It's no use. They've got your soul. You're a goner. Don't say I didn't try (to save you).

Throw the Bums Out

How do you really think that electrons are attracted to a protonic core? Do you think it's possible, or even probable, that they are attracted in exactly the same way that iron filings cover a magnet? Is this too boring? Does it not rise to your level of designer science? Must you have every latest fad? Are you that MUSH of a follower, unable to think for yourself?

If it makes you feel better, electrons don't just hug the protonic core; they also hover over it. Ahhh, but don't get carried away with some fancy-wancy tweak. The electron situation is governed by exactly the same principle that you see in the atmosphere, where air atoms lower down, closer to gravity, are more-tightly packed, but more loosely packed with height. The atomic world is His genius. It's all incredible, give glory to where glory is due, and throw the science bums out.

So, what do you see at the top of every atom? You see hovering electrons obscuring the protonic core. Surely, you realize why they are hovering? While the proton wants to have them all to itself, as close to itself as possible, all the electrons on the lower levels repel the outer once away from the proton. It's a battle between positive force and negative. It's genius, because the outer layers of all atoms now become teeth. An atom can now bite into another atom, and they can become joined. The spaces between upper electrons make atoms a lot like burrs, though they do not stick together as burrs do. Atoms cling to one another, but only if some outer force brings them into contact in the first place. Otherwise, all atoms repel one another.

How did the Genius manage to make atoms come together in nature? Well, for one thing, he decided well that air atoms should never merge to become a liquid. Good move, Lord. He gave air atoms a low boiling point to assure that they would always remain in their gas states. He turned attention to water. His genius evaporation system made both vapor and water in the same geography, and at the same temperatures. The same day can have both vapor formation and water formation.

What do you think causes vapor, after originating from land sources of water, to become liquid in the cloud regions? You'll never guess. The Genius used gravity for this. Yup, gravity causes water vapor to rise to cloud regions, brilliant, give the lord a hand.

Learn. The sun pushes free electrons (heat) into water bodies on the land. Gravity simultaneously repels free electrons out of the water bodies, pushing water molecules at the water surface into the air. Evaporation accomplished.

The rising electrons then get in under the water molecules, giving them continual lift. However, as it's known that rising particles above a sphere spread out thinner with height, electrons provide lift for water molecules only until the decreased density decreases the lift force to a point equal to the attractive force of gravity upon the molecules. Ignoring wind factors, this equilibrium point defines the height of cloud formation for any given day and situation.

When water molecules cannot be raised to greater heights, other water molecules rising to the same levels can contact those already there. They will be pushed together at what we could call the ceiling. Once two molecules come into contact, the protonic core of one atom attracts the captured electrons of the other. Bonding. Water droplets.

It was shown above how they can be separated, as free electrons (heat) pass through water, giving lift (into the air) to molecules at a water-body surface.

The goons cannot explain the formation of clouds by their kinetic model of heat. They start off with the premise that added heat in a water body causes water molecules at the surface to jiggle away free into the air. Once in the air, the molecules, they dream, travel in straight lines at hundreds of mph, crashing into air atom after air atom, and sometimes into other water molecules. After each collision, a molecule changes direction without losing energy, because, he says, atoms do not follow the regular laws of physics. There you have their admission of guilt as law breakers, throw the bums into prison. Why should I be their stupid by believing that atoms behave with different laws than the objects we are more familiar with?

In the randomness, he dreams, water molecules rise higher into the sky. But what stops them from going higher than cloud regions? The deviants think they have a viable answer, which is this: as water molecules get colder (slower) with height, they cease to bounce off of one another when making contact. Instead, they bond into droplets, and this just happens to be where we see cloud formation. But wait. What about air atoms? We can't ignore them. Nitrogen and oxygen atoms are everywhere up there, and the deviants must express that air atoms are crashing and crashing and crashing too. Why wouldn't collisions with air atoms break apart the water droplets? I'm sure they'll think of something, even if they must invent another new law for the purpose.

I see another problem. The best he can say is that the bonding of so-many molecules creates a droplet large enough that, even while it's colliding at hundreds of mph in random directions, it starts to fall slowly to gravity. It's not going to be large enough at first to fall straight down. As the droplet must be sent in random directions, it will take a long time to fall a short distance. The closer it gets to the ground in this slow fashion, the faster will be the water molecules with which the droplet must collide, which predicts its break-up again rather than survival as a which case there can be no rain.

I know what the goons will say, that people like me who do thought experiments are not to be trusted. The only ones you can trust, they will say, are those in the establishment who do the actual experiments. Yeah, like the mob creates funny money. How will they reproduce a cloud-region situation in a lab? That's funny money isn't it? How will they prove in a lab that water droplets are colliding in up-down-sideways directions randomly and continually if they've had to admit already that they are law breakers?

"Goon" is exactly the word for those who plot conspiratorially against God and His people. The goons have destroyed society with evolutionism, and became well-prepared to blame society's ills on us, except that their central plot, the goal of making atheists of everyone, has failed. Yet they have convinced many that evolution has been the historical fact, and they have gone a long ways to half-convincing people that God is a fantasy of a sick Christianity. People are on spiritual life-support due to the goons, but not one person Chosen will be missing in Salvation. The goons will not take one person whom God has picked. And those they do take with them will become as the refuse upon their own souls in Hell, the symbol of their senseless rebellion. What ails them that they would continue a crusade against the I Am. God just is. Take away all of Creation, and God Is. He can say, I is Is. Who do these stupid goons think they are? They can't even get their physics right after untold dollars spent seeking the secrets of God's microcosmos. Even on that front, they fabricate lies to deceive. Death walking and talking.

I found many secrets with zero dollars spent. I put Einstein to shame, not because I'm a genius, but because he's a propped-up, false genius. I'm normal; he acted as a con-artist with far-reaching fantasies. And he worked with our enemies, the Rutherfords of the scientific world who would dare believe in something so utterly bankrupt as orbiting electrons. What clowns were these? Orbiting electrons were their admission of guilt. Yet the peoples were utterly stupid themselves, trusting in these lunatics, putting their wares into the minds of young students via the schools. This has been the ruin of our generation, and of our childrens' generation. The rot is growing rather than subsiding. Rather than rotting to disappearance, society is a ever-growing heap of detestable corruption. Are they really going to blame this on people who honor the I Am? Just watch them.

Boiling point destroys them. It stares them in the face, telling them that heat cannot be kinetic energy. Yet they have refused to comes to terms with the impossibility. Boiling point tells that the heat is a substance penetrating a liquid. When the penetration removes all obstacles to rising, the temperature of the liquid can no longer be increased, for that's the point that any further addition of heat is equaled by the amount of heat leaving the liquid surface. But their kineticism cannot explain the boiling point, for the boiling point changes with a change in atmospheric pressure. It tells us that air pressure transferred to a liquid is one of the obstacles that heat must overcome before boiling point is achieved (the other two are water pressure from gravity, and the molecular bonds of water molecules). How can this be explained by the kinetic theory in which they say that water molecules come off the surface due to jiggling off?

They will say that added air pressure at the surface makes it harder for surface molecules to jiggle free, yet this doesn't work once we draw a picture in our minds of what increased air pressure looks like. The only difference between low air pressure and high is the distance between air atoms, but there is still plenty of room in a high-pressure situation, between air atoms, for water molecules to go free. Besides, in their view of a higher air pressure, there are more air atoms per unit area striking the water surface, which process should INCREASE the jiggling of water molecules, helping them to go free more efficiently.

I've watched boiling water. The heat bubbles (filled with electrons = heat particles) go up progressively faster with increasing water temperature. At boiling, they race up with virtually zero restriction to their flow. You might think it's impossible to go through water with near-zero restriction, yet it's true at the boiling point. I can explain this with an analogy. We watch people going through a swinging door furnished with a spring to make it automatically close. After a person does work to open the door, it swings back closed for the next person, and he too needs to do work to open the door. There is restriction to flow. But if the people are passing through the door fast enough, there will be no time for the door to swing even a small bit closed, at which time no work needs to be done to pass through the door but to slide a hand along the door to keep it open.

In a boiling liquid, there are heat particles leaving the surface beyond those in the bubbles. The better way to define boiling point is when the number of heat particles leaving the surface equals the number entering the liquid thanks to the bubbles achieving near-zero restriction for bottom-to-top passage.

Why do heat particles form bubbles? Easy: the particles repel one another to form a "balloon," and as they are smaller than water molecules, the latter cannot invade the bubble through the too-small spaces between heat particles. As the bubbles rise, they increase in size due to lower water pressure (from gravity), but probably due also to accumulating more particles with travel, and due to accumulating more particles with expansion in size (spreading out into the realm of other particles). In the very least, the goon must admit that this picture works. There is no reason that this picture could not be a viable, scientific option...though it requires the dictators to view gravity source in repulsion to electrons, which is not good for their cosmic evolution.

It's easy to picture, a huge explosion that is the big bang in their minds. The materials of the explosion -- which he thinks created all electrons identical, all protons identical, all photons identical (throw the bums out) -- are whizzing through the space that was, and all particles are increasingly distancing themselves from one another due to the nature of an explosion from a small, spherical point. How far do the particles get from one another in just a million years? Who cares, for they repel one another and can therefore never come together, if all there is space, to form stars let alone galaxies.

Now you know why the goons have chosen, and have stuck to, the false concept that all atoms attract. And to be sure to deceive us, they praise Newtonian gravity because it puts a little gravity force in each and every atom, which is an inter-attraction force between atoms. There you have their garbage deception as tidily as I can put it.

So, all the atoms in your tire are supposedly attracting one another, and so to explain why the tires stay inflated under that situation, they invented kinetic energy, the false concept that atoms are forever racing around at hundreds of miles per hour, striking the inner walls of the tire, and keeping the inflation present in spite of inter-attracting atoms. So now you know why they hold to kinetic-energy view of the universe. And of course they teach the added fallacy that atoms in constant collision never lose their kinetic energy (what one atom loses, the other atom in the collision gains = no net loss of energy).

Just so you understand why it's a deception, let me say it again, that, in the real world, any two moving objects in collision cancel some of the momentum of one another. A cancelling of momentum is not a destruction of energy, as they would have you believe in your own self-deception. Rather, the energy of one moving object enters the other to slow it down. If two identical balls (non-bouncing) come dead-on at one another at the same speed, both drop dead at the point of contact. The energy of the one ball is used up to cancel the motion of the other. Therefore, atoms cannot be in constant collisions, and the goons know it. This is why they need to be jailed, and Jailed they will be when the Grim Reaper comes swinging His sickle. The government operatives who protected these goons, who allow them to teach their garbage in the schools perpetually, will be as the refuse over their souls in Hell.

This is the only thing that matters: Salvation and Destruction. Both are necessary for the Planned Evolution of the Creation, not the evolution of species, but the evolution from this temporary universe to one that our enemies cannot even fathom, so glorious it will be. For if God created what we now see, rocks and dirt, for sinners, what will He create for those who endured the products of satanists, to the end, while longing for His Son?

Here's laughable. I can't recall exactly how they view it, and there's probably different views on the mechanics of it. When a photon strikes an orbiting electron, instead of knocking the electron out of orbit, or instead of piercing the electron or splitting it in half, or instead of the photon being turned into a pancake, the electron neatly jumps to a higher orbit. What laughable fools. And now you know why the electron must be orbiting at 186,000 mph, for they said further that the electron carries the photon for a time, then throws it back out again (to explain reflected light), at which time the electron goes neatly back to its lower orbit. Unless the electron orbits at the speed of light, it could neither catch a photon, nor throw it back out at the speed of light, yet I'm now reading that they have the speed of an orbiting electron at only about 1,400 miles per second. That's super fast, but it's not nearly fast enough to have a photon piggy-back upon it. Something tells me that, in the beginning, they viewed electrons orbiting at the speed of light, but, seeming impossible to some, they have reduced the speed at the risk of making the model impossible.

In this picture, the best they can say is that photons strike electrons, and bounce immediately off. But if a photon strikes a much-slower body, then the photon will be slowed, meaning that the speed of light will variant per every bounce off an electron. Model dead. Goons found guilty of stupidity.

What happens to photons that miss electrons and strike stationary protons? Uh-oh, won't that slow photons even more? Um, actually no, because the goons are able to make any law they wish. In this case, they make a law: photons always bounce off of everything at 186,000 mps. End of debate, the gods have spoken.

Come to your senses. Come to reality. It's dark out. All atoms are at rest. They are covered in their compliment of captured electrons. The electrons rest motionless around the protonic surface. Then the sun starts to come up, and the first ray (wave) of light pokes itself into the captured electrons, which I will call an e-atmosphere. The poke of light sets the captured electrons into motion. Depending on how deep they are (i.e. how close to the positive force that holds them), and depending also on how strong the light wave is, the electrons will either jiggle a little with excitement, jiggle more excitedly with distance from the proton, or even roll around like greased ball bearings at the outer layers. The latter are held on very loosely to the proton, and can even jump (temporarily) away free from the e-atmosphere, due to light excitation, in what Einstein called, photo-electricity.

In other words, Einstein discovered that excitation from light can really jiggle things up on the protonic surface, yet the stupid came to agree with his colleagues that orbiting electrons were being knocked out of their orbits from the strongest light waves. There is no other explanation but sheer stupidity, or, better yet, a plot to deceive the masses in ways required by physicists in cosmology. Einstein was clearly in bed with cosmologists, and for this sin, he married time with space in a way that only a lunatic could understand, or in a way that only the devil would disseminate. His photon, moreover, opened the way for the concepts of curved space (as we/telescopes see it) and black holes. Once you understand that gravity cannot attract light, neither of those concepts can be true.

What is light again? Well, Einstein showed what it is. By discovering evidence of jumping, captured electrons, he showed that light originates with the excitation of captured electrons. There can be only one explanation: the jolting of excited electrons causes true, normal, reasonable (not wave-particles) waves through the sea or ether of free electrons surrounding every atom. How simple and logical is that? Yet the goons wanted nothing of this.

Their picture of the cosmos needed to be expanded to gigantic sizes, and for this thing, the photon was needed. For, even though a light wave may "travel" at 186,000 mps, it really doesn't travel. That is, while a wave may "move" through the ether, the ether itself is not covering 186,000 mph, and this is NOT what the evolutionist wanted or needed to expand the universe to the great sizes and great ages that supports his Godless creation by a big bang. The bigger the universe, the older it can be said to be, allowing more time for the scam of biological evolution.

So, excited atoms in the sun is the definition of sunlight, and excited atoms on earth is the definition of reflected sunlight. The excitement in the sun pokes the atoms on earth, exciting them, and the reflected light splashes all over the place so that eyes can see better, eyes that MUST have been created by an Intelligent I AM, for the blind and non-intelligent process of mutational changes don't even now that the eye must be transparent to light in order to work. Nor does the process of mutational "evolution" know how to make transparent material in the eye. You have got to be a complete buffoon to think that mutations created eyes. It is very likely that evolutionists do not actually believe this themselves, but rather push what they know to be false because they desire so badly to see the death of Christianity.

The entry of light through the eyeball is only the beginning of our being able to see, and, moreover, there are so many different kinds of eyes, the buffoons are made to appear so badly that the dictionary still doesn't have an apt word to describe it. Where are all the eyes that don't work? Surely, if mutations created many eyes that do work, there should be a million times as many eyes that do not work, eyes growing out the backs of heads, or under wings, in crotches, you name it. How did mutational forces know to put eyes on the front of heads??? Where are all the body parts expected from evolution that serve no function yet are not detrimental to the survival of the species? For just one of countless, expected examples: where is the bird with a second beak growing out the back of its head? Mutational forces don't know not to do that.

I love the following discovery; it is probably unique, the first-ever realization. Gravity repels some outer, captured electrons away from atoms, as atoms are brought nearer to the gravity source. In the meantime, and precisely due to the lost electrons, gravity attracts the atom with more force, giving it more weight. Perfect. It means that, as an atom is brought closer to a gravity source, there is a tail or trail of electrons (heat) formed, moving away from the backside of atoms (the side furthest from gravity). Proof of this is in every comet (they are not ice balls) that approaches the sun. For lack of a reasonable explanation for the comet tail, the goons have claimed wrongly that comets are mere ice balls (melt a lot easier than rock). The reality is that solar gravity is forcing electrons out of every atom in the rock, amounting to the creation of heat flowing out of the rock.

The coma of the comet cannot be mainly rock material. It is a gigantic bright sphere in comparison to the size of the comet rock. The coma's brightness must therefore be the excited atoms upon the individual atoms (gases) and pieces of rock that have been blasted from the comet surface, as electrons stream out in great force from the rock's interior. The gases and pieces of rock in the coma are then pushed away from the sun when solar gravity repels the freed electrons, i.e. which in turn push atoms and rock pieces along with them. It's fabulous evidence that gravity is a negative charge capable of repelling negative particles. Yet this factual theory has been online for years, from me, but no one's going to touch it who has succumbed to the heavy-handed goon factor.

The definition of a severe backlash is a decent scientist who dares advancing the correctness of negatively-charged gravity. Try it, and watch the fireworks. The goons have announced that gravity operates on the inverse-square-law factor, but ditto for negative that, you don't say. Shouldn't one try to disprove the negative-gravity theory before insulting anyone who advances it? Seems right to me.

Okay, let's try to disprove it. If gravity is a negative charge, then it must be attracting the protonic cores of all atoms. Okay, does that disprove the theory? No, it actually allows the theory to be true. Wow, you don't say? Another thing, if gravity is a negative force, it should repel electrons, yet the goons claim that electrons have weight. Yes, and I've looked at their evidence for this claim, which is non-existent. And, as I said, electrons from a filament go up, not down to the bottom of the bulb to produce electron dust. Hello? Anyone listening?

Where is their evidence that electrons from a filament are colliding with the glass of a bulb in every direction? It would be so easy to prove this, if true, because even Einstein, so long ago, was able to detect the tracks of his emitted electrons on a special material for the purpose. Have you ever been shown where electrons land on the inside of a bulb, and what markings they make over several hundred hours of bulb operation? No? Why do you think not? I say it's because the electrons all strike the glass directly above the filament, and that's the last thing they want you to know.

How does light go through the glass virtually unhindered? The goon is lost for words. He will say that photons can penetrate glass, but not wood of the same thickness. Where can there be any logic or explanation for such a thing? If wood is almost all space, as the glass is almost all space (as the goon wants us to believe), then why shouldn't photons go through even a very thin layer of solid wood? What prevents speedy photons from penetrating most substances? They can create their theories, but I'll shut my ears to them, because light is not a photon, but a wave. Various light waves can penetrate all substances; ask your cell phone about that.

We need only explain the movement of visible light waves through glass, for example, and for this we appeal to the outer layers of e-atmospheres, for they are held loosely and act as an ether medium for light. Both the e-atmosphere and the ether are made of electrons i.e. we can therefore grasp why light can move as a wave through the e-atmosphere. The waves travel around the perimeters of the atom, atom after atom through the glass, and finally continue beyond the glass. This works in glass, but not in wood or steel. Transparent materials may therefore be defined as certain atomic arrangements and/or depths of mergers that do not obstruct the penetration of visible-light waves regardless of which direction the waves penetrate.

It's clear as the daytime sky that solar light waves strike air atoms, circle upon their outer layers, and finally continue on their merry way to our eyes. The reason that it's clear is that air atoms are not made of orbiting electrons, but are more like planetary spheres with atmospheres. The waves cannot go through the middle of air atoms because, we must assume, they cannot penetrate protonic cores. One wonders how light can get through 50 miles high of air atoms (only a few diameters from one another) if light is a photon that cannot penetrate protonic cores. The goons have a big problem here, but goons they will remain for the foreseeable future. They will not abandon their dogma no matter that it doesn't work all over the place.

If light could not get past the protonic cores of all the air atoms above us, we would be incapable of seeing stars. All the air atoms combined would block all light due to the sheer numbers of atoms. Therefore, unless you are an absolute moron while understanding this problem, you should admit that light is a wave that carries on around protonic cores. Everything that exists in outer space, behind all of those atoms, gets to our eyes because its pure genius on the part of God, give him some applause! Neither can you see the protonic cores of glass atoms for the same reason.

If light is from photons sailing past all the protonic cores in glass (impossible, but let's entertain), we should yet be able to see those cores as black areas. Or, worse, if photons were crashing into protonic cores, and bouncing around in the glass until they came out the other side haphazardly, the light to our eyes would cease to be straight; the glass would be foggy at best, or black at worst.

I ask you; what color is a photon? What makes it green when it reflects from a green leaf? It has to do with the specific force and frequency (numbers per unit time) of the light. The eye registers every combination of force and frequency as a different color. The photon itself cannot be assigned a color. The wave itself cannot be assigned a color. Color is what the eye creates. A lizard may see my green as yellow. There is no such thing as colored light. There are only electrons jolting the wave medium with different forces in different numbers of times per second.

Okay, so let's imagine a green photon coming in from a green leaf. It's green because the mysterious particulars of the atoms of the leaf make it so. One problem is, the fool assigns every photon the same speed, meaning that he assigns every photon with the same level force, leaving him to explain color as a product of frequency alone. So, he imagines the green photon in a lunatic way as a wave-particle in the green-range frequency, but please don't ask me to explain his wave because it's insane, and I'd rather not understand it. My point is that, when photons (mere bullets) come through glass, or air, they MUST strike the hard parts of atoms before carrying on through the material, and as such the frequencies of photons would be knocked out of joint into random configurations or vibrations, or call them what you will, until they can no longer be green. The goon just assures you that, don't worry, we know what we're taking about, trust us even if you can't understand our "quantum" physics. Puke.

In fact, you may be surprised that frequency, to the quantum physicist, is not defined as the number of photons per unit time. In that case, I don't want to know how they define it. In reality, a light wave has no frequency. You need more than one light wave to have frequency. Every source of light sends light waves in a different number of waves per unit time, and this is going to be picked up by the eye as a different color. If you have 20 waves landing on the sensitive part on the inner eye, per unit time, versus 50 landings, I say that these will produce different colors, or at least a different shades, as registered by the brain.

Every light wave has a different level of force, and probably a different speed. The level of force is determined by the force of the jolt from the emitting electron that starts the wave. An electron that escapes the e-atmosphere surface in a temporary jump is predicted to cause a more-forceful jolt than an electron that doesn't escape while merely jiggling in the soup.

The e-atmosphere can have many electrons or few, and this difference should definitely pertain to the frequency of waves per unit time, with every different type of atom / molecule putting out its own peculiar frequency. It is blockheaded-insane to view a single photon carrying a frequency of light. Call it something else, but it's not frequency. "Frequency? may have been coined by the pioneers of physics who viewed light as a wave. Yes, that's right, the wave theory came first. DO NOT try to understand the nut bar view of a light wave, if you have not understood how a light wave truly moves, because you will only screw up your mind. Try first to understand how a water wave works (it is not flowing water) on the molecular level (it's just a domino-effect jolt-jolt-jolt), and go from there. A water wave circles a jutted rock, and then continues on.

Electron jolts from a light source such as the sun or filament are expected to be different in total make-up than the jolts from atoms struck by solar or bulb light. A struck atom with a million jiggled electrons will put out a greater frequency of waves than an atom with a half-million jiggles. Is that too simple a definition of frequency for the nut bars? I assume that an atom with twice as many electrons will put out roughly twice as many waves per second. These two atoms are not predicted to cause the same colors, but I'm not ruling out the possibility because color formation is likely a combination of frequency and force. What if an atom with low frequency has stronger waves? Could it amount to the same color as an atom with high frequency and weaker waves? Doesn't frequency contribute to total force? If bullets are coming in more frequently, isn't that more total force too?

Deeper e-atmosphere electrons are held more forcefully to a protonic core so that they jiggle with less distance, producing stubby (shorter-thrust) waves versus electrons that jiggle longer distances. Stubby waves may be more frequent because they are produced by electrons jolting across less distance (= less time between jolts). Stubby waves are not necessarily weaker just because they consist of shorter thrusts. Some stubby waves may be produced precisely because they are weak. Some stubby waves may originate on the outer layers. The situation is so random / chaotic that it seems impossible, at first glance, to predict what particular situation produces what color, or how many colors any particular atom will possess as the mix for producing the resultant color in the eye.

I'm guessing that stubby waves on the strong side will produce color at one end of the color spectrum while stubby, weak waves produce color at the other end. I'm thinking that the surface of an e-atmosphere can produce either wave at random, but that deep electrons continually produce short-thrust, strong waves (for as long as sunlight is applied). I assume that electrons at the middle depths have longer-thrust waves but just as strong as the deeper electrons. I assume that the total energy in the e-atmosphere tends to give every electron the same force level (total force shared equally by all electrons), except for surface electrons that have the freedom to bump one another around in much-more chaos (a fast-moving electron can be greatly slowed on the next bump, and vice-versa). I see the long-thrust waves from the very surface, and assume that, the longer the thrust there, the stronger the wave, and vice-versa.

Recall the swinging-door analogy, or where bubble-passage through a liquid becomes faster when the bubbles are more numerous per unit time = more frequent. In the same way, more-frequent light waves are expected to penetrate deeper into the first atomic layer of any substance. How might this explain the colors seen in a glass prism? Are the deepest-penetrating waves going to bend more through the glass (my guess, yes), or will it be vice-versa?

Realizing how problematic orbiting electrons were, the goons decided it best to assign atoms the least-possible number. But the best they thought to do was one electron per proton, meaning that most atoms have been assigned dozens, or more dozens, of them. Congestion. Yet, miraculously, the electrons do not wipe one another out in their orbits, because they don't exist. Whew, the universe has survived near-extinction. In order to assign the lowest-possible number, they claimed that the itty-bitty electron carries exactly as much negative charge as a gigantic, proton has positive charge. How amazing of the big bang to get that so perfectly attuned. Yet I am perplexed as to why they thought one electron per proton was necessary.

It's deceptive to suggest that the orbital bodies need exactly the same charge as the orbited body. It doesn't matter what the level of attraction force between the central body and the satellite, orbits can still be created. But they wanted to create the illusion that electrons could stay in orbit while circling at fast speeds, and so they wanted to immensely increase the attraction forces between electrons and protons for that argument. Obviously. For example, for an atom assigned with 16 protons in its core, they assigned 16 electrons. That's 16 protons attracting each electron, plus the itty-bitty electron itself was assigned a super-high negative charge (for its size) to make the picture seem more credible. But 16 protons are not enough to keep bitties in orbit at something like 5 million miles per hour. Hahaha, these are the stupidest people ever. And so are you if you believed them. I don't care if you are a Christian, you are one dumb bell if you swallowed this. The Church is found hopeless if pastors swallow this. A hydrogen atom was appointed just one proton.

How many of you know that protons repel one another? For those who know, tell me: do you believe the goons when they say that multiple protons at the core of atoms are held together by a glue they invented, which they called the "strong nuclear force"? If you do believe them, why? I'm here to tell you that they needed multiple protons at the core of atoms in order to make the speed of the orbiting bitties look more viable. But in the meantime, they expose their stupidity once again by forming a cluster of particles they know to repel one another. They then show more stupidity by inventing a nuclear force that no one can prove the existence of, and they thrived because good scientists did not rebel against the inventions passed off as good science. When is a good time for rebellion? Before or after the minds of your children / grandchildren are destroyed?

Plain and simple, every atom has only one proton. As atoms were not created by the big bang, we can even accept that the proton of every element is different. Can you dig it? Smart people are not confined to the big bang. We have a Creator who can easily create 100 different kinds of protons, and they can be in different shapes too, as his heart desires.

Want more stupid? There's no end. In an electrical wire as per a DC circuit (= normal electricity), according to the goons, there are free electrons that travel as electricity, very fast. Don't ask me where in the wire they perceive these electrons, because it doesn't matter, they cannot be anywhere in the metal. You simply cannot have electrons speeding through a copper wire in the way that they view the atomic structure of a wire. They have only one possible picture; the free electrons screech through the "huge" space between orbiting electrons and protonic cores. Miraculously, they miss all of the orbiting electrons; otherwise the copper material would be ruined. Miraculously, they miss all the protons, otherwise there's going to be fatal accidents and traffic jambs in that-thar wire.

Okay, so now flip the switch on the wall, and cut off the electricity in the wire. What happens? In reality, the electricity stops flowing right away. But in the picture of the goons, the electrons are screeching through the HUGE space that they imagine inside the wire, and according to the laws of physics, particles moving in space cannot cease unless something gets in front of them, or unless someone throws a rope around their necks from behind. So, what stops these free electrons when the switch is turned off? I have no idea, I don't see any answer. If they can move freely through the space when the switch is turned on, why can't they continue their flight when the power is off? I see no answer, except that the stupids have the wrong picture of electrical flow.

And that could explain why Wikipedia's article on the speed of electricity does not mention any super-fast speeds. The goons are apparently beginning to quietly change their tunes without apologizing, or turning themselves in, for their past sins. Here's one claim online: "The electricity which flows through the wires in your homes and appliances travels much slower [than light]: only about 1/100th the speed of light." Wow, millions of mph, look out.

Yet the Wikipedia article has the speed at only millimeters per hour. What? Another somebody says 1/4 of a milimeter per second. What? What happened to super-fast electrical flow? Did the goons come to their senses? Or, did someone topple them, boot them out? Someone else: "The electrons in an electric cord travel at an average few centimeters per second. They travel at a snails pace." Ah-ha-ha, the goons realized their folly, and are now marching to a new tune. That means they march to whatever new tune their leaders give them, because they are good, little goons. It means that they will push whatever fantasies their leaders send down to them. It's exactly how the deep state operates with media goons.

Here's how he ends his comments: "I found it a little odd, when I first learned about it, that most of the energy in electricity is carried outside the wire but close to the metal surface. However, that is just the way it is!!!!" Those exclamation marks are to make the readers think he has the truth. As you can see, the goons are dealing with the problem of electrical flow in the interior of the wire, and are now passing off the fantasy that electrical flow happens only on the outer surface of the wire. There is probably no way to prove or disprove this; one cannot drill to, and stick anything into, the middle of the wire, to test the theory, without also creating an outer surface to that middle.

I'm glad you asked what the real picture looks like. A magnet at the electrical station pushes captured electrons down the wire, atom to atom. The atoms never change position; only the electrons move. And they do not move very fast, probably slower than the speed of the magnet coming against them at the start of the wire, at the electrical station. Would that not be correct? The electrons cannot move faster than the magnet pushes them along.

But these are the captured electrons, not free ones. I've got to assume that only the upper levels of e-atmospheres are moved along, otherwise, if the entire compliment of electrons were pushed along, the atoms would be incapable of staying put; they too would be pushed along (= destruction of wire). But if they retain most of their captured electrons, atoms can stay bonded with neighboring atoms. A nick in an electrical wire never changes shape with electrical flow, proof that atoms never change position.

Every electrical wire is filled with free electrons = heat. They get pushed along as electrical flow takes place. In fact, the free electrons get in the way, for when electrical wires have no heat at all, they become "super-conductors." In reality, the spaces between atoms is very small. Atoms are all merged together in a solid, and the deeper they are merged, the less space between them. Free electrons cannot flow in metal as anything but heat through the atomic spaces, and, as you know, this speed is very slow.

I could be a lot nicer to the goons, but that's not my purpose. My purpose is to vilify them, to help you realize their sinister nature, their destructive program for humanity. Why would we want to be kind to them? If they repent, they cease to be goons, but so long as they rebel against us, villains they are.

There is a distinction to be made between the speed of electrical flow and the speed of light waves through a metal wire. Obviously, the light waves will travel much faster, but, of course, we should not trust them if they use the regular speed of light for light-wave propagation through communication wires. They are very unreliable, and prone to passing off falsehoods as though they have the absolute right to lie to us without suffering punishment.

Lookie here: "At Jefferson Lab, a typical energy for the electrons in the beam is 4 GeV which is 4 billion eV. That means the electron is traveling at 99.9999992% of the speed of light" Really? In what? It looks like this is their speed of for an electron in an electron beam (beam of light), which the person does not realize is nothing more than a light wave...because a true light wave is from an electron jolt.

What they do is to fire an electron, and measure how fast they think it's going by how fast it strikes a light-sensitive surface, but in reality, the jolted electron doesn't fly through the air to the light-sensitive surface. Instead, the jolted electron starts a domino effect through the ether, and the last electron at the light-sensitive surface jolts the surface, fooling the goon into thinking that the electron flew through air at 186,000 mps. He's not smart enough to realize that such a speed is impossible.

To put it another way, there is a row of electrons, which he knows about but would rather forget, between the gun and the light-sensitive surface. The row of electrons is to be viewed as a stick. When the gun fires an electron, it hits the stick, and IMMEDIATELY causes the stick to poke the light-sensitive surface. He's been fooled because he's stupid enough to ignore the ether of electrons that acts as the light-wave medium, which exists everywhere, in every space on earth and above the earth. They are little pieces of sun, as the sun burns away, and he knows that they crash into the earth after flowing through the earth's atmosphere. But he ignores this, because he's a loyal goon.

When you talk to ma on the telephone, and she's 2,000 miles away, your voice is converted to electrons which strike the electrons in a wire, and the electrical wave goes through to your mother's phone rather instantly...because all the electrons in the wire act as a 2,000-mile stick. You push the stick at your phone, and the stick pokes into her phone, instantly. The electrons have not traveled 186,000 mph.

Therefore, since the goons are able to accept that electrical waves travel at the speed of light, what is there problem for not viewing sunlight through the air as a similar ELECTRICAL wave?

BECAUSE, they murdered the ether, and would now look like the bumblers that they overwhelmingly are, if they changed their tune quietly overnight. People might start to spit on them. Hopefully. It's time to resurrect the ether, God's genius creation. It's time to murder the evolutionists, Armageddon.

Why can't waves be set up in a wire of wood? Or a wire of plastic? What is it about metal that allows waves to pass through? I'm not sure, but what I do know, which is yet another personal discovery, is that metals have some of the smallest atoms, the opposite claimed by the goons. This is easy to prove once you have the correct model for the suspension of gas atoms. As was said, gas atoms are raised through the air thanks to upward flows of free electrons repelled by gravity.

What do you think could be the reason that hydrogen atoms get the most lift in air, per any particular air temperature? The goons got deceived. They thought that hydrogen atoms should be the smallest and lightest atoms just because they rise the highest, and, conversely, they assigned metal atoms the heaviest and largest just because they get low levels of lift. They weren't even able to explain why hydrogen atoms rise; it's not due to the buoyancy principle, if they try to fool you with that. Buoyancy does NOT apply to a single atom.

So think about it. There you see a single H atom in the air. Gravity wants to pull it to earth, yet it rises. What's making it rise? Why have the goons been so rebellious, so deceptive with you? Surely they realized that there was an upward flow of some secret material, and, surely they realized that it was the solar-wind electrons that fill space. But they refused to tell you.

Okay, grab your air hose, and a ping-pong ball, and a balloon. Turn on the air hose, and hold it pointed up. Put the ping-pong ball on the rush of air out the hose. How far up, or how fast, did the ball go? Do the same with the balloon. How far up, or how fast, did the balloon go? The balloon went faster, didn't it? Why? Because it's bigger. The rush of upward air has access to more surface area, with the balloon, for giving it lift. Ditto with atoms. The H atom is the biggest of all atoms because it gets the most lift from the upward flow of ex-solar-wind electrons. They were once solar-wind electrons, and are now atmospheric heat. They must go back into space from whence they came. Or we would fry.

The solar-light waves push solar-wind electrons into the dirt and rocks by countless sticks millions of miles long. The bitties then come out of the rocks and dirt as gravity repels them back to space.

I know it gets a little hard to believe that one man can make all of these "new" discoveries, but I have yet another one, I confess. I may as well have fun as my reward for bringing them to you. All atoms weigh the same. This is why I can claim that the hydrogen atom is the largest. For if all atoms weigh the same, then the one with the most lift comes out the largest. But if all atoms did not weigh the same, then it would not necessarily be true that the one getting the most lift is the largest. The specific lift of any atom is a battle between lift and weight. The heavier it is, the more lift it needs to rise at all. But if every atom weighs the same, then the measure of lift (how high it goes, or how fast it rises in a vacuum) becomes the measure of its diameter. An atom getting one quarter the lift of a hydrogen atom has a half the diameter (or one quarter the surface area on its underside) of a hydrogen atom. That's easy enough to figure.

There's a reason that all atoms weigh the same: gravity assures it. That is, all atoms at the same distance from the gravity source weigh the same. If we lift an atom further from gravity, it loads some electrons from the air; if we take an atom closer to gravity, gravity blows some electrons off into the air. In other words, every atom at the same distance from gravity has had its electrons blown off to the point that all atoms come to register the very same levels of positive charge, and since this particular level of positive charge defines the attraction force to gravity, it also defines the weight of the atoms. In other words, if all have the same positive charge, they all weigh the same. It's just so easy to understand, what I've been dreaming of all my academic life, a physics law that I could actually understand. All of my discoveries are easy to understand, because they are true. The only incomprehensible things in physics come from the deception of anti-Christian, satan-inspired lunatics.

It was a happy minute when that idea occurred to me. In fact, it was a great moment. I knew I had good ammunition for making fools of the goons. I could shoot them down. But, the problem is, nobody believes me, not even my kids...which is why I may as well have fun sharing with anyone who wants to ponder.

I reasoned that the smallest of the elemental atoms, that of uranium, has the weakest proton, and therefore the smallest e-atmosphere. It gave rise to the possibility that metals shine because light waves might reach to the proton, from which they bounce off as gloss-reflection, as opposed to light-reflection. The latter goes out in all directions, but glossy reflection, such as off of a silver mirror, goes out only at the angle of striking.

When you see an object in a mirror, and you mark the spot on the mirror, the line from your eye to the spot is exactly at an angle equivalent to the angle from the same spot to the object in the room. If you move over a little, that object no longer reflects from the former spot, but now reflects from another spot on the mirror. If you shine a laser light to a spot on a wall, the light reflects to your eyes from that spot no matter that you move over to different parts of the room. The latter is a color-reflection from the wall atoms, whereas the former is a gloss-reflection from the metal atoms. What in the atomic world can create that difference? Why does glass and water come with some good gloss-reflection? They're not metals.

When one attacks the atomic weights that the goons have devised for themselves, one attacks their holy grail. I have the key to disprove their atomic weights. That key is: all atoms weigh the same. Their atomic weights are based on the theory that all gases at equal volumes and temperature have the same number of atoms. Bonk, wrong. They can argue until blue in the face that their theory makes sense, but it's wrong. They probably chose that theory because it benefits their erroneous system somewhere. They have band-aid over band-aid over band-aid. By what coincidence could gases at STP (standard temperature and pressure) all have the same number of atoms? That's a joke. After they assume this to be true, they weigh gases in equal volumes. Oxygen gas weighs 16 times as much as hydrogen gas, and they therefore announce that the oxygen atom is 16 times as heavy as a hydrogen atom. Is that good science to you?

What if they are wrong about their equal-number-of-atoms assumption? No matter, they have announced as fact for decades that oxygen atoms are 16 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms, and also 16 times as large. Yes, they assigned oxygen atoms 16 protons, and in fact they define the oxygen atom as a cluster of 16 hydrogen atoms because they define the hydrogen atom as one proton...nothing more, nothing less, simply one proton. Every different species of atom, they say, is a multiple of one hydrogen atom. They're nuts, they really are.

Again, there is no buoyancy principle with just one gas atom, nor any number of gas atoms. Buoyancy applies only in water because water molecules are in contact with the object receiving lift. But in the air, hydrogen atoms are not in contact with air atoms in order that the air should lift them in an act of buoyancy. Therefore, the stupids need to come up with another theory on how gas atoms receive lift in air, or in any space. Yes, hydrogen rises also in a vacuum.

I don't know for a fact whether metal gases rise or fall at normal air temperatures, but I suspect that they are too small to get lift.

Here's how to know that all atoms weigh the same. Let's say that, at 1,000 feet above sea level, the gravity force coming against electrons is at a value of 12 (just a number pulled out of my hat). It means that all captured electrons, on every different type of atom, pulled (by protons) with less than a force of 12 will be blown away free. It doesn't matter whether atoms have large or small e-atmospheres, the only electrons still attached to atoms must be attracted by protons with a force greater than the gravity power of 12. It seems to me that, if every atom at its outer edge, radiates an identical positive charge of 12, then gravity will pull every atom with the same force. I could be wrong, but if it's right as it seems, then all atoms on the earth's surface weigh roughly the same, and, to boot, all gases (at STP) CANNOT have the same number of atoms.

To put it another way, an oxygen gas weighs 16 times as much as a hydrogen gas, wherefore there must be 16 times as many oxygen atoms, in equal volumes at STP. In that case, oxygen atoms are smaller, and the goons have it jackass-backward.

To prove that metal atoms are amongst the smallest, there is the high boiling and melting points of most metals. In other words, they require high heat to boil because the atoms are so small, they can only be lifted out of their liquids by a higher concentration of heat particles granting lift. It's as simple as that. Evaporation is defined as the granting of lift to liquid atoms. Gravity is at the root of evaporation. You are learning things today.

Gravity is at the root of the light medium. Gravity is the maker of the atmosphere. Gravity is the source of all solar electrons, the heat for our cold bones. Heat in the earth's interior is its gravity source. I say that atoms are being destroyed down there in order to produce the heat. Atoms release their electrons when they are destroyed or partially destroyed. The goon claims that the smallest of particles are indestructible, no matter how small, which seems like a claim that comes from his big-bang fantasy, for it's necessary in his mind that all particles survived the enormous big bang. It's not science to say that protons are indestructible, it's self-serving whackoism. Whatever they need to make the big bang appear viable or credible, they invent it. All of their physics is based on this need. The peoples' understanding of these tricks is their demise, and the start of a journey into the real physics.

The reason that metals weigh so much is, not that their individual atoms weigh more than other atoms, but that there is a higher concentration of them per unit volume. Being smaller, there are more of them per unit volume. Possibly, taking a hack saw to metal destroys / cripples some protons and releases at least some of their captured electrons beyond what friction is capable of releasing. Granted, protons can take an enormous amount of pressure, surviving, but the pressure in the realm of the earth's gravity source is under many miles of rock, and this, I think, destroys protons a little at a time, providing a constant formation of heat to maintain the gravity force, as some of the heat constantly comes up through the rocks. It's possible to make gravity less powerful by simply creating less heat. If we weighed less, we could run further, do more work.


For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God. Also, you might like this related video:

If you are stuck with dial-up service, using the Opera browser can help.
It has an Opera Turbo program (free with the free browser) that speeds download time.
Go into Opera's Settings, then click on "Browser"; you'll find the on/off Turbo button in there.

Table of Contents

web site analytic