There's been nothing much more in the news lately, to speak of, that could add to a prophetic picture building. There's no sign that the anti-Christ is building a successful war against Israel. It could begin at any time, but there's nothing I see in the news to suggest any successful strategy looming. I still think that we should prepare foods for the future, but you need to make that decision for yourself because, as you know, things often appear ripe for prophetic fulfillment only to see another generation slip by without fulfillment.

If you're in your late 60s like me, or older, stored foods with longevity could be invaluable if later you are unable to prepare or cook for yourself. You could alleviate others from preparing your meals if you prepare them now for yourself. There are some foods that don't change taste after many years in storage. For example, I've popped open some jars this year, prepared in the spring of 2021, that taste like the day they were jarred. This includes scrambled egg, chicken and ground beef. The latter can't be eaten dry, but the chicken can.

Small pieces (half-inch) of dehydrated scrambled egg (cooked like normal to begin with, then dried) can't be made to taste normal by adding water, but when allowed to simmer for 30 minutes in soups, they become part of the soup; you're not expecting them to taste like a scrambled-egg breakfast. Dehydrated scrambled egg turned out hard, for me anyway, not soft. This past winter, I've tried dehydrating RAW, scrambled eggs. Once dry, I put it into a blender to make egg powder. That way, it doesn't need to simmer 30 minutes to make it soft, a big deal in case we are short on cooking fuel, should the 666 arrive.

With egg powder, it becomes a sort of "spice" in soups. However, one video online claims that the powder can be made to taste like normal scrambled egg.

I've also dehydrated cheddar cheese this year, and turned it into a powder. As long as the food can go into soups, this "old man" is happy. I'm still cutting, and chopping (with an axe) my own firewood, and so I'm not an old man yet. I've decided this month to put away the 30-pound barbells for the 25-pounders, much easier. I've neglected jogging my five minutes every few days. I don't think it's wise to overwork the muscles. It's egotistical to want to look like a muscleman. A few minutes of jogging every three days is enough to keep the muscles healthy, the heart awake, and the arteries cleaner. When you breath hard for five or ten minutes, it's all good.

For years, I've done 30 pushups (or more when I'm feeling best) daily. I "throw" the barbells around for only five minutes every two or three days roughly, because it's all one needs to keep the muscles on the firm side, or to keep good posture (I don't like looking slumpy). If I don't use the barbells for weeks, lifting a five-gallon container of water onto the kitchen counter comes with some difficulty, but when I'm doing barbells every couple of days, I lift the same container with ease. I don't need to be stronger than that. In your old age, you need to free some heat within your body to keep it more alive. Just don't overwork the "machine" thinking that more work is always better.

When I neglect the short jogging sessions, I walk slower. When I was doing near-daily jogs in the ballpark of .8 mile (once around the block), it was more than needed to keep a robust lower body.

In the first part of the spring-summer season, I spend an hour a day, roughly, pulling new weeds, which, after the long winter of indoor hibernation, is very pleasant work aside from the back pain I get when bent over...which is why I wear knee pads to get stress off the back. By August, weeding turns into two hours daily, on average, as the fall weeds spring up. By this time, in the over-heat of summer, I'm sick of weed work. It happens every year: I get sick of it, and can't wait for the first of October to end it. BUT, unwanted / unpleasant work is good for us, I hate to say it. If it's pleasant work, it's not "work." I do what I hate because I can't stand the thought of a weed-ridden property. I hate the thought of my old age forcing me to watch the weeds grow back that I've done battle against for years in a row.

Not only do worms bring up new seeds yearly, but the moles / voles probably do too. As these creatures eat dirt while eating roots, they ingest weeds seeds too deep to hatch (it's not warm enough three-to-six inches deep), and then they poop the seeds out nice and moist, ready for hatching, in the sunshine. Worms must be an integral part of the Eden curse.

After spending mornings on the computer, I manage 2-3 acres of weeding, a big job, but some will tell you that the gamut of dealing with weeds, cutting firewood, moving it, chopping it, mowing grass with a push mower -- is one of the best routines for forming a healthy body. But, out of the blue, something has been attacking my nerves lately, which is a heads-up to problems down the road. Something's going to kill us all. The only question is: how bad will things get in the meantime.

There's all kinds of bad information on longevity of dried foods. Some prepper videos don't give dried cheese longer than a year, while even a google offering gives it 10-15 years. Ignore those who say that dried foods are good for a year or little more. I've just finished using a large bag of white flour that has July of 2024 as the expiry date. The quality / taste may not be prime, but it's more than edible. I have oven-treated flour (white) that has been in sealed, plastic jars (once held peanuts) since 2021, and I'm going to test a jar soon.

Alaska Prepper seems like a trustworthy youtube channel where the owner has a Christian and prepper mindset. Hopefully, video owners are not fibbing when they say that their food tests, after years of storage, are successful. Alaska Prepper says in this video that his dried Mozzarella and American cheese is a super success after five years, very encouraging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRgbVZTpyDk

The problem with the video above is that it doesn't show whether he dehydrated the cheese on paper towels to get as much grease out as possible. Other videos suggest using paper or cloth towels.

I've yet to find a video on sun-dried cheese, probably because it melts the cheese. But is that bad? They say that cheese should not be melted in a dehydrator; they say to dry at about 95-100 F, or not more than 115 if you can help it. However, suppose the cheese pieces are placed well-spaced apart so that they can spread out without touching when the melted? Wouldn't the melted cheese lose more grease than non-melted? Isn't that a good thing? Then, when dry, either store it in the flat cakes it turns into when melted, or chop it up in a blender.

One needs to add the cost of dehydrators to stored foods. If their fans or control buttons are the first thing to go, then, obviously, the less time one uses these machines, the better. Digital-button controls can fail, so don't keep changing the settings much if you can help it. Drying at the highest-possible temperatures without spoiling the foods is probably best for dehydrator longevity. But if you're using the machine extensively, and it goes in the first or second year, you will likely be able to replace parts. Ask how much parts are as soon as you buy it; ask the manufacturer which part is likely to bust first.

I absolutely value the fact that cheese can be stored so long. It's an important food. I can't see cheese ruining the taste of any kind of soup. I've dried many different kinds of foods, and all of them can go in soups. I can't think of too many food mixes in soups that would come with a not-so-great taste. Soups have got to be the healthiest meals not only due to the great variety of things within them, but because it's easy on the stomach, and is comforting. For tribulation preparation, soups / stews have got to be the best choice.

I dried some stems of garden plants into powders, and thrown a bit into the soups because one never knows what rare or needed nutrients are in the stems. For trib prep, don't let stems and edible leaves from your garden go to waste. Just sun dry them to make the dehydrator go longer.

There are many dangers to growing gardens when it's the only source of foods. Do not depend on your garden for trib purposes. Store foods starting yesterday. If you're retired, and have nothing to do all day, especially in winter, dry foods. They will not go to waste, especially if you like soups, providing you have the fuel to heat water. One could eat the dried foods separately without cooking, but, most of them will taste lousy in the dry or in-cold-water condition. Run most dried foods in an oven for an hour at 210 F, in jars with lids off, before sealing (with lids on).

This spring, I've been doing dried eggs without cooking them first. Just put into a blender, and dry raw in a layer not much less than a quarter inch. Then turn it to power and granules to save space in jars. Large storage is best when you cram as much as possibly into containers / jars, which is why freeze-drying is not a good option for people of limited space, and also due to the extra cost of containers / jars. Vacuum-packed plastic bags can save costs, if the rodents don't get to them.

If you think that the cost of everything is about to sky-rocket, order your jars now, hundreds of them. Once you have hundreds of jars filled for a year or two, you can consider whether you want to open them all and slip in oxygen absorbers, but it can be risky because the best lid seal is accomplished when the foods cool from over 200 F. However, if you put the lids on in the cold-jar condition, they will pop down once the oxygen absorbers do their thing. However, the more times you screw the lids on tight, the greater the chance that they will fail to seal. Using them twice is almost-always not a problem. I've had even store-bought jars (e.g. pickle jars with single-piece, metal lids) sealed for five years or less, and virtually all are still unpopped (still down).

I'm trying the storage of beans, lentils, macaroni, rice, etc, in the blue water jugs. These foods are long-lasters even if air gets to them, but I think the plastic lids on these bottles keep 99.9-percent of the air out, if not 100-percent. I use a channel-plyer wrench to tighten these lids as much as possible without harming the threads. Just hand-tight as much as possible, and give a little extra turn with the plyers. These are cheap containers in comparison to mason jars. So, buy lots of distilled water now, and save their blue, food-grade containers.

Don't store wet foods in these blue jugs because you probably can't put hot, sterilized foods into them. You can try it with foods at 165 F, to see if the plastic doesn't deform much due to partial melting, but melted plastic in your foods is not good. Try as a last resort, after boiled foods have cooled to say, 120 F degrees, to get them to last a few months in a non-refrigerated condition. It's possible.

Have plenty of blue jugs on hand, even some four-gallon ones, because, for short-term storage (a year or less) of any dried garden produce, they are excellent. Get some of the red / blue tape used for vapor barriers (at building supply stores everywhere) to get a better seal on their plastic lids. BUT, rodents can chew through them, therein is the potential danger. You'll need a rodent-proof room or shed in the shade.

By the way, there are videos telling that shallow-well or pond water can be sterilized simply by placing it in the sun in clear jars or plastic bottles. There are people telling us that blue jugs are blue to keep light minimal within them. In other words, while some room-quality, reflected light may increase bacterial growth in water, direct sunlight kills 99.9-percent of bacteria and other living things. Just so you know. Remember that. You won't need bleach to sterilize water if you save clear bottles for the purpose.

I did my first batch of cheddar cheese earlier this month. The one layer of paper towel was saturated on each rack in three of four hours. I took each layer off and replaced it with three per rack. That worked. Should I have used four to begin with? Maybe, but as most of the grease was off in the first four hours, maybe it would have been better to go with two or three layers to begin with, followed by two more layers. Even if you use a whole roll of paper towels (you won't), it's not much money for roughly $20 in cheese.

After the cheese was mainly dry, it was turned to powder and placed on two layers of paper towels on the dehydrator racks, and put them into the dehydrator for a couple more hours at 120 F. I see no harm in going to 120-130 near the end of the job because cooking the cheese is probably not a problem when most the water is gone. But I could be wrong. Too much heat could spoil the taste a little.

In Isaiah 40, we read that God never grows tired. There's no lack of oxygen to his muscles because he has no muscles. Thankfully, men get tired when doing vigorous things, like slashing swords around in warfare. Had not men become tired in war, many times more people would die in war. In this wicked theater, it's a good thing that God limited human intelligence.

Science tells us that there's an average 5,000 feet of sedimentation, on average, on Earth. What the evolutionist fools don't tell us, from geology, is that these sediments are lying on top of the pre-Flood world. Besides, the heat in the planet forced land masses upward to form highlands. These two things forced atmospheric oxygen higher, and some of it may have gone lost into space if gravity could not keep the highest oxygen atoms in.

The nature of air atoms on a sphere is that they spread out eight times for every doubling of distance from the surface of the sphere. That's because there's eight times the volume of space with a doubling of distance from the sphere's surface. Therefore, when the Flood forced air atoms upward, they thinned out. It means that the pre-Flood air was more dense. Oxygen atoms happen to be the body's fuel. It means that pre-Flood people were stronger, more robust, healthier. It means that birds now unable to fly, such as chickens, were probably flying without problem, with the thicker air.

I don't think that, when genesis says we're made in His image, that it refers to the shape of our bodies. I can't know for sure, but "image" here could mean our inners, our basic outlook and understanding of things and how we react to them. We can grasp the nature of God because we are like Him, and because we can glean His Creation. Wickedness is to shun the authority of God, to take ownership of our lives without thought of His ownership over us. As wicked people, we don't want the responsibilities God lays upon us for communal living in his "household," the world of people.

I am giddy about my atomic model. I like the fact that I have the correct atomic model by far over evolutionist fools...who have fooled even the Creationists, shame on them. I can prove that evolutionists chose the wrong view of gas atoms, in which they race about without slowing down, ever colliding, and thus creating gas pressure by those collisions upon everything they collide against.

If you feel a little offended at my naming them as fools, you don't know how badly evolutionists have mangled atomic physics. You maybe had a clue, due to the insane complexities of their atomic model, but you didn't know where they were going wrong. Hear me out, and you will begin to see it. Their model is so inexcusable, and laughable at times, that "fools" is an understatement.

Anyone can prove that theory wrong with just a little thought. We are talking about God's Creation here. How did he make gas atoms to cause pressure? Not by he so-called "kinetic theory of atoms," the atom-to-atom collisions that the fools chose for their atomic model at the time that they were inventing their cosmic-evolutionary processes. They needed atoms to attract one another in order for stars to form from the big bang, and consequently the fools chose the bang-bang theory of gas atoms. These wicked people are going to be shamed, and Creationists need to wizen up, get out of their atomic-model camps.

The good news is that there is only one alternative to bang-bang atoms: all gas atoms repel one another electromagnetically. The better news is that there only one way for ALL gas atoms to repel one another, which then reveals that the fools chose the wrong view of heat, because the atomic-repulsion model requires heat to be a substance all of its own. Evolutionists are willfully blind to that model.

The even better news is that the only option for defining heat is solar electrons that enter our atmosphere. They repel one another. They are negatively charged, and lend their inter-repulsion to gas atoms. The higher the number of free electrons in the air, the hotter the air, the stronger the air atoms repel. You cannot disprove this theory except by arguing with the theories of the fools. That is, if you utilize the atomic theories of fools, you can "disprove" my atomic model, but you are then foolishly using falsifications, to begin with, to combat the truth of the matter.

Fist is first. We need only disprove that the bang-bang theory is erroneous, for this then proves the only alternative model. The bang-bang theory is proven wrong where even the fools admit that air atoms weigh down. They say that a column of air, from ground to atmospheric ceiling, weighs 14.7 pounds. But it cannot weigh down on the ground if 99.99999999 percent of them they are all flying around in the air, and all attracting each other in the meantime. Can you grasp that? It rates as one of the most important things you've ever heard in science, because it destroys the modern atomic model.

Does a bird or plane in flight weigh down on the ground? No. Well, yes it does, actually, but not straight down. The weight of a flying object does weigh down through air atoms, but spreads out in all directions in the downward direction. However, it can weigh down to the lowest surface (the ground) only if air atoms repel one another, for if they attract one another, air atoms cannot be in contact with one another.

Unless air atoms are in contact with one another, weight cannot transfer through them. Air atoms transfer their weights to all atoms beneath them, because they are in contact with one another through their repulsion forces. When one magnet repels another, though they are not in physical contact, they are yet in contact through their repulsion forces. I win. I have the correct atomic model, and the fools have made fools even of Creationists, shame. By force of their "expertise," the devil has fooled you through these crafty buffoons, the evolutionists.

This is so easy. Imagine one atom en route to colliding with another air atom. Neither are in contact with other atoms while in flight, and even when they contact, they do not produce a downward pressure more than they apply an upward pressure. They simply cannot transfer their individual weights to the ground whether they are in flight or undergoing collisions. The most they can do is create air pressure, yet nobody in science has the right to believe that gas weight equals gas pressure, for this can be shown to be false. You can increase or decrease gas pressure by adding or removing heat from a gas, but the weight remains the same.

The weight of a gas in a sealed container transfers to the bottom of the container, and then to a weight scale that the container sits upon. Why? Because, gas atoms are in contact through their inter-repulsion. They all sit on one another. They are NOT racing around in the jar. If you don't disturb the jar, the atoms are all locked into place by their mutual inter-repulsion. They sit idle in that locked position.

The more air atoms there are above one atom, the more weight that transfers to that one atom. If the atom is on a mountain peak, it will receive less weight from air weight than an atom at sea level. This is why air is more "squished," more compact, thicker, denser, at sea level. With height, air gets thinner due to less weight above it. There is your absolute proof that gas atoms, all of them, repel one another. Me lonely wins, the many fools lose, and the Creationist got duped for trusting that there's independence between atomic physics and evolutionism. No, the two are entwined. Wicked atomic physicists chose an atomic model that makes cosmic evolution more viable. Duh.

So, why don't we feel a whopping 14.7 pounds of air weight on every square inch of our bodies? As atomic repulsion goes in all directions equally, the weight of the air likewise applies weight pressure in all directions equally. Atmospheric pressure is exactly weight pressure, there is no difference, because its air is not confined in a sealed container. You can't compress the atmosphere with a piston. The pressure is due to the weight. But something must be countering the air weight, or we would become squished by its weight.

The fools deny that solar electrons enter the earth's atmosphere because people could then start to get the impression that heat is defined by them. After all, the electrons originate from the sun's "solar wind." Don't be an evolutionist idiot. These electrons do enter the air by force of the solar wind (a true wind), and when they enter our bodies, that's heat.

If solar-wind electrons did not exit the air, the air would become continually hotter, killing all life quickly. So, duh, something must be removing the solar-wind electrons as fast as they are coming in. And so, once you have the correct model of the gas atom, you can also have the correct view of gravity, defined in reality as the heat within the planet. Lonely me wins, the many fools lose.

The fools wish for gravity to be a graviton within every atom so that they can explain star formation from the big bang. But they didn't tell you they chose this view of gravity just to suit evolution, because they want you to believe they are true and good scientists. If they can convince you that every atom attracts every atom, then they can dupe you into thinking that stars formed from big-bang "dust" from this view of gravity.

Alas, where in reality the heat within the earth is from free electrons in the earth, it's negatively charged. Internal heat acts as a giant, negative charge repelling the free electrons in the atmosphere away into space. God has arranged the situation just so, that the number being repelled away on the afternoon and night sides of the planet are the number coming in from the solar wind on the sun side (noon region) of the planet. If this were not true, the earth would get hotter or colder, but it does neither.

Therefore, I submit to you another new realization, that the upward push on atmospheric electrons almost-exactly counters the downward weight of air such that we do not feel 14.7 pounds against every square inch of our bodies. One needs to be a genius to create such a situation. Alas: God = Genius. He wins greatly, the fools lose badly.

One truth leads to another. It means that something is happening in the earth's interior to continually free captured electrons from some interior material(s). In my estimation, the earth cannot have a net-negative charge unless protons are being crippled or altogether destroyed. They thus release their electrons, and the obliteration of some positive force from the crippled protons makes the planet net-negative. The fact there is a steady flow of heat through the earth, and out of the ground, proves the point. Electrons are leaving internal atoms, suggesting either a chemical reaction or a crippling of protons.

There is no such thing as atomic fusion, as the fools explain it, which is why they can't fuse atoms. They are fools because they see atomic nuclei having multiple protons, an impossibility. Trust your good senses: protons cannot cluster together due to their inter-repulsion. There is no glue that keeps them together, don't be an evolutionist idiot.

I have now, for the first time, realized the specific repulsion force from gravity: it's equal to the upward thrust granted to free, atmospheric electrons that rise into the undersides of oxygen and nitrogen atoms, such that this lifting of the atoms exactly counters the downward weight of the same oxygen / nitrogen atoms.

If the upward lift of rising free electrons counters all/most of air weight, then why does air in a sealed container weigh down on the weight scale? If a gram of air is in a sealed container weighing two pounds, the scale will register two pounds and one gram. Why does the air's weight register on the scale, if the heat in its midst is giving it lift sufficient to overcome the atomic weight? Because, in a sealed container, the upward FLOW of free electrons is almost wholly eradicated, because the container has a ceiling.

The heat flow in the container is as slow as the electrons penetrating through the container walls. Therefore, it's not the mere existence of free electrons in a gas that counters gas weight, but rather it's the upward FLOW. If the upward flow is cut off, the atoms will transfer their weights downward. In the open atmosphere, the upward electron flow always exists, night or day, summer and winter.

Solar electrons enter the earth's sun side region. The solar wind forces them to move toward the ground to some distance only. As they repel one another, the electrons push air atoms laterally, horizontal with the ground, and so these heat particles push air atoms laterally, creating air currents laterally, spreading the heat around. Nearer to the ground, gravity has the upper hand, forcing the electrons upward...until the solar-wind thrust downward exactly equals the upward thrust. At that collision point, the electrons in both up and down direction are forced laterally toward the morning and afternoon regions.

I've explained many times how the negative charge from internal heat is the true gravity source. The explanation: this negative charge, in the beginning, repelled away some captured electrons from EVERY earthly atom (the electrons never came back), and thus this internal negative charge once gave every atom a net-positive charge, meaning that gravity arranged to attract EVERY earthy atom. Gravity does not originate in every earthly and cosmic atom, as the big-bang fools prefer to believe.

How convenient of the fools to claim that the earth has an electromagnetic force that repels solar electrons away, yet they deny that this force is the gravity force too. How convenient for them to argue that solar-wind electrons are repelled around the earth ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE such that they cannot enter the air. These same fools will admit, though they don't want people to know about it if they can help it, that the air is filled with free electrons. It's why rubbed objects lose their charge i.e. they re-load with free electrons in the air.

Why do you think you never hear them stress that the air is PACKED/JAMMED with free electrons? Where do you think they come from? Why is it that EVERY heat source releases free electrons? Why don't the fools tell you that, mmmm, it looks like heat can be defined as free electrons. It's because the scientific establishment, physics, is devoted to the big bang, which event becomes impossible if heat is defined as free electrons, for that would make star formation impossible.

If free electrons in the midst of gases defines heat, then, obviously, gas pressure is formed by the free electrons, insinuating that the atoms REPEL one another, thanks to the free electrons in their midst. BIG BANG DEAD. The hotter the cosmos after the big bang, the more the hydrogen atoms would repel one another. The electrons from the big-bang explosion would force atoms further apart for millions of years. STAR FORMATION DEAD.

The nature of an explosion from a central point is that all forth-coming matter gets continuously further apart. Even if the protons and electrons could get together to form hydrogen atoms, while flying further apart, something needs to bring the atoms together to form stars. The only thing the fools can appeal to is all atoms having a gravity attraction for each other (= Newtonian gravity). That's why the fools clung to Newtonian gravity. Nobody can prove it to be the correct view of gravity, but evolutionists needed it such that it reigned factual in the halls of make-believe science. That is, for all who were at least smart enough to reject Einstein's lunatic view of gravity.

The weight of air proves that atoms exist as electromagnetic particles too small to see. The more heat we remove from the air, or any gas, the closer the atoms come to one another, meaning that all gas atoms lose inter-repulsion action with lost heat, and vice versa. Eventually, with lost heat, gas atoms make contact, at which point they attract each others' electrons, and bond. There's repulsion action here, from one process, versus attraction from another process. Only when the liquid temperature goes high enough do the liquid atoms separate by the repulsion process to become individual gas atoms again.

Once separated, there's a tug-of-war between atmospheric gas atoms and gravity. The atoms seek to repel each other into outer space, and would, if not for gravity holding them down to a degree. There's only one way I can figure for gravity to pull atoms down while gas atoms take on progressively more negative charge with increased heat: gravity repels some captured electrons from the undersides of atoms to the top sides, making all undersides net-positive in charge while all atomic tops are net-negative in charge. With the addition of heat, the sides of all atoms become net-negative in charge.

The addition of heat is a free-electron invasion all around atoms. As they seek to spread out by their inter-repulsion, free electrons compress themselves all around the atom, adding themselves to the captured electrons that surround all protons. The atom consequently grows in negative charge, including the bottom sides, meaning that, with added heat, the net-positive charge of atomic bottoms decreases with increased heat.

An atom is a barb. It's like a thorn because its captured electrons hover above the protonic surface. There can be no question that they hover above the protonic surface. If you think that electrons orbit protons, slap yourself, fool. YES, a FOOL you are if you believe that report. No bigger fools in science can exist, and so all physicists are fools. That's why they teach the current atomic model, because they have allowed themselves to become fools in the name of higher intelligence.

Imagine all the electrons in an electrical wire orbiting the metal atoms. Then, when you flick the light switch on, the fools tell you that the orbiting electrons fly through the atoms toward the light bulb. HAHAHA. And when you turn off the light switch, the electrons all start to orbit around whatever atoms they happen to end up at. FOOLS.

Flick-flick-flick the light switch a million times, and the fools want you to believe that electrons fly along the wire, then go back into orbit a million times in a row, as if forming an orbit were a naturality rather than a million-to-one fat chance.

The alternative to orbiting electrons is hovering electrons. The protons attract the electrons to its surfaces (they don't move, let alone orbit), but the inner electrons repel the outer electrons simultaneously such that the specific repulsion force outward from the proton becomes stronger than the attraction force to the proton. That's why the outer electrons are hovering further apart than the inner electrons. The distance of hovering electrons increases with distance from the proton.

This atom is a barb because the outer-electron sphere of one atom can enter the outer-electron sphere of another atom, thanks to the hovering. The two atoms bond when each proton attracts the compliment of capture electrons in both atoms. We can now realize why liquids turn into solids with decreased temperature. The liquid "barbs" sink more deeply into each other with decreased heat.

Yes, but of course. Every scientist knows that, with decreased temperatures, liquids and solids contract i.e. become smaller, meaning that atoms are going closer to one another. Those are not the best words to use, for atoms are already in contact at the first signs of a liquid. Therefore, with decreasing temperature, the protons of atom move nearer to one another, meaning that the electron sphere's merge more deeply into each other.

We learn something here. The fact that you can put your finger into a liquid and swirl it around means that the barbs are rolling on each other as the atoms maintain a bond. But when the liquid becomes a solid, the barbs are merged deeply enough that the atoms no longer roll on one another. It shows the expectation that, the deeper the hovering electrons -- the closer they are to the proton -- the less they can be moved due to the stronger protonic attraction upon them.

When a liquid first begins to solidify, you can take a sharp object to scratch it deeply, easily, meaning that the atoms can still roll on one another, but barely. With colder temperatures, the solids become harder to scratch, when hovering electrons have merged more deeply into hovering electrons of other atoms. At some point within the captured electrons, there's an "iron cage," so to speak. On the other hand, the outer-most electrons swirl about freely when anything touches or strikes atoms. We known this because mere sunlight, a very weak force, causes outer electrons to jump about excitedly.

Outer electrons are easily removed from atomic surfaces of solids in what is known as frictional heat. You can rub them off with your hand. It's known that electric current can be made by exactly that frictional heat. Why? Because heat and electricity are both sourced in electrons. When they enter your hand, free electrons are the heat material in your hand. When sunlight causes some outer electrons to jump out away from the atoms, that's heat too. It's why sunlight warms objects, duh. But Einstein was too stupidified by his contemporaries going the route of evolutionism. His photon is a fantasy because solar electrons are the light-wave aether. He saw that sunlight could eject captured electrons from atoms, but he was too stupidified to claim that electrons must be ejected from atoms in the sun with far-more ferocity than what he saw in his photo-electric experiments. A STUPID "GENIUS" was he. The aether was coming out of the sun, but he claimed (very prematurely) that there was no aether.

Where do you think the freed stellar electrons went, Einstein? Why were you too delinquent to realize that they streamed from the sun, or that they created the light-wave medium that you rejected on behalf of the photon? IDIOT. To this day, physics is laced with idiotic liars, buffoons. It's God who aims to make fools of them; I think it's a good idea if I try to help Him out.

Kineticism Part of the False Atomic Model

Every once in a while, I share my atomic model with readers on this platform. My job is to show comprehendable evidence to disprove the going theories on atomic models. I can't help but show my disgust for the going theories. If you've hated atomic physics, it's probably because it's all wrong, for that's what makes it so complicated, because the fools who build on wrong models need to "fix" errors when in reality every fix is just another monster with screws loose.

Liquid pressure attempts to merge liquid atoms deeper, yet there's some mysterious thing at work that will not permit liquids to be compressed, meaning that they refuse to merge much deeper into each other than a certain, basic limit. It seems to me that electrons in atoms of liquids, even though many of them hover with space between them, refuse to draw closer to each other even under great mechanical pressures...which is not my expectation, unless most of the atom is a solid item with only few hovering electrons.

It's possible that most of the captured electrons are in contact with each other in spite of their inter-repelling, as the proton forces them into contact, nearest the protonic surface. Perhaps there are relatively few layers of outer, hovering electrons, enough to allow for atomic mergers, but not very deeply.

My model is stacked with electrons from proton to proton. Let's not be so stupid as to think that a proton can capture only one electron. What kind of an idiot believes that? All of atomic physics. I kid you not, they are wholly reckless idiots opposing common logic like fools for punishment. People of the future will mock them.

The established model of a liquid or solid has virtually all space, meaning that it should be easy to squeeze a solid much smaller than its size at the freezing point. In reality, a solid is wall-to-wall, inter-repelling electrons, very near to each other, some in physical contact above the protonic surfaces. Protons are themselves under inter-repulsion. EVERYTHING in a liquid or solid counters liquid compression.

There is not a chance that electrons can orbit protons, not a chance that protons are clustered in atomic cores, not a chance that each electron has as much negative force as one proton has positive force. Those ideas are clearly bogus. How this model managed to become so entrenched is at the feet of big-bangers, more concerned with killing God than adopting logical realities.

They cannot explain the incompressibility of liquids with their demented, laughable idea that liquids are more than 99-percent space, and, to boot, they have captured electrons so distant apart that they can't effect much inter-repulsion force to counter mechanical compression. QUACKS. Plus, they don't see free electrons filling the spaces between atoms, or, if they do, they are never mentioned, otherwise you could get the idea that you're being lied to, or that these free electrons are the true nature of heat.

The only major thing in their atomic model to appeal to, for counteracting mechanical compression, is the colliding / vibrating of atoms. They think the average speed of racing / vibrating atoms is on the order of 1,000-2000 miles per hour (I don't care to know the exact figures for all materials).

If we push vibrating atoms closer to each other, they don't push back harder just because they get closer. But when one pushes inter-repelling items closer, they push back eight times stronger per cutting of distance in half. Not four times, but 4 x 2 = 8 times. A magnet attracts a nail four times stronger with a cutting of distance between them by two, but two magnets brought twice as close repel with 8 times more force (because both are magnets, but the nail isn't).

Racing / vibrating atoms are said to move in all directions, meaning that as many are moving toward the compressing machine are moving away from it, meaning that deep, mechanical compression of liquids, in that picture, ought to be possible with the push of a finger. To put this another way, atoms colliding/vibrating in all directions is tantamount to zero force in any direction because leftward collisions cancel rightward collisions, and upward collisions cancel downward collisions. ZERO force in any direction is the result, meaning that there's zero force toward anything seeking to compress a liquid or solid. And so if the solid is almost all space, duh, one should be able to sink a finger into a solid.

Plus, the dopes say that the atoms in the skin of your finger are vibrating outward such that they vibrate against any solid object you touch, and this alone counters the force of the solid atoms vibrating against the skin of your finger. You finger should therefore sink easily into solid steel, if the quacks are correct with their atomic model.

In a container with rubber balls bouncing all about continually, only the balls that actually strike the container will produce pressure, not the balls in the interior that are striking each other. It doesn't matter how big the container of a gas is. Whether it's at 20 psi when the container is small, or at 20 psi in a larger container, the larger one doesn't get higher pressure on the container walls just because there's more racing atoms in the container. Therefore, the liquid atoms not contacting a compression piston have no compression-countering ability. They are nothing but bitties vibrating in all directions without having reach to the piston because they don't inter-repel each other. There's nothing to stop the piston from cutting the liquid volume to less than half.

At absolute-zero temperature, their imaginary, vibrating atoms are vibrating at zero mph, yet one still can't compress a solid at that temperature, even though it's supposed to be more than 99-percent space. Instead, the colder the solid, the less it can be compressed, showing that atomic speeds have nothing to do with atomic resistance to compression.

The liars have nothing else to explain the near-incompressibility of liquids but the inter-repulsion of electrons. However, the fools have electrons so far apart that they would not push back by eight times the force until the liquid has been compressed to roughly half its initial volume. In that picture, a liquid should be amply compressible before it pushes back against the piston with whatever pressure the piston is provided with.

The fact that the liquid can barely be compressed speaks to electrons being very near to each other, possibly two, three or four electrons diameters apart. As soon as they are forced twice as close, they give eight times the push-back, and from there, with further liquid compression, the forces go up fast to 8 x 8 = 64 times the push back.

There's no pressure beyond air pressure in a sitting liquid prior to compression. Therefore, the nutbars need to confess that a liquid offering mere atmospheric pressure is able to counter thousands of psi from the piston. This is ridiculous from their standpoint because they define water pressure as merely the velocity of liquid atoms. When the piston is pressing with 100 psi, the liquid presses back with 100 psi. How could the vibrating atoms jump from air pressure (14.7 psi) to 100 psi with merely some compression against the liquid? How does piston compression make liquid atoms vibrate faster/harder??? It doesn't. The quacks have been lying to humanity for over a century.

But if gas pressure is from inter-repelling atoms, then 100 psi coming against the liquid can logically raise the water pressure from 14.7 to 100 psi. With just a minute amount of compression (i.e. the liquid is made slightly smaller in volume), the water pressure goes from 14.7 to 100, or to 1,000 if you come against it with 1,000 psi. I win, the buffoons lose. I beat them all with merely common sense available to anyone.

Shame Creationists, great shame, for trusting the wizards with atomic physics, for fearing to go against them, for shirking your responsibility to combat their obvious falsifications.

The closer one seeks to bring inter-repelling bitties, the more they fight back in compounding measure. Bring two electro-magnetic particles twice as close, and they inter-repel eight times harder. That's why the compression of a gas to 1/8th its volume builds to eight times the gas pressure. The atoms are twice as close (in all directions) when the gas is compressed to 1/8th its volume.

How strongly will a proton the size of a pea, when placed at the center of a football field, repel another proton at the center of an adjacent football field? HOW MUCH, come on, answer the question. Practically ZERO. And they see the orbiting electrons as far as the end zones from center field. How much will electrons, the size of mustards seeds, repel each other when a quarter field or more from each other? Practically ZERO. This is why the quacks may seek to convince you hat vibrational speeds of atoms is what resists mechanical compression of a liquid.

Why do they have so much space? Because they chose to go with a few orbiting electrons, per atom, rather than a full cloud of them completely surrounding every atomic core.

Again, in the kinetic theory of atoms, the only pressure against the piston are the atoms striking the piston; all other atoms in the liquid do not transfer energy to the piston because vibrational energy goes left as much it goes right, cancelling itself out for movement in any direction. Atomic motions cannot increase the liquid pressure while compressing the liquid, because the speeds of atoms do not increase when making the liquid body smaller by compression. Forcing the atoms closer together does not increase their speed, and, besides, a liquid can be compressed only so slightly that the atoms barely move closer together.

Yet, if the fools argue that it's the repulsion forces of atomic particles that resist liquid compression, the deceivers fail you by denying you the reality: repulsion forces in atoms is what cause gas pressure in the first place. See that? They don't want you to know that the repulsion forces in materials constitute pressures because that tends to give you the heads-up: racing atoms are not the cause of liquid and gas pressures. THEY LIE.

To compress a liquid, one needs to force all of its electrons, both free and captured, closer together in a confined container, and the electrons won't let that happen. Instead, the container wall will burst before it happens to any significant degree, or the piston system will break down if the container is made super-strong. Compression turns the liquid to solid, and compressing a solid squeezes heat out of it because the atomic spaces possess free electrons. Forcing atomic electrons closer together by mechanical compression causes electrons to repel electrons out of the solid, as heat (particles).

The reason that all the captured electrons can't be squeezed out as heat is because protons have them captured, and protons are much larger than the atomic spaces. The latter are small in comparison to an atom. Picture eight marbles merged into each other only slightly (not deep mergers); there's going to be some spaces between their merged areas. In a solid body, atomic spaces are connected such that they form curved tunnels extending from one side of the solid to the other. The relative sizes and shapes of tunnels (whether slightly curved or more twisted) determines how fast or slow heat (free electrons) can move through the solid.

Here's imaginary kinetics and some math devoted to it, to deceive you: "At 0 °C, the average speed of the water molecules slows down to approximately 565 m/s (1250 mph). At 100 °C, the average speed of the water molecules speeds up to approximately 660 m/s (1500 mph)." So, if the piston is one-inch square, there is one-square-inch of water atoms, in a teensy layer just one-atom thick, vibrating just 250 mph faster against the piston at any one time (even when the piston is moving), yet the gigantic factory press can't squeeze the liquid back to its smaller size at melting temperature, even though the liquid is 99+ percent empty space??? What kind of an idiot believes that?

Imagine how much it should hurt to touch water if its vibrating surface can conquer a factory press doing many tons of pressure. Or, with atoms in your finger vibrating at 1,500 mph, a touch of it to your face should feel like Rocky's knock-out punch. You've been duped, people. Throw the bums out of the classrooms of your children. A liquid is a sea of electrons, each as little as one or two electron-diameters apart, on average.

How do quacks figure out how fast atoms fly? They first figure how much each atom weighs, which is to say they use the weight to determine its mass. Once they have their erroneous specific masses for all atoms, they figure how distant apart the atoms of gases are (when all at the same temperature and pressure). I don't know whether they have that latter part correctly figured or not, because I don't know how they do it. They then do a little math to figure how many atoms are striking one square inch of a container wall, and if the gas pressure is at 15 pounds per square inch, they do the easy math to figure how fast the atoms must be striking, on average, to produce 15 pounds per square inch. But if they haven't got the mass of atoms correctly figured, neither do they have the atomic speeds correct, and, besides, the atoms in a gas are not racing around as they think they are. Because you haven't the ability to disprove their figures for atomic masses, they confidently pass them off to you as facts.

There are more strikes against a container's walls predicted by kineticism when the volume of the gas is made smaller. However, the predicted level of pressure against the walls does not take place as expected. Doubling the number of atoms in any volume of gas does not predict twice as many collisions with the container walls (or against the pressure gauge). Yet, it's a fact that doubling the number of atoms in a gas gets roughly twice the gas pressure.

The reason that doubling the strikes, per unit time, is not predicted to double the pressure is because not all strikes hit the container walls at the same instant. For example, if we focus on one spot upon the container walls, a spot exactly the size of an atom, then, when we double the atoms in the container, that one spot gets more strikes per second, but it does not get twice as many strikes at any one instant. It gets strikes faster, but not at the same instant.

If you have twice as many machine-gun bullets hitting a tree per second, the pressure against the tree will be exactly the same as when one bullet strikes it with half as many bullets per second. The only way to double the pressure on the tree is to have two machine guns both hitting the tree at the same instant, but doubling the number of colliding atoms in a gas is not expected to double the pressure like two guns striking the tree at the same instant...because the extra gas atoms may or may nor strike the walls at the same time as the first batch of atoms. When pressure is applied by colliding particles, the pressure is NOT CONSTANT, but intermittent.

An "instant" is the time it takes to fulfill a collision, from start of collision to bounce-off. The next collision on the same spot will occur with half the time, when there are twice the atoms in the container, but the pressure level on the container, per instant amount of time, does not double. It's predicted to go up some, but not double, yet the fact is, twice the atoms in a container do double the pressure (when maintaining the same temperature in both cases). Why? BECAUSE, inter-repulsion forces from atoms is expected to double with twice the number of atoms in the container. One can prove it.

I can prove it because atoms are expected to repel each other 8 times more when they are twice as close. They are not twice as close when we double the number of atoms. We definitely double the number of atoms when we double the pressure because the gas weighs twice as much when we double the pressure. We have twice as much gas, and twice the pressure, yet we have not moved the atoms twice as close when doubling the number of atoms. How do I know?

To move atoms twice as close in ALL directions, one needs to compress the gas in half three times, to 1/8 its original volume. That situation is the very same as adding 8 times the gas to an unchanged volume. In both cases, the pressure goes up eight times.

When a piston cuts the volume of the gas in half by moving down into the container, it can be viewed as moving the atoms twice as close only in the up-down direction. The atoms don't really move twice as close only in the up-down direction, but for the sake of doing the calculation, we can view it that way. We then rightly understand that the atoms are not yet twice as close in the east-west and north-south directions.

We need to cut the gas in half, after the first cut, two more times, one in the east-west, and one in the north-south, directions before the atoms are ALL twice as close in all direction. Thus, after cutting the gas in half twice, the volume of the gas is reduced to four times the original volume, when there is four times the gas pressure, and after cutting the gas in half three times, the volume of the gas is reduced to eight times the original volume, when there is eight times the gas pressure.

Therefore, the pressure increases proportionally to the number of times the gas volume is cut in half, or proportionally to the number of times the gas material is doubled when not changing its volume. In short: it takes eight times the atom density to get atoms twice as close (in all directions). Therefore, gas pressure is a function of electromagnetic (repulsion) forces between atoms. I win, the fools lose. Why do they lose? Because they are fools. Because they have believed what they were taught without checking things out critically. A scientist who operates that way is a FOOL. You got a better word for him? The fools, even as they gloat over their superior intelligence, have let down all of humanity with a regime of false atomic / physics science.

What is Boiling Point?

Bubbling in a boiling liquid is what fast achieves the boiling point after countless rising rivers of electrons have played their role to loosen the atomic bonds in a liquid. The liquid is filled with invisible, rising rivers of electrons, and where they begin the most concentrated, at the heat source coming through the pot, they form visible bubbles. By their repulsion forces, they push liquid away, and bubbles appear.

The rapid passage of bubbles opens passages through the liquid from bottom to top of liquid. Contrary to what the goofs tell us, the bubbles are not filled with water vapor, but with free electrons, otherwise to be called, heat particles.

They know for a fact electrons stream out of a flame that heats the water pot, or from the electric stove element, yet they don't mention these electrons when describing the mechanics of boiling water. Nor do they tell you that electrons work their way through the pot holding the water, and then enter the water. You are left ignorant of that important detail, lest you realize that heat is a material all its own. THROW THE BUMS OUT.

The higher the temperature, the more dense these electrons, the more they prevent liquid compression. The harder the compression, the higher the liquid temperature, yet the liquid will freeze as it gets hotter under compression because the heat is being squeezed out of the liquid. That's because heat is a material, not the speed of vibrating atoms. The atoms do not vibrate. Get that out of your head.

I'm leaning toward the definition of boiling point as boil bubbles moving through a liquid with zero restriction. There are five things that restrict the passage through liquid of heat particles and bubbles: 1) air pressure; 2) water pressure; 3) atomic-bond strength; 4) depth of atomic mergers; 5) atomic hooking.

Boiling point arrives at equilibrium, when he heat ejected out the liquid equals the heat entering it. If we are heating a pot of water with flames, we can't get the temperature higher if we suddenly double or triple the flames against the pot. Instead, the boil bubbles grow larger and rise faster such that they maintain equilibrium between heat entering and exiting. This tends to convince me that all liquids, at boiling point, offer zero restriction to heat passage. Or, better yet, there is restriction due to all five factors above, yet the bubble velocities are fast enough to counter all five, such that there is net-zero restriction. If there is more than net-zero, then the liquid temperature should rise.

Here's an admission: "Flames are actually plasma, The hot gas of the flame contains positively charged ions and electrons,..." Ya-but, what happens to electrons when they strike the underside of a pot of water? Plus, it's deceptive to tell that flames have ions (charged gas-exhaust atoms) without telling that they almost-instantly re-load with electrons from the air, such that they are no longer ions as soon as they exit a flame. An atom that losses electrons is called an ion.

The fools wish to stress the ions so that they can define a flame as a plasma (atomic material) instead of defining it as a sea of freed electrons. When you ask for the definition of a flame, you want to know what its heat derives in, and it's not derived from the ions. You want to know what causes the light of a flame, and it's not the ions. When you see a flame, you are seeing the light that forms from the emission of electrons from atoms, but it's not the atoms that cause the light. Why don't they tell you that emissions part? Because, they have decided that light is not caused from electron emission. Instead, they invented photon emission because they didn't want a light-wave medium. The same electron medium from which the ions reload with electrons is the light-wave medium too. The light-wave medium exists between every air atom. It surrounds every air atom. It invades every atom because electrons spread out by their inter-repulsion.

When we cause some air atoms to lose captured electrons by some method (combustion does it), they instantly reload with them. Where did the free electrons come from? Not from the big bang. Where's the evidence that gravity attracts them? There isn't any.

They are proven to be repelled by gravity when they rise in materials much more than they spread in any other direction, and because they spread least downward. A metal rod encased in concrete, when heated from the middle, reveals heat rising through the rod far more than it does downward. Heat rises through liquids...which is impossible to explain via the kinetic theory. In that theory, there can be no buoyancy principle active, to explain heat rising in air or liquids.

Combustion of a fossil fuel causes O and H atoms to merge differently, independent of C atoms, so as to release some of their captured electrons. The same combustion process causes some O and C atoms to merge differently, separate from H atoms, to release even more captured electrons. Those are then FREE ELECTRONS, the stuff of heat particles. Nobody should care to know as a priority, when asking for the definition of a flame, that there's water and carbon oxides in the flame. That exhaust is not the flame. The exhaust happens to be in the flame momentarily, because it causes the flame, but the exhaust does not define the flame. The flame is defined as the freed electrons. They create both the light and the heat of the flame. Is that just a minor part of the flame, to be virtually ignored in favor of stressing ions? The God-despising magicians are up to their tricks again, making students for themselves even of Christians.

Bubbles in heater water begin small but increase in size with upward movement for obvious reason: they collide with rivers of electrons, and receive the electrons. Bubbles become buses with free electrons as their passengers. Bubbles will naturally take the paths of least resistance to the top, meaning they follow the rivers which have opened up the paths of least resistance.

The quacks do not allow for electrons in their bubbles. At least, when I've read their definition of boil bubbles, they are pure gas. The way they explain bubble formation, the liquid gets so hot next to the heat source that they vibrate extra hard such as to force gases (unmerged liquid atoms) to form at the bottom of the liquid, in spite of both air pressure and water pressure being the most forceful at the bottom.

If we entertain the kinetic theory when seeking to explain the boiling point, we're out of luck. As they define hotter water as water vibrating harder/faster, and as they define temperature as the rate of vibration, they have got to explain why water at its boiling point cannot vibrate harder even when the heat source is doubled or tripled or quadrupled. I don't see an explanation. The liars claim that liquid molecules/atoms are flying off the liquid surface most numerously when the liquid body has molecules/atoms vibrating the hardest, but this doesn't explain why there is a limit to the hardness of the vibrations. Why should the vibrations go only to a certain hardness/velocity but not higher just because there's more surface molecules/atoms flying off into the air? I see no explanation.

So far as I know, a thermometer held near the heat source in a pot of water does not rise above the boiling point even when the heat source is quadrupled at the boiling point. The kinetic theory predicts that the water molecules near the heat source vibrate much harder when the heat is quadrupled. See that? It's a fake theory. Instead, the reason that the temperature doesn't climb when quadrupling the heat source is that the bubbles filled with heat particles get larger and faster-rising such as to remove as many particles at the surface as are coming in at the heat source. The boiling point must be the point of zero net-resistance to bubble flow.

One bubble opens the upward pathway through the liquid for the next bubble such that the next bubble doesn't need to do work to open the "door" upward, thanks to the previous bubble blasting the door wide open for it. The second bubble arrives to the doorway before the door starts to shut closed. It goes through the doorway freely, because the door is no longer in the way. That's the definition of boiling point.

If we entertain their kinetic theory on bubble formation, they would need to argue that the vibrational energy has reached its maximum at boiling point, yet I see no explanation as to why this should be merely due to vibrational energy forming larger and faster-rising bubbles. The vibrational energy of the heat source is far stronger than in the water, and as such the vibrational energy of the water between bubbles should increase steadily to far beyond the boiling-point temperature. We can't argue that the vibrational energy doesn't continue to rise in water just because more water molecules are being sent to the water surface per unit time. We can't make that argument because the two are different things. This is a case of the number of water molecules versus the speed of bashing, which is a struggle between DIFFERENT THINGS.

If the heat source is bashing the water molecules harder, the water molecules are predicted to bash each other harder too, regardless of how many water molecules are in the bubble buses. But I do have an explanation, where heat is a material all its own, when there are as many heat particles exiting the liquid as are entering: that's the maximum temperature of the liquid. PERFECT LOGIC. We now have numbers of electrons versus numbers of electrons, which is a struggle between the SAME THING.

Therefore, as the kinetic theory of liquids is a fantasy, I can report to you with utmost confidence that boil bubbles are to be defined as free-electron buses. It's possible that the bubbles take on some atoms, in gas form, as they bump into them all the way to the surface, but the original bubbles could not form by gas formation at the bottom of the liquid. Therefore, as they form from the high concentration there of free electrons, it makes perfect sense that bubbles grow in size by taking on more free electrons as buses drive to the surface.

Bubbles form due to the increasing fight, from increasing density of electrons, against the liquid atoms. These bitties have boxing gloves, punching outward in all directions, keeping the water from invading the bubbles. Or, better yet, the inter-repelling free electrons, though they are not in contact with each other in the bubble, form a wall to keep the water from invading...which could not be possible if the electrons were larger than the water molecules, if water molecules could squeeze between electrons.

Here's a google offering when asking for the definition of boiling point: "the temperature at which a liquid boils and turns to vapor." FALSE and inadequate. Vapors form long before boiling point, and this definition does not explain the reason for the boiling-point maximum. Naturally, the goofs will claim that boiling point is when there is as much kinetic energy leaving the liquid as is entering, but that's not good enough. WHY or HOW would that be so, that is the core question to answer.

To put the nails into the kinetic coffin, just recognize that the liquid at the surface can never be vibrating as hard as it is at the heat source. Therefore, it can never be true that as much vibrational energy is leaving the surface as is entering at the heat source.

In their theory, the kinetic energy within the bubbles has got to be higher than in the water body because the vapor in the bubbles is sourced directly at the heat source. The vapor molecules (that they envision in a bubble) are predicted to bash the water in contact with the bubbles, and as such the water outside of the bubbles should grow steadily higher until it reaches the vibrational energy within the bubbles. They can't claim that the vibrational energy in the bubbles can go only as high as 212 F degrees when the flame at the heat source is much higher. "A typical gas flame on a gas stove, using natural gas or propane, can reach temperatures between 1,960°C (3,560°F) and 1,980°C (3,600°F)." See the problem? There's nothing in this bashing-atom theory to keep the 3500 bashing energy way down at a mere 212. The prediction is that the bubbles should grow steadily larger, along with the rate of evaporation, until the bubbles have vapors at 3500 degrees, or until the water has fully evaporated, whichever comes first.

Another definition from the quacks: "Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, so that the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmosphere." That almost sounds to me like saying that the rising heat has reached the point of conquering all resistance to upward flow. However, this definition is false because rising heat must also conquer water pressure (gravity on water molecules) and the force of atomic bonding. Bubbles need to move past the bond strength of water molecules. Air pressure on the liquid is not the only thing restricting bubble passage. The pressure within the bubbles must therefore be higher than the air pressure above the water. Granted, there is very little water pressure in a pot of water a few inches deep.

As a liquid boils even with a vacuum above it, it must form bubbles even then. If the definition above were fully correct, there should be zero bubble formation (= zero pressure in a bubble = non-existent) when the space above water has zero air pressure.

I've tried it, go ahead and try it yourself: turn the gas flame on your stove up and down, or even off, when water is to a boil. As soon as you turn the flame hotter, the water boils faster, with more-rapid bubbles. No time is taken up, it's instant, as if the bubbles had already overcome all restriction to flow, prior to turning up the flame. Remove all flame, and the boil bubbles instantly vanish, which is not predicted by kineticism because the water is at the same temperature during the boil as it is for several seconds after turning off the flame. If the water can form vapor bubbles with the flame on, it should continue to form vapor bubbles, though smaller, for a minutes after the flame is turned off...unless the bubbles are filled with free electrons that are suddenly cut off from entering the water.

One can argue: for as long as the liquid creates restriction to free-electron flow, heat builds up in the water i.e. temperature must and can increase. Therefore, when liquid temperature gets to its maximum, the boiling point, it should mean that all restriction to heat flow has been conquered. However, that's only as per the bubbles, for the rivers of electrons worming between liquid atoms must yet be restricted at boiling point. When the bubbles are large and numerous enough, they transport to the surface, per unit time, as many electrons as are entering at the bottom through the pot. The electrons in the flame punch one another through the pot. Stop punching, and the bubbles disappear.

I don't known exactly when significant bubbles begin to form in water, but it could be as low as 180 F degrees. In such a case, when the flame is turned off at 212 degrees, bubbles of continuously smaller size should continue to form, according to the kinetic theory, until the liquid gets down to 180 degrees. But we do not see that taking place, not even close.

The perimeter of bubbles have an inward pressure equal to the outward water pressure, because, for as long as the heat-particle pressure in the bubble exceeds water pressure, the bubble will grow in size. But, "water pressure" here includes air pressure on the water surface, which is a lot more than water pressure alone in a few inches of water depth.

If we have a block of metal into a pot, it receives more heat than water does, per unit time, yet the boiling point of metal is far higher than water's. How can this compliment the kinetic theory, since the metals atoms are getting more bang than water, per unit time? The metal is far heavier than water, and thus, even after it turns to liquid, the metal resists heat passage through it far more than the weight of water. The weight of the metal liquid is synonymous with its liquid pressure. Higher concentrations of free electrons are needed in molten liquid to reach net-zero restriction to passage. Therefore, the pressure of bubbles in a heated liquid are NOT equal to the air pressure above the liquid, but to the combined weights of the air and the liquid, at the depth where the heat is applied.

The only acceptable definition of boiling point is when as much heat is leaving the liquid as is entering, and because we never hear that logical and unassailable definition, something must be amiss with the kinetic theory such that it can't explain the definition. Instead, they lie when insinuating that bubble-vapor pressure equals air pressure at boiling point.

In kineticism, the surface of a liquid can never be evaporating as much kinetic energy as is coming into the liquid at the heat source, for the heat source is viewed as the engine of kinetic energy such that there ought to always be more kinetic energy next to the heat source than at any other part of the liquid body into which the energy transfers and steadily builds. In kineticism, the water energy punches back toward the engine more so as the water temperature gets higher. This predicts a slowing of water heating with increased water temperature, but, in reality, heat passes up through a liquids more easily, and in greater amounts, with rising temperature. Why? Because gravity repels free electrons upward. There is nothing in kineticism to move either a hotter liquid or hotter gas upward more than in any other direction.

That's right. The fools like to appeal to the buoyancy principle to explain why hotter waters move up, and why hotter air moves up. The problem is, the liars understand fully that there is nothing in the motion of kinetic atoms to move them upward more than sideways and downward. There is no such thing as a buoyancy principle with kineticism in view.

I'm going to give you an alternative definition of buoyancy than modern science does. It says that buoyancy is due to more gas/liquid pressure under an item than above it, thus causing an net-upward lift. But this can be true only for objects, not single atoms. In the kinetic theory, where lone atoms/molecules fly or vibrate in all directions equally, there is ZERO net-upward lift on any atom/molecule. Full stop, wherefore KINETICISM IS FALSE.

We clearly see both hotter liquids and hotter gases rising. Gas atoms under inter-repulsion, or bonded liquid molecules under mutual attraction, are not able to rise unless some force causes them to do so, and that force is gravity repelling heat particles such that they create an upward current flow to carry atoms and molecules away with it.

I suggest an alternative definition of buoyancy that works in conjunction with the definition above. Both act simultaneously. My definition: gravity seeks to pull air or water under a balloon, or any object. If it's able, a balloon is forced upward by that process, but gravity cannot pull air or water under a balloon if its filled with cement. Only if the pull of gravity on the air or water is stronger than the pull of gravity on the balloon itself will air or water be forced under the balloon to displace it.

Now, then, achem. If we view a boiling liquid as one with vibrating water atoms transferring their kinetic energy to the air atoms above the water, there is nothing to lift the air atoms away from the water surface. The goofs will say that the heated air rises due to the buoyancy principle, but kineticism has no buoyancy principle when lone atoms are in view. We can see the speed of rising heat above boiling water by looking at the rising steam. But the kinetic theory has nothing to explain why the steam molecules are rising so fast. Only if heat is a substance all its own, which moves upward, can we explain what we see above the hot-liquid surface. Or above burning wood, where heat forces unburned wood (smoke) upward.

In kineticism, heat should spread evenly sideways, downward and upward. Admit it, and move on. Kineticism will become known as a corpse eventually, and you don't want to be caught as its guardian at that time. Instead, be the champion that spears it dead.

The guardians of the evolutionist dogmas will tell us that colder air is heavier, and thus it's expected to move in under warmer air to give the latter lift. But this is the buoyancy principle which does not apply to individual atoms. It applies only when there are objects to displace. The "colder" air atoms beside the pot weigh as much as the "warmer" atoms above the heated pot. The colder atoms are not in a package, but are individual "objects" all their own. A single "cold" atom (less speedy) does not have inclination, in the kinetic theory, to move in under a "warm" atom (more speedy) to displace it, to force it upward. Sorry. It doesn't work.

In fact, in both my model and the kinetic model, the hotter air above the pot is expected to move into the colder air beside the pot, because heat flows from hot to cold. Therefore, what causes the heated air to rise away from the liquid surface, if heat is pushing the cooler air away from the pot? There's only one thing left in the system to answer that question: the free electrons from the heat source.

Why is it that guardians of evolutionary buffoonery never mention the electrons that fill a hot-air balloon? Why do they always point out that hotter air is lighter per unit space, to explain why heat in a balloon causes it to rise? It's because the buffoons themselves have taught the guardians what to say, and they never want students to know that free electrons from the flame are entering the hot-air balloon.

I guarantee it, that if you take a sealed balloon filled to its max with air at just the right temperature so that it tends to neither rise nor fall, you can get it to rise simply by heating it up a little more. If you fill it to its max, it shouldn't become larger when heated a little more. Therefore, putting heat alone into the balloon will cause it to rise. Why? Not because the air atoms are speeding around a little faster, but because electrons are anti-gravity particles. C'mon, say it. It's liberating.

I can think of only one mechanism to cause gas atoms to remain bonded after liquid merger: protonic attraction in one atom holds the other atoms' electrons to itself. Two atoms mutually attract the same captured electrons in their mutually-merged sections (view as one merged region). Atoms are trapped in that bond until a heat flow comes along to unmerge them. In most cases probably, the larger the merged region, the more atomic (captured) electrons are involved, and thus the greater is the force that traps atoms into the bond.

Poor little water molecules at the water surface. A heat flow of electrons is knocking them apart, into the air, as evaporated water. When a bubble reaches the surface, I imagine a catastrophe on the atomic level, with many water molecules ripped apart and sent skyward. But did you ever notice that some boil bubbles become hemispheres floating on the water surface, but quickly grow smaller until they pop or disappear?

Yes, one can clearly see a water film acting as the perimeter of the boil bubble. This film must be the water molecules that the upward force of the bubble was unable to knock apart, into the air. Why do you think the hemisphere bubble disappears in about a second? Is it really filled solely with steam molecules, as the goofs maintain? What are we to think, that the steam molecules are entering the liquid surface, to explain why the half-bubble disappears in a second or less? After all, the steam molecules can't penetrate the film that is the crust of this half-bubble.

But if we say that the steam is going into the liquid body, we must ask why it's not also going into the film, for the latter is just as much water as is the water body. Why shouldn't the steam enter, or become part of, the film in order to grow the film's thickness, at least, if not its diameter? Why does the film grow rapidly smaller until the hemisphere is gone? Shouldn't kineticism predict that steam is coming out of the liquid surface, INTO this half-bubble. Uh, er, why yes. In that case, the bubble should grow larger until it pops.

I suggest that the half-bubbles are filled mainly with free electrons, and they easily pass through the water film. That's logical, explaining why the half-bubbles shrink. Get smart, spear kineticism dead today.

Seat the electron onto the throne it deserves. It is the energy particle. Almost nothing moves but for it. When free, it is the LIFE PARTICLE. It's not oxygen that gives energy to the body, but the electrons freed when oxygen merges with other atoms in the body. Why do you think your body gets hot when you exert your muscles? Free electrons have been released, more than when you don't use muscles. Your body heat: free electrons everywhere in your body. They push.

NEWS

Trump appointed Kari Lake to head up Voice of America, and to be the senior advisor to its parent company, U.S. Agency for Global Media. Uh-oh, that looks like a bad company serving globalism, and Miss Lake opposes its propaganda. Trump and musk want to shut this company down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkA6o0RKf5E

The government on the Isle of Man is corruptly protecing Brookfield Assets as the latter uses it for a tax haven. This is an excellent investigative report by Ezra Levant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgM1FjLUHlg

David Knight says that the president of Musk's The Boring Company is supervising DOGE:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dgfADh1yvnAg

More than 120 days after the due date for Trump's ending the Ukraine war, Russia bombed Kiev. This week. Trump seems to be more on Russia's side than Ukraine's just because Trump wants to steal things in Ukraine, and that's just for starters. He pretends to want peace. He really wants wealth.

He's also guilty of interfering in the canadian election, by favoring Carney, and thus he betrays Canadian Conservatives, not caring if they come under the boot of a WEF snake.

Trump's also trying to figure a way to be the first only human slob in America to steal canada by force of some form of punishment. That's exploitation by a bully. Call a spade a spade, Trump is a white-collar lizard disguising himself as a friendly god, unashamed of bragging as his first-most priority. There's nothing he loves more than to promote self. He never misses an opportunity.

Trump is exactly the slime who will give power back to the Obama circle of criminals by failing to frighten them, by making the needed, 100s of high-level arrests. What canadian wants to come under that sort of federal government, with an FBI far worse than the canadian "FBI" (CSIS)? The next Democrat president could be far worse than Obama. The latter disguised himself as a good guy, yet nurtured criminal elements in government for to destroy the country. Obama's shadow government is responsible for the wild flow of illegal foreigners, and that was only the beginning of the wicked plots.

When Trump failed to replace the bad apples in the military from 2017-2021, he thus left Obama's shadow government in charge. Those bad apples are still there. NONE have been arrested. Nobody in Trump's Intelligence organizations have yet unveiled the criminality that exists in Intelligence and the military. It's not enough to fire the bad apples because they can be re-hired to continue lawless programs.

For the sake of putting food on the table, cops are only as good as their evil bosses:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6ZywbO5_chE

Isn't Trump responsible for throwing red meat to his voters when saying he was going into Fort Knox to see if the gold is there? Isn't Trump guilty of not releasing the Epstein files after he promised them right away? Here's a story showing that Trump's government, both Patel and Bondi, are not in favor of releasing the files, and not even willing to reveal why they are not releasing them. I've said many times: Trump is a cursed, lying sham. He may as well have chosen Bill Barr and Chris Wray again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAi7bTJhVm4

CBC lies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8gFlOdV-4

A Yahoo poll in the last week of the election, with 91,000 respondents, had Poilievre ahead 66-31 over Carney, when asked who the people would like to see as the next prime minister. If the election ends up very close, therefore, you can bank on election fraud, where, probably, key election houses firmly in Liberal hands trash Conservative ballots. Yahoo is not pro-Conservative.

The scary part is that only 60-percent of canadians oppose electric-car program of the Liberals, where the intention is to conveniently tax gasoline and cars too, to force people to buy electric while the Liberal government makes whopping taxes phasing gas cars out. We can easily see that China wants this situation everywhere because it sells lots of electric cars, batteries and other parts. Poilievre says that Carney wants to tax gas cars $20,000. This is criminal exploitation that reveals the true goal$ behind "climate change."

Now we can know what's wrong with canada, not only the youth being deceived by liberalism and evolutionism, but nearly twice as many people over 54 are voting Liberal as are voting Conservative. If the aged are a ruin, the whole country is spoiled, and if the youth are bewitched to boot, there's no hope of God to-the-rescue, especially when the Conservatives loath to raise Jesus as part of their platform.

I thought I had best pass on this card-reader scam that reportedly allows thieves to empty your entire bank account after you use a debit card. Best thing, use cash, a small "inconvenience." Keep lots of cash at home, and hide it well. This scam is able to get your pin number, yikes. Consider that the banks themselves could become the thieves who use these devices, for big banks are now on-board with corrupt globalism, and the latter wants to have your full bank account in order to install a you-own-nothing communism. Beware using debit cards at stores with Indian owners and such, for they are often criminal tricksters, and they themselves may install card-reader equipment for a partner in crime to do the thieving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVXAdgiN8k

Get rid of your smart phone, and don't scan anything with it unless you keep no personal information on it that could compromise your bank account. Not long ago, Israel revealed that it's military could kill people by selling the Lebanese enemy certain phones with bomb potential. Globalists can probably do similar things with smart phones, especially when they decide to go ahead with a mass-murder program in order to replace human workers with robots.

---

NEXT UPDATE

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

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

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---