I'd like to show you how dishonest atomic science has become in order to guard against the reality that AMPLE free electrons in the air define heat within all materials. I asked google, "can free electrons in air move into the atomic spaces of materials?" It denies the possibility:

No, free electrons in air cannot simply move into the atomic spaces of materials because they quickly collide with air molecules, lose their energy, and become absorbed [i.e. captured by protons], forming negative ions [= negatively-charged atoms].

This is so weak an argument one would think we're dealing with novices. Physicists know that atoms cannot go on loading free electrons forever. There is a maximum. Atoms can take on only a slight amount of net-negativity when loading free electrons, at which point they begin to leak them into the air. No matter whether rubbed objects become net-positive or net-negative, they will, within minutes, either take on-board free electrons from the air to nullify their net-positivity, or leak them into the air to nullify their net-negativity. Nobody can argue against this known fact, wherefore the argument in the quote above is smoke and mirrors.

What does that argument say? It says that any free electrons in the air can only make objects net-negative. Ya-but, that's pretty stupid since objects can't capture all of the free electrons in the air. What happens when objects have loaded the maximum number of captured electrons? Can free electrons in the air then fill the atomic spaces of any or all objects? Of course they can, but google AI is programmed not to admit it, because that situation appears that atmospheric electrons entering objects defines heat entering objects.

From my last update: "But the fools don't want a material like electrons moving into materials because they are expected to expand materials by their inter-repulsion, exactly what heat does." It's as simple as that. That's the revolutionary reality that big-bangers are terrified of: heat is a material. Zikers, that's so scaaary.

The google response from the question above goes on to make it's case with another weak claim: "In normal air, any free electrons that might exist for a brief moment would rapidly collide with the dense collection of molecules. These collisions cause the electrons to lose their energy and become bound to the air molecules, creating negative ions rather than traveling into other materials." HAHAHAHAH. They make it appear as though there's nearly zero free electrons in air. THEY LIE.

You can rub a million objects all over the world, in a water well, or at the tops of the highest mountains, until they are as net-positive as possible, but they will all reload with electrons in the air. They are abundant in the air because the solar wind loads them into the air constantly, but the goofs didn't want the world to know this because they could easily see how people in their ranks could start to chatter, saying that electrons look like heat material. And so they made a strict but bogus law for all the underlings to follow: the Earth's magnetic field prevents solar electrons from entering the air.

So, when asking such a dangerous question as whether free electrons in air can worm into atomic spaces to remain free electrons there, google AI is programmed to claim that free electrons can barely exist in air, because even air atoms steal them by protonic capture. The only thing the programmers care about is steering us away from electrons in atomic spaces, because it's so SCAAARY.

To really knock it home that free electrons in air are extremely sparse, the response adds: "Instead of acting as 'free' carriers, electrons in air quickly attach to neutral air molecules (like N and O) or even dust particles..." That's all folks, there's reportedly enough only to stick to a few dust particles.

Th response continues: "For a free electron to move into a material, it would need to overcome these binding energies and the repulsive forces from the electrons already present in the material". That's another cheap shot, because the captured electrons already present in a material come with protons that roughly counter any negative charge from the captured electrons. There's not as much net-negative charge as that response wants you to believe.

Besides, any net-negative charge existing at the peripheries of liquid or solid atoms material doesn't preclude free electrons from motivating each other into the atomic spaces. You realize that atomic spaces in liquids or solids are at the peripheries of the atoms.

Now think about it. While I don't agree, the fools themselves claim that atoms are neutral at their peripheries. That's what makes it a cheap shot for them to argue that a free electron, which happens to wander into an atomic space, will be repelled out of the atom. See their duplicity? They are just like activist Democrats whose only desire is to hold power for the sake of social engineering into anti-Bible mindsets. Same cloth.

Now think about it some more. Which do you suppose has the stronger negative charge, the periphery of an atom, or that which exists between two electrons that wander into an atomic pore? Clearly, the electrons have more stunning negative force than any wee net-negative force that might arise from the blend of forces from protons and captured electrons.

Now alter that picture of two wanderers into the atomic spaces to one where the air is stacked with free electrons all repelling each other in all directions, and it's a no brainer that they will motivate themselves by sheer force into atomic spaces. In some cases, they don't just wander in, but can flood in when the object is much colder than the air. They force their way into material only when the density of free electrons in the atomic spaces is less than the density in the air. The specific density of free electrons defines specific temperature.

In the case of electrical flow, it's the captured electrons that need replacement. Electrons get out of filaments all over the city, and so they need to be replaced from the air. Free electrons go through the atomic spaces of a wire's jacket and into the metal atoms, otherwise a city's electrical grid would run out of electrons, because the electric station doesn't add any into the wires.

The same response from google AI has even more: "The electrons surrounding atoms have negative charges and repel each other. When two atoms come very close, the repulsion between their electrons prevents the atoms (and their electrons) from occupying the same space." This is the goofball's excuse for denying atomic mergers for liquid and solid material. They see liquid and solid atoms bonded with zero merger of atoms.

That is, atoms do not invade the space of another atom because it becomes heavily problematic when you believe in something so impossible as orbiting electrons. They decided long ago they best not have the orbits of one atom crossing the paths of the orbits of neighboring atoms lest their most loyal stooges revolt or something. Nobody's going to take seriously the idea that atoms with many orbiting electrons have orbits in the same space as other atoms, because that spells traffic accidents galore.

Therefore, they opted to give reason(s) as to why atoms can BOND from a distance, apart from one atom's periphery touching a neighboring atom's periphery, which makes them look more stupid yet to the point of re-murdering their own atomic model after murdering it with orbiting electron. My point is, think of how giant the atomic spaces would be, in comparison to an electron, with atoms bonded as a distance. But, no-no, free electrons could never enter there, no-no-no.

These are the same goofs who, it they could, would deny the existence of free electrons in electric wires. But as they can't bring themselves to teaching that orbiting electrons can go out of orbit to become flowing electricity, then go back into orbits as soon as someone turns off the light switch, they opted to teach that metal wire do have free electrons that are not in orbit. See the duplicity? Same sort of duplicity that describes the hypocrisy and double standards used by political Democrats...because science establishments are run by political-minded atheists. Same cloth.

Let's ask the goofs: "where do free electrons originate in electric wires?" The answer tells that they opted to allow some outer, orbiting electrons of electrical-conducting metals to become "carriers," free-roaming electrons that fly, not only through the atomic spaces of atoms, but through the inner spaces of atoms. They manage not to collide with orbiting electrons because that would be catastrophic. So, the goofs just invent a means to keep the collisions from happening, or minimize the damage if collisions do take place. It's so easy to manage the atom when it's devised in an imagination to begin with, and when nobody on the streets can prove your claims wrong, while the underlings in the establishment know not to rebel but at a cost.

The response is: "Free electrons originate from the atoms within the metallic structure of the wire itself; they are the loosely bound, outermost electrons of the metal atoms that form a 'sea' of charge carriers." You can see that they admitted a "sea" of flying electrons, lots and lots. And the voltage doesn't even need to be very high. It can be ever so wee-wee of voltage, and the electrons will yet flow, even in their picture where the atoms are made net-positive by losing their outer orbiting electrons.

Therefore, if electrons can flow in atomic spaces while atoms are net-positive, why can't free electrons from the air invade and settle into atomic spaces when the atom is, according to them, neutral in charge? Big problem for the goofs, the hypocrites who don't stay true to their own arguments.

Electrical voltage refers to the level of force that the electrons in a wide are forced along. That force derives in a magnet's negative force. Ditto for free electrons: they have voltage. They repel each other, and that it identical to electrical voltage.

I asked whether electrons have voltage, and the answer makes the programmers look ignorant to the derivation of electrical voltage: "No, electrons do not form voltage; instead, voltage is the electric potential difference, or 'pressure, that drives the flow of existing electrons within a conductor." Ya-but, stupids, any grade-six student will tell you it's not the positive side of a magnet that drives electrons, but the magnet's negative side. What's the difference between its negative side and the negative charge in free electrons? Clearly, electrical voltage derives in negative charge. Voltage is negative charge, duh.

When someone defines voltage with "potential difference," that phrase means only that something along the wire has less negative charge than the wire at the magnet that forms the voltage. The voltage is therefore NOT the potential difference, but rather is the negative charge that drives electrons into the less-negative parts of the wire. The magnet is by nature more negative than every part of the wire.

It is not true that voltage equals the amount of potential difference. If there's more potential difference, like when someone flips on a light switch allowing power to flow into the Earth's dirt (positive in charge), it can only increases the flow speed. It does not increase the "pressure" that forces electrons along. The "pressure" (should be "force") is a direct accomplishment of the magnet's strength or caliber. The higher the water pressure in a water tank, the faster and more forcefully the water will flow in the pipe.

So, the question now is, do the electrons in the air have as much or more voltage than the tiniest voltage needed to make electrons flow across a wire? It does no good to ask google how much voltage electrons have when such-and-such diameters apart, because google's AI won't acknowledge electron voltage. But, guaranteed, voltage between electrons forces them into the atomic spaces of atoms EVERYWHERE. Anything with heat within has free electrons within.

I wouldn't call atomic physicists goofs, which I do kindly because they are far worse than goofs, had they not erred so many times on so many issues for reasons that I can see right through which they try to hide. They don't want you to know that they deny electron entry into atomic spaces because that makes them look wrong for defining heat as particle speed. Whenever free electrons looks like heat, they don't want you to look there let alone inspect there. The fact is, there is no heat source that doesn't have free electrons. The sun is filled with them. The sun spews them forth like life. The spewed electrons form light too. It looks like a picture of God.

It seems to me that the light of the moon, which is nothing but the light of the sun, makes the moon a symbol of Jesus. We can glean this because both bodies appear the same size in the sky. The solar eclipse is therefore a symbol of the oneness of Father and Son. Grapple with it, evolutionists, and come to peaceful and respectful terms with your Creator, lest you fall forever into Hell. If you don't think that God can create something so hot and large as Hell, look at the sun to see that He can.

While on this topic, it should be said that Hell will probably not be like being in a fire with a human body filled with nerves. Rather, souls will be tossed there. While souls may not feel the pain that nerves do, you don't want to go there. Jesus implied that the lake of fire will be across a giant chasm that He calls the "outer darkness." It sounds like outer space. Take that to heart all ye astronomers that study solar details. Come to your better senses today.

In my atomic model, the non-orbiting electrons at the peripheries of all atoms are held to the proton with equal force. This allows one to seek the mechanics of electrical flow apart from the establishment reason: electrical conductors have outer electrons held more weakly. If electrons can be made to transfer atom-to-atom in metal objects while the same is not true of plastic materials, the reason could have to do with the number of free electrons in the atomic spaces, because it's known that lower temperatures makes electrical flow easier, with less resistance. That is, heat resists electrical flow to a degree, and may therefore resist all flow in such materials as plastic.

In my atomic model, the H atom is the largest while metals have the smallest atoms. I can literally prove this to be a fact (but not again here). Therefore, metal atoms are expected to have the smallest atomic spaces, and thus there are far fewer free electrons in metals than larger atoms. The captured electrons in metals thus get to move along with little restriction.

However, there is at least one exception where tungsten metal is "a good conductor at high temperatures, it's a poor conductor at standard temperatures, making it suitable for applications where conductivity isn't needed." The shape of the tungsten atom could explain that, but nobody knows its shape. If they claim to know its shape, they are imagination-based inventors.

Logically, when pushing captured electrons along, they flow along paths of least resistance, wherefore the suspicion is that they flow on the outer edges of wire, not in the interior. To help prove this: "While pure lead conducts electricity, a layer of lead oxide forms on its surface when exposed to oxygen, which acts as an insulator." Pollute the atoms on the outer edges of lead, and the pollution won't allow electrons to flow. As they won't flow in the interior, we assume that there's too much resistance in the interior due to atoms being merged from every side. On the surface, atoms are only about half merged, with the other half naked to the air. Big difference. When the naked half is covered in oxide, electrons are as if glued together.

The stupids have no reason to claim that electricity should run only, or best, on the surface of a wire, because their atomic model has almost all space even in the atom's interior. In my model, atoms in the wire are all merged and tightly packed, with little space in atomic interiors because, in reality, atoms capture many-more electrons than the laughable few of the establishment model. The H atom has one electron alone, HAHAHAHAH.

One cannot test whether electricity flows in the interior of a wire because, if you stick something into the interior to check it out, that something will also contact the outer edge of the wire. Here's the foolers: "This is why a thicker wire is more effective at carrying DC current, as it provides more space for the electrons to flow." It's arguing that electricity flows in the wire's interior too, but, ah, er, the bigger the wire diameter, the bigger in area the outer surface, and as the stupids know this, they also know the statement above proves nothing that they are trying to prove.

Twice the surface area results with a wire twice the diameter. I've just learned that a 10-gauge wire is TWICE the diameter of a 16-gauge wire. The latter require 15-amp breakers while the 10-gauge wire requires 30-amp breakers, meaning that the wire TWICE the diameter can carry TWICE the amps (when forming as much heat loss as the 16-gauge wire carrying 15 amps), as expected if current runs only on the wire's exterior. Maximum amps per wire depend on how much heat loss they emit as per posing a heat-damage dangers to homes.

However, somebody who is taught that electricity runs also on the interior of the wire will claim that a wire twice the diameter can safely handle 4 times as many amps, because a wire twice the diameter has four times the cross-section. Apparently, building codes discredit that assessment.

So, then, the big goofer will need to explain how free electrons in a wire fly through the air at the exterior of the wire. Yes, if electricity runs only on the outer-edge of a wire, they run in the air. In their model, some orbiting electrons stop orbiting, and fly straight lines down the wire, meaning they need to fly through the air above the outer layer of the wire. Now you know why the big goofer doesn't like the idea of electricity running only on the wire exterior.

In my model, where electrons don't orbit, electrons run atom-to-atom while being attracted to protons. That is, they flow simultaneous to remaining captured. They are never freed electrons. The magnet at the electrical plant pushes them along in spite of their remaining captured to protonic attraction. It seems doubtful that only the last and outer layer runs along, as that would cause at least one layer deep to run too, but by-and-large, only the outer electrons run. I'm not going to be dogmatic in saying the interior electrons don't run, but if they do, per any given metallic type, they would run more slowly due to being more confined.

The goofers have the obvious problem that flying electrons don't have radar in order to see ahead of time the massive protonic cores directly in front of them. These straight-ahead electrons can't swerve around protons, we can be sure, because they are attracted by them. STUCK is the word, especially as the goofs admit that drift velocity is so slow. yet the goofs don't mention that attraction, as if it's not part of the action. They would say that free electrons bump and bang around some, within atoms, but eventually get to the end use. Impossible. The goofs can't ignore the giant protonic core in that picture, or the fact that the electrons need to fly past zillions of protons. It destroys their electricity model, and they thereby show themselves to be moronic while claiming to be physics-savvy.

Electrons don't have computerized systems on board to help them avoid being smacked on the backside by orbiting electrons everywhere along their route to the light bulb. CRASH is the word. Just when you thought the goofs couldn't be more stupid, they give that picture for the flow of electricity.

The handlers of google's AI must have been reading my work, because they are now putting up the following: "Imagine a long line of billiard balls [as electrons in the wire]; if you hit the first one, all the other balls move almost instantly because the force transfers through the entire chain. Electrons are already there [in contact by their inter-repulsion]: The wire is full of free electrons, so when a new electron is 'pushed in by [at] the switch, it pushes on the existing electrons, creating a chain reaction that lights the bulb [instantly]." That's a decent picture of the reality. The electrons are already there. Good stuff.

BUT, oye, the goofers can't use that picture because their electrons are orbiting at the instant the light switch is turned on. Their electrons are therefore not, as they are in the real electric wire, like billiard balls back-to-back. They could try to claim that some of their orbiting electrons have become permanently free, because that solves that problem.

They don't get to choose the concept of free electrons just loitering around, waiting for the light switch to turn on. The goofers don't get to claim that, while all materials have orbiting electrons, electrical conductors have permanent free electrons too. That's just plain cheating the world, refusing to admit that electrons don't orbit in any material. The electrical wire is evidence that electrons don't orbit. FACE IT. Orbiting electrons are not only not needed, they make the establishment look moronic, like they swallow, and lick their chops for, any impossible thing.

I asked: "what do free electrons do when electricity's not running?" I just wanted to know whether they decided to keep the electrons motionless, or what. The goofs have no idea what the electrons do, but they want us to believe they know just about everything. They have a reason for every belief, always in accord, as best as they can get it, with their imaginary theories: "When electricity isn't running, free electrons don't stop moving; instead, they continue to move chaotically and randomly in all directions within a conductor due to thermal energy from room temperature." Why do we think this answer was given instead of motionless electrons? Motion is the son of the big-bang god. Evolutionists don't like stationary particles. It makes them uncomfortable.

In the same way that attraction forces between two or more objects brings them all to rest, ditto for repulsion forces between confined particles. As electrons all repel each other, they will repel each other to equal distances from each other, and they will also LOCK each other into equa-distant positions. They will be motionless that way, until something causes them to move, I win, the goofs lose. They once again show themselves to be foul-thinking law breakers.

Besides, in their atomic model, free electrons in a wire are not confined at all. They can slip to the outdoors at any time to get some sun bathing, precisely because they are said to be constantly moving. It's just that the goofs pretend that their free electrons are confined in the metal atoms. Why? What keeps them from leaving if they aren't attracted to the protons? FOUL-THINKING IDIOTS demand the monopoly on educating the world.

They themselves claim that metal is 99-percent space. Therefore, they KNOW FULL WELL that, in their model, when free electrons roam for their first time to the exterior of the wire, the chances are great that they will not collide with a proton, and will therefore slip out to the outdoors, into the air. If we keep a wire without current for a year, surely all the ever-moving free electrons will have found their way out of the wire by then. Yet, after the year is up, or even 50 years later, we flip the light switch on and...INSTANT LIGHT. It means that the light is not caused from free electrons in stand-by in the wire, but from flow of captured electrons.

As orbiting electrons can't travel down the wire, it means that captured electrons do not orbit. I win, they lose deplorably. The electric wire proves that electrons do not orbit.

Their other problem is, the more that free electrons in metals move around, the more likely they will become trapped on a proton. Let's get real, there is no way for free electrons existing INSIDE atoms not to be pulled by protons in a micro-second. Only a flipped-out fool doesn't admit this. There's no place else that randomly-moving electrons can fly about (if we pretend that they can't escape the metal) but right between protons and orbiting electrons. There is no viable excuse they can give to affirm that the proton cannot attract a free electron flying right across is nose. That proton will snap that wanderer up like a frog on a fly, and that electron will stop dead in its tracks on the face of the proton. It will make electrical flow impossible when all free electrons get snatched by protons.

Don't be such a fool as to believe that, just because a cluster of 16 protons has 16 orbiting electrons, that the protons cannot also attract other electrons to its surface. The fools who govern atomic physics NEVER talk about electrons stuck to a protonic surface, the second indicator that they are lunatics. The first indicator is the orbiting electron.

They don't want you to even know the possibility or "concept" of electrons stuck to protonic surfaces. The true atom has them stuck that way on every "square inch" of the proton's surface, and that's only the first layer. Logic dictates it. Each proton, in reality, has many electron layers one on top of the other (logic dictates it). It makes for a literal atmosphere of electrons because, after the first few layers in which electrons are extremely crowded (logic dictates it), they begin to hover over each other (logic dictates it). I don't just make these ideas up on a personal whim. I follow logic as dictated by known and simple laws.

We are dealing here with a simple positive proton and simple negative electron. How difficult can it be to discover what the atom looks like? It's so easy to figure along logical, lawful lines, but evolutionists didn't want it; they needed something else, starting from a H atom invented to their liking. The problem has been the evolutionist. He it is who is folly. He hath polluted modern society with more than bad science. He shall pay the no-small price.

They made the electron possess the same force level as the proton, which is obviously self-serving so that they could create the H atom to their liking. Their problem is, the stronger the electron, the more the proton will attract it such that the chances of forming an electron orbit is far-less likely than impossible. The stronger the attraction between the two, the more like a fly to the frog's mouth the electron will be, making a quick, straight-line path into the mouth of the proton. It's just that the quacks don't tell you of these problems. Instead, they enchant you, and make you think that opposition like me are dangerous for being nuts.

They made the electron have a super-charge of attraction to the proton so that they could better justify zillions of orbits per second. Nobody but a lunatic thinks that the charge of an electron can be strong enough to keep the electron in orbit that fast. Nobody who follows known laws invents that picture. Then, even when electrical wires force the goofs to admit that electrons fly slowly past protons, about a foot per hour (their speed, not mine) in the case of going for a visit to a light bulb, they don't so much as deny that the electron will be sucked instantly to the protonic surface. They don't deny it because they don't want the idea to come to your mind.

We are not dealing with scientists here, but wicked, deplorable and demonic lunatics who don't mind feeding you the trash if it can help turn society away from YHWH. He has a name which He gave Himself on our behalf. He's not some far-away absent landlord. He gave mankind His own name, and He told us what He expects of us if we want to retain the gift of life, if we want to graduate to a better life with better settings. If this life is not to your liking, the blame goes to a confused, divisive, and cold mankind which evolutionism facilitated. The last vestiges of Christianity's salvaging effects on society are dwindling further because evolutionists train the people to ignore our messages.

Probably, the idea that electrons don't stop moving (when the electricity is not on) was invented in hopes of explaining why metal protons don't suck the electrons to themselves. Perhaps the goofs thought that they could fool their best stooges into thinking that the electrons just bounce off of protons continually, never losing speed in the process. After all, only a really-good stooge would fail to realize that attraction force is a killer of all motion. Ask a ball that bounces less to gravity with each bounce until it comes to a halt. But there are other things you can ask, lots of things, so that the fools have no excuse.

That's right, the fools know better than to teach that an electron flying into the vicinity of countless protons cannot survive long in motion. THEY KNOW BETTER, but lie anyway, because they are rotten souls, the scum of the education system. Throw the bums out with their stooges.

By now, AI is starting to get suspicious of me for the taboo questions I'm asking. I think AI's going to report me soon to the ruthless dictators. I've just asked: "how do free electrons in metal avoid being attracted to protons when electricity is not running?" Don't worry, they'll have a pat answer; they think of everything in order to hold on to power.

Free electrons in a metal don't collapse into the atomic nuclei because of their QUANTUM NATURE [caps mine], which prevents them from occupying the same space and energy levels.

When in trouble, use phrases like "quantum nature," mesmerize the audience, make the people think your intelligence is much higher such that they don't mistrust you or ask questions. The quantum nature prevents the electron from occupying the same space as the proton, thus nullifying the expectation (attachment) from the attraction between the two. That's what you just read. Do you believe that to be a proper answer, or does that look like diversion, deflecting, or wiggling?

The same response goes on to say: "Their constant, high-energy thermal motion also prevents them from settling [onto the protonic core], as they rapidly collide with atoms and bounce off in random directions..." They didn't tell you that attractive forces shorten each electron bounce off the proton. Is that just a minor infraction? Is it just a minor violation against your right to be properly educated?

The answer included the self-serving "constant" word, and the "high-energy" phrase, as an aid to the desperation of the writer seeking foremost to implant in your mind the un-truth that the electron is constantly fast in spite of the protons (plural) that are in its way with built-in "gravity" power to suppress its speed. The electron has no chance in that situation.

Nor will these demonic fiends admit that the free electrons would knock orbiting electrons out of orbit over CONSTANT contacts. The FASTER the free electrons, the more they can be expected to frustrate perfect orbits. As the free electrons are constantly on the fast move, they will forever collide, sooner or later, with the same orbiting electrons. But as there are countless free electrons, ah, er, how many collisions with orbiting electrons do you think are allowed before orbits are destroyed? The fiends, as with all else, have a pat answer invented to address that destructive scenario, for, in their atomic model, orbital destruction is the destruction of the universe.

Wave Versus Flow

The stupids are now correcting themselves with the billiard-ball illustration, but, to save face, they still say: "When you flip a switch, the electric field, which causes electrons to move, travels through the wire at nearly the speed of light...What you perceive as 'electricity is the movement of energy through the circuit, not the actual individual electrons traveling from the power source to the bulb" (google AI). See how stupid they are, like morons.

They have both a "drift" velocity of free electrons, plus an electromagnetic wave travelling at the speed of light that creates the light. If their wave through a wire is their quantum thingie that flies through empty space, then ignore the morons, let them be to their own shame.

The wave in a wire cannot move at the speed of light, or the speed at which light propagates through free electrons in the air. For, the wave through a wire moves through captured electrons which, due to being pulled by protons, offer resistance to the wave.

In the air, free electrons are free birds, easy to knock forward. A wave is a forward knock followed by a forward knock upon electrons. If ALL the "billiard balls" in the row move at the first knock, the speed is instant from switch to light bulb, faster than the speed of light. If there's time between each knock, the light bulb doesn't go on instantly. In the air's free electrons, the knocks have very little time between them. The more resistance to motion in the knocked electrons, the more time there will be between knocks.

You can see here that the resistance to motion of the very outer electrons in a wire is far less than in the interior of the wire. The outer electrons are half in the air, and literally hovering in space, but hovering on the repulsion forces of electrons beneath them (likewise hovering). As they run down the wire with very little friction due to hovering, some of them, in the commotion, go free into the air as heat. If you make them run faster, more of them get knocked off as more heat. It's just simple physics. The faster they flow, the more bumps they meet on the road, the more they hop up and away from the road. Every upward hop forms a light wave, though it's only infra-red light at normal, household speeds.

AI, on the first day I've ever seen it from anyone, puts the light-bulb illustration also in this way: "This means that while the individual electrons in a wire are very slow-moving, the energy they carry is transmitted almost instantaneously throughout the circuit, similar to how water fills a hose – when one drop is added to one end, a drop comes out the other almost immediately." That's exactly how a light wave works, with the last drop entering and heating a light-struck material. However, we shouldn't make the wave important for getting the drop out while relegating the electrical flow to an irrelevant role.

A light wave likewise causes a literal flow, but this is on top of the flow of the solar wind due to constant, in-sun repulsion force. The waves come from the electron jolts in the sun, but the overall negative force of all free electrons drives the solar wind as a second flow. There's a wave flow across the solar-wind flow.

Not so with a light bulb. That is, the bulb doesn't have enough negative power at the filament to form a literal wind toward the wall. Instead, there is only a wave-caused flow across the aether in the room. The is a literal, repulsion-formed wind to be expected near the filament, but only there.

The jolting is all there is in the electric wire to the bulb, for the negative power of the magnet is not CONSTANTLY making for flow in the wire, as can be proven when there's no electricity in the wire if it's merely placed stationary between the poles of magnet. The wire needs to be turned in the magnet's presence to cause the jolts. Therefore, there is no drift flow in distinction to flow caused by jolts, meaning that the waves and drift are identical insomuch as the waves cause the drift.

The waves are due to repulsion, but it's not on constantly. It's in spurts, each spurt or jolt causing many waves that can be regarded as one wave. It's one wave but travelling across every captured electron in the wire. In that sense, there are many waves, one per one electron path. The electrons do not all flow at the same speed per wave, because they are held either more tightly or more loosely by the protons. The electrons at the outer edges of the wire are expected to flow the fastest.

The larger the wire diameter, the slower the drift flow because each jolt spreads out into more electrons, and they cannot all get onto the filament. The thinner the filament, the slower the drift flow. The wave cuts across every electron in the wire, but only a few get to cross the filament bridge. The billiard-ball analogy fails for this aspect; it's not really one jolt to one ball resulting in one ball going across the filament. It's one jolt to many balls where only a few get onto the filament; the others go forward a little but bounce back (as logic dictates).

It also means that there is nothing in the wire, or in the solar wind, travelling at 186,000 miles per second. It's an illusion from the fact that, when the first electrons pass the switch, the same numbers of electrons enter the filament almost instantly, taking up about as much time as would be taken if the first electron were travelling the entire ten feet from switch to bulb at almost 186,000 mph.

The reason that the same number of electrons would pass the switch as enter the filament is that the latter dictates it. If the hose nozzle lets out three cubic inches of water per second, then only three cubic inches can pass the open tap per second.

I hate to complicate this, but while I'm viewing things as one-way flow for the sake of explaining the mechanism, household power supposedly has back-and-forth flow 60 times per second. They say there's one forward jolt from the electric station's magnet, and one backward flow, both taking up one second. I don't know much about AC-power mechanics, but if what they say is correct, the backward flow would bring electrons from the wire beyond the filament, backward through the filament, repeatedly 60 times per second. There's reason to doubt this, because one then expects the filament to be brightest at both its ends but "cool" at its middle. I don't think that's what happens.

As the forward jolt is primary as compared to the backward pull (by the positive end of a magnet), consider that it makes electrons move forward, wherefore the backward pull may only slow the forward flow such that there results fully a forward flow. I'm seeing a jolt forward, followed by a stoppage or near-stoppage in flow, then another jolt forward, over-and-over again. If we ask what use it serves to slow the forward flow 60 times per second, there's at least two good answers: 1) it creates chaos in the electrons for helping to shake them out of filaments; 2) it slows the flow speed but allows a larger magnet. Otherwise, if a larger magnet pushes forward constantly, the long-distance wires would get hotter (temperature wise) due to the too-fast flow. It's known that AC power is used because it's cooler (less energy/heat loss) for long distances than one-way current.

There is no wave going forth from the electric plant when the electrons are pulled backward. The AI goof at google claims that AC power involves vibrating electrons. To kineticists, particle vibration is Nirvana. They live for it. Never mind vibrating electrons. If there's no flow, there's no light at the filament. AC power doesn't purely shake electrons out of the filament by vibrating them, for if it did, one wouldn't need a filament; just shake them out of the large wire. The chaos created by a back-and-forth motion, would no doubt help to get electrons out of the filament.

My problem is that the back-and-forth flow is said to be far less the distance than the thickness of a human hair. Again, that should only make the filament glow at both ends of it, but not in the middle, especially for long filaments. Therefore, I'm going to call the goofs out for making yet another error. I'm going to tentatively claim that AC power is a fully-forward flow, with slowdowns 60 time per second.

A video I've just watched shows that the same (spinning) magnet is used to jolt forward and "suck" backward. As one pole of the magnet jolts electrons forward while the other pole of the same magnet pulls them back, it means that, due to both poles having the same strength to do their job, the best the sucking end of the magnet can do is stop the electrons. For if the other ends sends them into motion, the sucker can only stop the original motion, not stop it PLUS send it in the other direction too.

Nobody knows how fast the solar waves are to Earth, since nobody can be at the sun to see when a jolt begins in order to time how long it takes for that jolt's wave to reach the planet. The goofs have taken the position that light travels at the same speed in every vacuum everywhere, without considering the spacing of the aether electrons. That's one of the mistakes of the particle/bullet theory of light. True waves change speed depending on what they are cutting across. The question is, how does the flow of the solar wind alter light-wave speed? Would the speed be the same if the solar-wind particles were not moving?

Just to clarify, a light wave can move faster than 186,000 mps, much faster, but no aether particles even approach that speed. The bumping along, aether electron to aether electron, moves super-fast, but the speed of the bumping is nowhere near as fast. The wave is going to move roughly just as fast regardless of the speed of the bumps. A louder sound makes for faster bumps across air atoms, but the sound wave always travels at roughly the same speed.

The situation is the akin to whether you push one end of a stick slowly or faster, the end of the stick moves at the same time, instantly, in both cases. Whether the wave-medium particles move slowly or faster, the resulting push at the end of the wave occurs over roughly the same time, because, like as per the stick's atoms, the wave-medium particles are in contact...which proves that gas atoms (the carriers of sound waves) are in contact by their repulsion forces i.e. the goofs goofed big time when denying that gas atoms repel each other. Sound waves and gas weight both destroy the kinetic model of atoms. You cannot have sound waves across atoms that are neutral or attractive to each other. The waves require atoms locked together in repulsion.

We read above from this same AI: "When you flip a switch, the electric field, which causes electrons to move, travels through the wire at nearly the speed of light...What you perceive as 'electricity is the movement of energy through the circuit, not the actual individual electrons traveling from the power source to the bulb." Not only does this confused soul deny the importance of the electron flow, but has a flying electric field, which is the quantum thingie-ghost-wave I talked about last week, that impossible phantom of their imaginations. They perceive an energy-entity flying through the air without a body, but they draw the body anyway, shaped wavy, but of course.

There are literal waves moving through the electrons that are, to the best of my ability to understand it, inseparable from the physical flow of electricity. The magnet at the electrical plant sends 60 waves per second (from 60 cycles per second) that are TRUE WAVES, understood in the ordinary way as travelling across the electrons. Each wave begins like the bang of a hammer against the first electron, and the bang-energy travels bang-bang-bang across all the electrons to the filament. This is not the quantum-thingie ghost-wave.

With water out a hose, there are no waves because the pressure pushing the water out is constant. But with electricity, there are 50 or 60 bangs per second, each forming a wave, to push electrons along. This true wave is buried in the flow, too hard to know its speed (it's going to be different for different metals), and while the wave causes the flow, forget the wave for practical purposes in teaching how electricity runs. Instead, stress what everyone understands, the flow, and don't confuse instant reaction at the electrical load as something travelling at 186,000 mph. The flow can be any speed to get a near-instant reaction at the load. The higher the volts, the faster the flow.

It may be hard to explain without a video, but you may be able to get it. The wave can conceivably be exactly the flow if there were no resistance in the wire, no thin filament to cross, just the wire stuck into a lake, for example, where we pretend that the lake water offers no resistance. In that scenario, each forward jolt moves at the same speed as the flow. The jolts become the flow exactly. The wave and the flow are identical. In that case, the flow speed is at maximum, and is the speed of the jolting.

But when there is resistance to flow, the speed of the flow slows in proportion to the level of resistance while the wave speed can be predicted to remains the same. The waves exist (to the switch) and move across the electrons even when the switch is turned off, with zero electron flow. You can't smack the electrons and not have a wave of energy moving across them. Instead of the electrons moving forward and remaining forward, they get knocked forward but all bounce back to their original positions, because flow is blocked at the switch.

BUT, if the electric flow is by free electrons not captured by protonic attraction, the waves, both when the switch is turned off and when the only path forward is a tiny filament, would knock the electrons clear out of the wire because it has no brick wall to keep them in. The exterior of the wire doesn't even have police tape to keep them in.

Of course, the goofs had to invent some type of "wall" at the exterior of all conductor metals. They called it an "energy barrier." All they need to do is tell their stooges and students alike that the free electron can't get past that barrier unless it moves fast enough, and, of course, the electrons aren't fast enough. That's it. You either believe that concept, or you be smarter, like me, and realize that it's make-believe to fix a problem. Their energy barrier was invented as positively-charged metal atoms. But metals do not have positively-charged atoms. It's invention.

The only way to have positively-charged metal atoms is to have excess protonic charge, and so that now creates the other problem wherein protons are expected to suck and trap free electrons instantly. It's not coincidental that the goons have the free electrons flying too fast to be captured by protons, but not fast enough to escape them to the outdoors. It's by design of the invention. But of course.

If all electric-conducting metals were net-positive, they would show charge. The fact is, metals show no charge. We are back to hypocrisy, where, when needed, metals are said to have positively-charged atoms, even though it's not true. I asked google: "are conducting metals all positively charged?" The response: "No, conducting metals are not inherently positively charged; they are electrically neutral overall, consisting of positively charged metal ions..." What folly. Metal ions are the metal atoms. When needed to create a wall to keep free electrons in metal, the frauds want us to believe that metal atoms are net-positive, even though metals are neutral. That's how they roll, without principles or morals. Change artists. Fabricators. Actors. Hypocrites. Deceivers.

When the fraudsters make drawings or videos of the free-electron situation in an electric wire, why don't they mention what I've just said? Because, they are frauds who pay no attention to their consciences, but play blind obedience to the establishment instead. When the world starts to criticize the establishment, the stooges will become ashamed to pay it obedience. Until then, error upon error.

There has been so much time and money spent on understanding the most-complicated physics processes that the goofs (putting it mildly) fully know they are lying with free electrical electrons, for if they say on the one hand that these particles can CONTACT metal protons but bounce safely away repeatedly, then how can they turn around and say that the same electrons travelling between protons ("far" from protons) can't get away from them in order to escape into the air? Therefore, there's no such thing as free current-flow electrons. There are free electrons in metals, but they are the heat which frustrate electrical flow.

Where one teaches that one electron jolted from the electric plant equals one electron crossing the filament, it's an untrue illustration to show how electricity acts so fast over long distances. However, it is certifiably true that one electron passing the switch is one electron passing the load.

If the 60 pushes per second at the electric plant were pushing literal billiard balls in physical contact, the flow would be instant from end-to-end. It would be faster than a wave moving across balls at a distance from each other, with repulsion force between them. It takes time for one particle in repulsion to push another, and this time determines speed of wave travel. The AI response above, using the billiard-ball analogy, gave the impression that electrons enter the filament only by wave force, a faulty analogy as given because it has no forward flow of the balls. There are three things going on, the physical jolt, the wave from the jolt, and the flow from the wave and jolt. However, as the filament is such a thin wire, most of the waves, unable to get across it, bounce back and return to the electric plant such that they then inhibit forward flow. Thus, the physical jolts are the main movers. The waves will travel far faster than the flow when the latter is restricted by the filament.

The electric wire situation is not the same as back-to-back balls that are smacked where none move forward in the direction of the smack aside from the last ball in the row. In the wire, the jolts move the "balls" along per smack. The goof(s) who programmed AI framed the analogy such as to make you think that the electron flow isn't important, that the balls enter the filament from the wave energy alone. There's probably a fix'er-upper reason to that claim. Something in their atomic model needs that claim, or it wouldn't be made.

As they have electrons forced to cash into innumerable protons while running as electricity, there's going to be such a massive restriction to flow speed that mathematicians tasked with discovering the drift velocity would be bound to greatly err in making it far too slow for the reality.

The wave under discussion by me does not go literally though the electron's body, as it would through the atoms of literal billiard balls. I don't know whether wave energy can cut across the electron's body. I'm just simplifying by focusing on the forward motion of the electrons due to the waves that strikes them.

Now, if we have electricity from a battery, we do away with the waves fully. We have the goof trapped in his own mire. We are now in the same situation as water pushed through a hose by the CONSTANT pressure in a water tank. Constant pressure means no bangs per second, no waves per second. The battery plates are filled with electrons having a high-negative charge, on-the-ready to push electrons down a wire to an end use. The goofers have now got to admit that the battery power lighting up a light bulb does not derive in any kind of wave they might imagine, but from the electron flow alone.

The same number of waves having the same level of push-force from the electric plant's magnet can cause a different number of electrons to cross a filament, depending on the thickness of the filament. This shows that flow across the filament is due to flow speed in the wire, not complicated.

The stupids have so deceived / confused the people that even Energy One reports: "When the switch is turned on, electrons flow through the switch and the wire at the speed of light and through the light bulb, and this electron." Where did this writer get that erroneous information? From the stupids. Only recently have I seen a drift velocity mentioned that starts to tell the picture in a way one can understand. Previously, the teaching was that electricity / electrons moved at the speed of light.

Waves though wires, without electron flow, are the only concern for communication signals. They move incredibly fast through the wire as true waves. The fact that they can move through wires proves that true waves do not have the fantastic "wavelength" widths that the stupids assign to radio waves. These people are bonkers. They learn from bonkers education passed down to them from evolutionist demonoids.

Signals sent out by antennae cannot be done with battery power, because DC power is constant and cannot make waves. Radio / telephone waves are accomplished by sending alternating (back-and-forth) current into an antenna, forcing the antenna's electrons to go up and down, and thus they jolt into the atmospheric aether, creating waves through the aether. Each up-and-down is one cycle, producing "one" wave in all directions through many electrons. Each of the many waves is one straight-line wave having roughly the diameter of one electron's diameter. Each of the many aether waves produced by the one wave up the antenna is produced by one electron jolt in the antenna. The one wave up the antenna creates many jolts sending out the same electronified information, for example the same sentence, "mommy, those guys are bonkers."

With both air waves and wire waves, they move across electrons, but the stupids will not admit that the air is filled with electrons, and for that reason they invented their imaginary thingie-wave that can be a two miles wide, or even a hundred miles wide, hahahaha.

We are told that cell-phones waves go out many meters wide into the air, but this nonsense boggles my comprehension, for an antenna much shorter, the one in a phone, can pick up the entire waves. How can a small antenna pick up radio waves unless radio waves go in straight lines like visible-light waves, without mentionable width? The goofs are clearly in error when they invented wide light waves. What were they drinking?

The good news is that google gave the correct answer to my question, "does DC power come in waves?" Answer: "No, pure Direct Current (DC) does not inherently come in waves; it is characterized by a constant, unchanging flow of electrons in one direction... Mark this: a light bulb needs no waves. Nor does a motor. Nor does a heating element. Electron Flow rules.

So far as I can tell, the goofs have goofed big time, probably for a fix-er upper reason, when calculating drift velocity. google AI says: "The drift speed (or drift velocity, v) of electric current is calculated using the equation v = I / (nqA), where I is the electric current [in amps], n is the density of charge carriers (like electrons) per unit volume of the material, q is the charge of a single carrier, and A is the cross-sectional area of the conductor." There's nothing in that equation to indicate restriction to flow from the massive atomic cores! LIARS. Plus, they have no idea how dense metals are in free electrical electrons because there are none. FOOLS.

As the particles for the formula above are not being compared to other particles, we can use the number, 1, for the charge of the particles. We can also use 1 for the unit size of the wire since we're not comparing it to another wire size, and ditto for the density since there's no comparison being made. If there's a flow of 10 amps, the formula for copper wire becomes: velocity = 10 / (1 x 1 x 1) = 10 units. The problem is that, when we double the density of electrons for an imaginary metal that has twice as many, the formula becomes: 10 / (2 x 1 x 1) = 5 units of velocity.

The formula thus reduces the flow speed when the electrons are closer to each other, which is obviously wrong when their free-electron model of current is in view, because the closer the free electrons, the faster they move under their own inter-repulsion forces. The jolting from the electric plant is not all there is for determining flow speed. The jerks are out to lunch. They are lying to the public for a reason(s).

The formula treats the electrons as things to push, and cuts the velocity in half when there's twice the electrons to push, yet it ignores the greater inter-repulsion between electrons when they are twice as dense. If the formula increases the charge-force figure, the speed gets lower when in fact the speed should get higher. It's as though the formula is treating charge force as acting (repelling) AGAINST the agent that creates velocity. That's not how electricity works. The higher the charge force, the faster the electrons will repel each (if one could increase their charge force, which can't be done), and the faster they therefore will travel to the load.

Plus, they have the cross-sectional size of wires in the formula, which assumes that electrons run through every part of the wire. The formula, for double the wire size, thus applies four times the pathway, as compared to only twice the pathway if electrons flow only on wire surfaces, meaning that the formula is given twice as much value on this count, resulting in a velocity figure of half what it should be if electrons run only on wire surfaces.

Of course, in their model, their electrons cannot run on the wire surface. Besides, in their model, increasing the wire size makes absolutely zero change in how fast the current can flow, because the forest of atoms doesn't change density with more metal material. The only restriction to flow, in their model, is the atomic material that gets in the way, but the formula doesn't address that aspect at all.

Perhaps, for one of more reasons, they want a very slow flow speed because it harmonizes with their "boiling" out of electrons from the filament as opposed to spraying out. I claim the latter to be true, but they describe filament emission as merely boiling out softly. If electrons spray out, it looks more like the creation of light waves.

Put it this way, that electrons must fly across, and out of, the filament faster than they travel down the large wire, same as how water squirts faster out the hose end when the hose end is compressed by the fingers. Therefore, it stands to comprehension that the goofs would wish to assign flow speed as slow as possible in order to slow filament-emission speeds.

The real numbers of electrons lost at filaments creates the problem of: where do all the wires in the city get back their electrons? It's such a big problem for those who reject a sea of free electrons in the air that they, the delusional, would wish to minimize the numbers of electrons getting out of filaments. The delusional don't even mention the problem, like when people are embarrassed about a private thing, they don't advertise it.

The problem in this case goes beyond embarrassment because they are denying the people a key tenet of physics. When one accepts that the air has free electrons no matter where on Earth one goes, one also realizes that the solar wind is their source. That then leads to the discovery that electrons define heat material, and as it's impossible to add free electrons into the air without losing the same number daily into outer space (or the Earth would fry), it leads to the additional knowledge that gravity is a negative charge that repels the electrons back into outer space (mainly on the night side of the planet).

If the evolutionists at google think that they can suppress this work of mine, think again, because this history is not all there is. When the Millennium arrives, the things I'm saying will become common knowledge, common truth, for God will not allow evolutionist crap to pollute His Kingdom.

In the response to my question where google AI gave me the formula above, it ended with: "The calculated drift velocity is often very small, on the order of millimeters per second, even with large currents. The speed of the electrical signal (the electric field) is much faster than the drift speed of the individual electrons, which is why you perceive electricity almost instantaneously." Do you see the moron? They teach as though they are too stupid to realize that, regardless of how slow the drift velocity, the time it takes to get electrons flowing at the load is essentially instant from th time the switch is open, because the wire is already filled with electrons that are floating on slick "grease" atop of atoms.

That grease is their inter-repulsion forces (zero friction applies), and moreover the electrons that flow as current are at the very outer edges of atoms, where they suffer almost zero net-attraction to their protons i.e. they are essentially floating, i.e. with no inertia applicable to them.

When I asked google, "what inertia applies to air atoms," it failed to mention gravity. Instead, it gave the atom's mass as causing its inertia. Ya-but, stupids, the mass causes inertia because it's attracted to gravity. The pull of gravity on floating atoms makes it a little difficult to move them aside. There is a little inertia.

There is plenty of inertia in electrons sitting on a protonic surface, but at the outer edge of the atom, where the number of electrons that repel the outer electron layer about as much as the proton attracts the outer layer, electrons are floating with virtually zero inertia. That's because the net-"gravity" force from the proton is almost zero. The outermost electrons on every atom are barely hanging on to the proton (logic dictates it). It takes almost zero force to move outermost electrons. That's why electrical flow in near-instant.

The stupids can't appeal to flow for creating the instant effect at the filament, because their model has a jungle of atomic cores and orbiting electrons that get in the way of flow. That's the real reason the stupids appeal to waves when explaining the instant effect. The billiard-ball analogy doesn't apply to their model because the billiard balls have no forest of particles between them to slow their domino effect one ball to the next.

The billiard-ball analogy applies to my model because the outer electrons have no jungle in their way whatsoever. There's nothing but the flow of electrons across the wee-wee-wee-wee protonic forces acting against their motion. Electricity takes the path of least resistance, which is the very outer layer(s) of the atom.

There are no waves from a battery bank, yet the light switch turns the bulb on instantly when powered by a battery bank. That's not because the electron flow has to get past zillions of atomic cores and even more orbiting electrons. When you figure in their very slow drift velocity, the prediction is that it should take hours for the bulb to flash from the time the switch is turned on. Can you see how devious they are while seeking to retain / advance / protect their atomic model?

Unbelievably, google AI is telling me that inertia is not due to gravity. It first of all defines inertia as resistance to motion, but even though gravity is a force that causes resistance to motion, yet google is telling me that gravity does not cause inertia. We are dealing with confused souls, confused by an never-ending array of false science.

A piano floating in pure space devoid of gravity has zero inertia. If the stupids deny this just because the piano has mass, they are stupid. The mass is inconsequential if there is nothing resisting its motion. It takes exactly zero energy to move a floating piano in a gravity-less, pure space.

Gravity causes friction in moving objects on a table, and friction creates inertia. The more mass possessed by the objects on the table, the greater the inertia might be (not if one object is wet ice), but it's gravity that causes the inertia (though not gravity alone). Inertia is not proportional to mass, but to friction. Gravity does not attract electrons; gives them zero inertia. The only thing that can give electrons inertia is positive charge, the "gravity" of the proton, or repulsion force when electrons are in a confined space. They are not in a confined space at the edges of a wire, but they do need to flow against the heat particles in their way.

The heat-particle electrons in the air are not confined, because there is no roof in the sky. But atmospheric electrons are as if quasi-confined due to being replenished constantly from the solar wind. If there were no replenishment, they would spread out continuously, but in being replenished, they more or less keep the same density day after day, and for that reason they are as if confined in a box. If they were spreading out fast in all directions, they would offer no resistance to motion to flowing electrons on wires, but as they are as if confined, "locking" one another into place as far as possible from each other, the flowing electrons need to move them out of their way.

If you think it's ridiculous for someone to say that outer electrons are barely held on to protons, that's why you can rub any object with a mere finger and get heat out. The outer electrons going free are then technically heat particles. Same particle, one captured, the other free. Captured electrons cannot enter your skin so long as they are captured, which is why no heat enters your body when you touch all the heat material stacked on the outer edges of atoms. But flowing captured electrons do enter the body, meaning that they are at least quasi-free at the time. They are riding the outer edges of the wire, lifted up a little into the air from the position they have when not flowing.

If you think about it, there's no way to prove that current runs inside the wire as opposed to the surface. However, the goofs have, for some reason(s), admitted, very likely against their perfect wills, that AC power runs on the surface. Google AI:

The skin effect is an electromagnetic phenomenon in alternating current (AC) conductors where the current density is highest at the surface of the conductor and decreases exponentially towards the center, effectively reducing the conductor's usable cross-sectional area. This increases AC resistance compared to direct current (DC) resistance...

Achem, with the goofs controlling education, you never know when a statement is from experimental fact versus theory. Thy are so confident in their beliefs that they will state them as facts. In the case above, their theory expects that current will run more pronounced if it can travel fully inside the wire, which is why they claim that power output is reduced if it travels mainly/only on the surface. In reality, power running in the middle of the wire is expected (by me) to find resistance to flow because all atoms are merged and in contact, whereas half the atoms on the surface are in the air.

To put this another way, AC power runs on the surface because it's the location of least resistance, meaning that surface-running current is a bonus, a plus, not a detriment as the goofs think it is.

Plus, as I don't think they can prove that DC power runs in the interior, I'll stick to my guns and claim that it too rides the wire surface.

I asked: "how was the electrical skin effect discovered?" Answer: "The skin effect was discovered through mathematical reasoning, first by Horace Lamb in 1883...This theoretical discovery..." In other words, they can't discover by experimentation whether current flows inside only, versus surface only, versus both. It's from reasoning only. That is, they could be reasoning wrong on DC power flowing on the inside.

The goofs then invented "eddy currents" on the inside of the wire to explain why AC runs on the surface. They never stop inventing things and calling them for facts. It's not eddy currents, STUPIDS, its flow along the path of least resistance. Repulsion force acts toward the path of least resistance, same as air pressure.

If you have a one-inch hose with a three-quarter-inch sponge in its center, with a 1/8" air gap between sponge and inner hose wall, the water will slow through the sponge, but fast through the 1/8" gap. Most of the water is forced along the path of least resistance.

The thinking is that the back-and-forth of alternating current creates such a commotion in the wire that electric flow is forced to the surface. While that might sound reasonable, that's how the goofs trick people, with fine-sounding arguments. It doesn't make them facts.

I've already shown that there cannot be commotion in the wire's interior simply because the free electric electrons are not there to begin with. Besides, the more commotion there is in the wire, the more apt the free electrons are to go free into the air. They are NOT going to run along the wire surface like men running across the beams of a sky scraper, because there are no steel beams at the outer edges of atoms. Interior free electrons forced to the surface are going to become free birds, DUH. There's nothing there to hold them in the wire.

The goofs claim that protons hold them in the wire when power is turned off. But as a lot of power can be pumped into a wire, it's a no-brainer that free electrons would escape the wire since they are said to be capable of escaping the proton's grasp even when the power is turned off.

There must have been something about AC electrical flow that tipped the physicists off on "skin effect." There must have been something to compel them to form that theory which doesn't serve the establishment's atomic model. It was so compelling that the establishment wasn't able to trash it. The establishment was force to frame the theory in a way that, even to the less-than-astute mind, threatens the free-electron electricity model.

I propose that the compelling reason is the fact that doubling the wire diameter allows only double the amps, yet doubling the diameter gets four times the cross-sectional area. Somebody was bound to think, hmmm, as doubling the diameter gets twice the surface area, maybe the power runs only on the surface. The establishment must have been livid when this idea started to circulate, and in the end the establishment reluctantly permitted the theory only for AC power, but with an erroneous mechanism to explain it that allowed the free-electron model of electricity to survive.

Langmuir Light Waves Look Like an Aetherist's Dream Come True

Anyone who teaches on electrical-wire waves cutting across electrons is in a good position to admit that true waves similarity cut across the drifting solar wind. I asked google if anyone believes in waves through the solar wind. It answered with "magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves," which are envisioned from solar plasma, especially in solar flares. The response also included "Langmuir waves," and this is where things gets interesting. I had no idea what either type of wave was until looking them up just now.

The definition of Langmuir waves, given with profession jargon that's hard to understand for most people, is starting to hit home: "Langmuir waves are longitudinal ELECTROSTATIC oscillations of electron density in plasmas, named after Irving Langmuir, that occur near the electron plasma frequency. Also known as electron plasma waves, they are observed in space plasmas like the solar wind,...Langmuir waves are associated with...magnetic holes." The latter, which may not be magnetic regions as claimed, are hot regions from solar explosions. My street-language interpretation of the above is: electron jolts in the sun cause waves through the solar wind.

I capitalized "electrostatic" because it signals to the trained student or stooge that the Langmuir wave CANNOT be a light wave. See that? When treating waves through the solar wind, the demonoids assure their stooges not to get any ideas such as the solar wind acting as a light-wave medium.

All plasmas, whether the goofs are willing to accept it or not, is a free-electron soup with some positively-charged atoms thrown in. The goofs like to define it as the atoms while ignoring the electrons. The plasma is extremely hot, which is why it's a free-electron soup. Langmuir waves are especially electron-rich plasmas, perfect, because this is my light-wave turf.

Free electrons in all solar plasma spread out freely as the solar wind, but the goofs insist on defining the solar wind with protons, often ignoring the electrons to boot. The stupids have their photon waves flying though the solar wind, but completely unrelated to it. See how moronic they've been for 75 years and counting?

Where you saw that Langmuir waves are said to be "longitudinal," that looks like my definition of a light wave. I don't know enough about them, however. Rather than vibrating sideways to create the wide-flying wavelength-thingie that is the photon-thingie that doesn't exist, longitudinal waves are said to vibrate in the direction of wave travel. Perhaps these vibrations are imagined from the jolting that electrons receive, but, in any case, this looks like my light wave exactly.

Wikipedia has an article, "Electromagnet Electron Wave," which includes the Langmuir wave. Why is this thing called an electromagnetic electron, as if to suggest there are non-electromagnetic electrons. As all electrons are electromagnetic, this electromagnetic electron wave must be so-named to indicate the counterpart to an electromagnetic photon wave. Oh goodie. We read:

In plasma physics, an electromagnetic electron wave is a wave in a plasma which has a magnetic field component and in which primarily the electrons oscillate.

My translation: it's the counterpart to a photon wave. It means that it's at least close to the true light wave, and this can explain why the very next sentence says, to my great surprise: "In an unmagnetized plasma, an electromagnetic electron wave is SIMPLY A LIGHT WAVE [caps mine] modified by the plasma." I'm not sure what exactly is being played here, but, probably, it's not a frank admission that light waves propagate through solar plasma and solar wind. Somehow, the goons will deny it even though that's what this longitudinal wave looks like.

I don't know what they mean by a magnetized plasma. That is, how does it get magnetized? Whatever the case may be, that sort of plasma would have no bearing on whether light waves form or not through the solar wind. All that's need to form such waves is electrons in motion. Nor do I understand what is meant when solar plasma comes unmagnetized such that it, like the last sentence above says, "modifies" a light wave. I wonder what is meant by "modify."

There is no doubt, at all, that plasma CREATES light waves. Nobody will argue that. All the commotion in the sun that creates light waves is in the plasma soup that is the solar body. The only question is whether light waves are true waves through the solar wind, versus photon-phantoms that fly through empty space. It's a big deal to get this right.

Same article: "The Langmuir wave is a purely longitudinal wave...It is an electrostatic wave; as such, it doesn't have an oscillating magnetic field." Translation: it's not a photon wave. The latter is given an oscillating magnetic field. A light wave needs no such thing. It's an invention. The oscillating magnetic field, along with the oscillating electric field that they likewise invented for the photon, are the legs or wings of this phantom, allowing to move through space as a "wave." HAHAHAH, that's funny. It's just a pretend wave. Instead of the wave medium, they gave it oscillations, HAHAHAH. Don't you see? The oscillations make it a wave, HAHAHAHAH. Ya-ya-sure-sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_electron_wave

Before you toss a rock, give it a whack, make it vibrate, and voila, you just made a flying wave. It's vibrating, isn't it? Then it's got to be a wave. The nutcrackers say so. Your rock is more a wave than theirs because the rock, at least, actually exists. They have a massless thingie that vibrates, which is a vibrating nothing.

I'm very happy to see that a Langmuir wave has no oscillating magnetic field, because I can now take this wave seriously. I don't know how it was discovered, and I'm not sure why the above calls it a light wave, but as it's not a photon-wave, maybe it's the true light wave that the goons suppressed. Maybe they were at war against it because it posed a threat. Maybe the establishment received it grudgingly providing that nobody calls it a light wave.

The same article convinces me that the electromagnetic electron wave has no oscillations, as claimed. Here's why they think it has oscillations: "Since electrons have INERTIA the system behaves as a harmonic oscillator, where the electrons oscillate..." If by "inertia" they mean that electrons are attracted by gravity, that's not true, wherefore the premise for claiming oscillations vanishes. I think it's completely stupid, because it breaks known laws, for anything, waves or particles, to travel while oscillating. The real world knows nothing like that. If you give anything a whack such that it vibrates, it doesn't vibrate for long. Atomic attraction resists vibrations because attraction ceases all motion.

For me to imagine vibrating waves twists my mind. Only a lunatic can happily envision them. Even if a rock is vibrating when sunk into water, do we imagine vibrating water waves going forth? No, because a vibration to the left forms a leftward wave while the next vibration to the right makes a right-moving wave. Each wave does not vibrate as it moves along. That's inconceivable.

It seems that wave oscillations are being used by the establishment to distinguish Langmuir waves from photon waves such as to deny that Langmuir waves are light waves. They're going to say, "oops, Langmuir waves don't have the lateral oscillations, they therefore can't be light waves, sorry, aetherists."

The Langmuir wave is being called a plasma wave, as if the goons are deliberately avoiding its extension into the solar wind. All plasma on the solar surface is in contact with the solar wind. All plasma electrons, minus the captured electrons on H atoms, become the solar wind. Most of the youtube videos coming up for me on Langmuir waves do big-time math on the oscillations, as if maybe the establishment is so worried about these waves that the only thing it cares about is making a concerted distinction between its oscillations and those of the photon-wave.

The aether, they say, is making a comeback, but, regrettably, the motivation seems to be to advance "dark matter" and "dark energy," the inventions of evolutionists who seek the "god particle," or the means by which matter once appeared out of nothing, without a true God to perform it. These wackos want to "prove" that matter can be created by some energy thingie that is not matter. What a bunch of madmen. Hurry up, time is running out.

I don't know why the aether, in the beginning, was viewed as stationary in all the universe. It, or its particles, doesn't/don't need to be stationary. Maybe they thought that, if it fills the universe, it can't also be moving, otherwise it'll move past the boundaries of the universe, which is not allowed.

It's all strikes me as funny, like when a man can't see the nose on his face, that nobody I've yet read had postulated that the aether comes out of the sun and stars. Why not? Why couldn't they imagine small weightless particles spewed by stars that then carry starlight as a natural result? The aether would then fill the universe, or most of it. They knew in the 19th century that a weightless particle is not an impossible, massless particle, but one simply not attracted by gravity.

Why didn't anyone consider that Newton's view of gravity might be wrong, that some particles might not be attracted by gravity? All they had to do, after the discovery of positive and negative particles, was to find a viable means for assigning either a negative or positive charge to gravity, and, voila, that definition of gravity suddenly supplies a weightless particle, either the electron or the proton.

As they already believed, in those days, that heat is a weightless material, it would have been easy for them to see the electron that's weightless, not the proton, because they would have realized that electrons are the heat material. I'm of the opinion that the electron was in fact advanced as the heat particle at some level of the science establishment, but that evolutionists shot it down as quickly and as quietly as they could.

Why did physicists of those old days choose to believe that aether particles cannot interact with material things? Who made that rule, and why? Not only is it not true, it's not necessary. Perhaps the evolutionists made up that rule to deny the world the electron as the aether particle.

Today, there are quacks who invent an aether that compliments quantum mechanics and the like, and that allows more inventions, the exciting things that quacks live for. You can witness many of these quacks on youtube. The scary part is that they talk normal.

Another thing I'm hearing is that the aether needs to be incompressible. WHY? Who makes such rules? Who says that aether particles need to be wholly inaccessible or untouchable by matter? Who is the stupid that would first imagine what the aether is, and then seek it in that form? That's backward. First find the aether, then investigate it, and finding what it truly is follows.

Creationists of the 19th century had the advantage of reasoning: why would God create an aether other than one that comes out of stars? Wouldn't it be wiser to make it come out of stars rather than independent of stars? The aether is stellar exhaust. I'm justified in portraying the goofs as morons because they insist on leaving God out of their imaginings. Imagine how big a moron is who does elaborate math solutions on wave oscillations that exist only in his mind. Imagine the waste of time on top of the false information. What do you think is the best word to describe it?

Finding True Planetary Masses

I've decided to remove this section from here due to findings in my next update that confirm my suspicions that the planets are not as far apart as modern astronomy claims. My planet-mass figures shared in this section are based on planetary distances as viewed by the establishment. What was I thinking? I've denounced that solar-system size for years, and so this section is much a waste of confusing time. I'll see about putting up some remnants two updates from now.

Exploring Planetary Spin By Solar-Wind Force

This section explores whether the solar wind has some significant effects on planetary spins. Jupiter's atmosphere strikes the solar wind in a big way because it's a large body when its atmosphere is included. If you agree with me that there is no mass-based inertia, then you can agree that it doesn't take much force to spin a planet.

When Jupiter's atmosphere strikes the solar wind as Jupiter orbits, it pushes the atmosphere counter-clockwise / eastward, which is the direction of the colored bands. Therefore, the solar wind alone might be spinning the atmosphere, since we don't know whether the core spins at all.

As astronomy gives Jupiter a mere 3-degree tilt on its axis, I assume it does so because its colored bands are essentially only three degrees off from perpendicular to the direction of the solar wind.

Put it this way, that if the colored bands were on the order of 20 degrees different from a perpendicular line through the solar wind, it would prove that the solar wind does not cause the bands on Jupiter, because, if that wind did cause some rotation, the bands would be ruined. But even if NASA reports correctly that Jupiter is off kilter from the solar wind by only 3 degrees, I think that picture would allow the bands to survive.

It's possible that NASA has falsely increased the axis tilt as high as 3 degrees in hopes of quelling the possibility that the solar wind spins the gases. I understand why the big-bang cult would not want to admit that the solar wind can spin whole planets, not just their atmospheres. Over thousands of years of accumulative force, the solar wind could bring planet spins to surprisingly-fast speeds.

Repeat: there is no force acting against planetary spin. Any small force coming against one quarter of the planet, but not against another quarter, as is the case with solar-wind, could spin planets a lot more than you may at first think. The inertia doctrine obliterates planetary spin by solar-wind force. Astronomers are brainwashed into thinking that it takes a lot of force to spin a planet.

I'm not saying that all planetary spin is fully from solar-wind force. The fact that Mercury has an axis straight up (0-degree tilt), perpendicular to the solar-wind direction, along with its very slow spin, may be evidence that it spins solely on solar-wind force.

The cross-sectional area of Mercury is said to be about 1/6th that of Earth, wherefore, if correct, and if both planets were at the same orbit, Earth would get six times more spin propulsion from striking the solar wind during orbital travel. However, Mercury is in a thicker solar wind by some 18 times, and moreover it travels 1.6 times faster, predicting that Mercury will get (18 / 6) x 1.6 = 4.8 times more spin propulsion.

I asked google: "how much more dense is the solar wind at Mercury as compared to at Earth?" AI responds: "The solar wind is approximately five to six times denser at Mercury than at Earth,..." This makes no sense. So, as Earth is 2.6 times further from the sun as compared to Mercury, I asked: "how much more dense, in 3-D space, are particles when 2.6 times further from a sphere?" The response: "Since the number of particles (and thus their total mass) remains the same...if the distance is 2.6 times further, the density will be approximately 17.58 times less." We can tentatively say that the solar wind at Earth will be 18 times thinner, and vice-versa. Why, then does astronomy say only 5 or 6 times thicker at Mercury? What's it hiding now? What's it twisting now?

The problem with finding above that Mercury gets 4.8 times the propulsion from striking the solar wind is that it spins in reality 176 times slower than Earth. However, I'm saying that the solar wind is the only cause for Earth's spin, and so this comparison between these two planets is only for entertainment.

The 4.8 time faster for Mercury figures in only from the "side" of each planet striking the wind while in orbit, but there is another factor where the same wind strikes planets face-on upon their sunsides.

The solar wind could not begin to spin a planet by its frontal attack because the eastward force on one half of the face will perfectly counter the westward force. Nor could the frontal attack cause spin northward or southward. The only thing the frontal attack can do is to slow the spin once it's going from some other cause.

Can you see why a planetary orbit can cause spin on an axis? Ask: does the solar wind strike the night-time quarter of a planet? No. Does it strike the sunside quarter of the planet? Yes. Won't that cause spin? Yes. In what direction? Eastward = counter-clockwise. Do all planets spin eastward? Probably.

Astronomy claims that two planets only, Venus and Uranus, spin in the opposite direction of the Earth spin, which, if true, tends to mean that the solar wind does not spin these planets. However, see this from google AI:

No, you cannot see Uranus' spin with a telescope because the planet is too far away and largely featureless, making its rotation undetectable to the naked eye or amateur telescopes, though astronomers can track CLOUD MOVEMENTS [caps mine] over time with advanced instruments like the Hubble or James Webb telescopes to measure its rapid rotation period.

Achem, how can cloud movements tell anyone the spin direction of Uranus? Rather, the cultists are addicted to making facts on whims. They can't help themselves because it's so Nirvana to know everything that can't be known.

Now read this: "No, you cannot see Venus' spin with a telescope because it is permanently covered by thick clouds, obscuring its surface and making any visible surface rotation impossible to observe...With powerful telescopes and specific filters, some faint cloud patterns can be seen in the atmosphere, but this does not reveal the planet's rotation." We are now at the mercy of NASA's space exploration, much of it faked, to confirm whether it's true that Venus and Uranus spin opposite the Earth's counter-clockwise spin.

What if the establishment, not wanting anyone to be able to claim that the solar wind spins all planets to some degree, lied to the world concerning Venus and Uranus, a lie you and I cannot disprove? Is this lie important enough to pass off? Yes, because if all planets spin counter-clockwise, as expected if spun due to collision with the solar wind, then the goofs would need to admit that the solar wind enters the Earth's atmosphere.

They have already lied when saying that there are almost no free electrons in the air. It's not a mistake. It's a lie. It's a cover-up. And if they lie for that cause, what else have they lied about?

What I'm saying is that the maintaining of Earth's spin can be due to the solar wind striking its atmosphere. Then, because gravity holds the atmosphere down, a slowed atmosphere is expected to slow the planetary spin. This may be a very weak way to slow a planetary spin, and perhaps it can explain why Mercury spins far slower, for it has essentially no atmosphere. The solar wind therefore strikes Mercury's mountains and other elevations.

I'm in no position to extensively evaluate or calculate how much greater the slow-down effect will be between particles striking solid terrain versus striking planetary atmospheres. But maybe soon I'll take a good but short stab at it if I revisit this topic.

I can make the case that solar-wind bombardment against a planet's rocks or atmosphere will slow planetary spin. Like I said, INCOMING (not moving across) solar wind cannot BEGIN planetary or atmospheric spin one way or another, but if the planet's terrain or atmosphere moves ACROSS in spin, it also moves across the in-coming solar-wind particles, colliding with them. That's different. The atoms and the particles can slow each other.

Due to the motion of air atoms due to planetary spin (ignores winds here), MORE of them will strike the sides of passing solar-wind particles in the direction of motion, serving to slow air-atom motion, and thus serving to slow planetary spin. This effect is 24 hours daily. It doesn't rest.

While an equal number of solar particles strike the east sides of atoms as strike their west sides (no spin slowing can result), there will be the additional process wherein eastward-moving air atoms strike solar particles, whereas exactly zero solar particles get struck westward. Therefore, atmospheric gases slow in one direction only, the direction of their spin motion. One can either say that the incoming particles slow the air, or one can say that the eastward spin of air slows the air; they are the same thing.

In the same way, an equal number solar particles will strike the eastern versus western slopes of Mercury's terrain, but the fact remains that the spin itself will additionally collide eastward against the particles. I'm proposing that eastward spin of rocks will slow planetary spin much more than eastward spin of air/gas atoms because much of the solar-wind energy goes directly into the planet. Not so with particles striking air.

I'm not saying that God created the planets at rest only to let the solar-wind propel them into a spin. If He did that, it would take a long time for the Earth spin to be once per 24 hours. I'm saying that God created a terminal velocity for spins, where spin propulsion derives from orbital paths striking the solar wind on its side, but, in countering that propulsion, sunside friction forbids the spins from accelerating beyond a point. If there is no friction, planetary spins would be in continual acceleration due to constant orbital collision with the solar wind. But the striking of the wind dead-on upon the sunsides of planets provides the friction to slow or forbid acceleration.

Possibly, God didn't spin Mercury at all, and it's slow spin could therefore be the result purely of some 6,000 years of solar-wind propulsion that's still slowly accelerating today. That could be true for other planets too. The goons, who probably can't know the spin particulars of Uranus, have given it an odd-ball axis such that the spin they claim for it cannot be from solar wind. Perhaps the goons decided it best to give that sort of axis to Uranus to "prove" that solar wind doesn't spin planets.

Take a spinning globe in your right hand and hold it in front of your head. Let your head act as the sun. Smack the left side of the globe, on its sunside, with your left hand, smacking it toward the right. The globe will now spin toward the right. Your left hand is the solar wind colliding with the speeding-along Earth.

If the solar wind could strike the night-time quarter too, there would be no spin propulsion on any planet, for the strike on the night-time quarter would perfectly counter the strike on the sunside quarter. But the leading edges of planets are constantly getting in the way of the solar wind such that it cannot strike the night-time quarter.

google AI lies: "Earth continues to spin [from it's evolution from a solar cloud-clot] because of inertia, which is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion." In other words, the astronomy establishment ignores the effects of the solar wind, and claims the Earth is still spinning since billions of years ago, because there's been nothing to stop its spin since then. WACKO. What about the concept that the Creator spun the planet??? Why isn't that allowed to be a theory? Piece-of-trash google. God will be ashamed of anyone ashamed of Him.

As I've been saying over past weeks, the establishment wrongly teaches that the solar wind does not strike the atmosphere...because it's afraid the world might view the solar-wind electrons as heat particles, which then plays to the solar wind acting as the light-wave aether. But as there is nothing to stop the solar wind from striking the air, it will DEFINITELY propel Earth spin to some degree. The solar wind may be slow, but the Earth is travelling at a fast clip.

All solar-wind particles colliding into the orbiting Earth will propel spin, but not all solar-wind particles striking the air will slow spin because some collisions will be head-on with air atoms, which are unable to slow atmospheric spin. Still, the spin-propulsion energy remains the same at all times (per planet) while the friction at the sunside half increases with spin speed. Eventually, the friction force will equal the propulsion-energy level.

I asked google if the solar wind can spin planets. The response comes from the same ilk who say that sea floors rose ever-so-slow to become mountains over billions of years:

No, the solar wind does not have the power to spin planets. While the solar wind is a constant flow of particles that carries momentum and can push on planets, this force is negligibly small and insufficient to initiate or significantly alter a planet's rotation.

Achem, any small force can accumulate large if it accelerates constantly. Therefore, these Godless, conniving wonders who swallow a billion years like candy are REQUIRED to pose the possibility that the solar wind could have, over billions of years, propelled planetary spins. As they shoot the possibility down, there appears to be a suspicious reason behind the denial. They don't want us looking at the solar wind for maintaining planetary rotation, because, if it's truly the mechanism behind the maintaining rotation, it tends to prove that the solar wind strikes the Earth's atmosphere. SCAAARY.

Jesus said: "For as the father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son will give life to whomever he pleases." It will be a terrible thing to have Jesus say to someone, "I don't know you." Therefore, stop warring against His Creation. Evolve from a goof to a wise man. A person is wise who saves and heals his own soul by making peace with his own Creator, who puts loyalty to Jesus before all else.

NEWS

Robert Kennedy, chief of the Health department in the United States, has fired, with Trump's support, the pro-COVID-vaccine chief of the CDC, whom Trump had nominated for the job. Kennedy is replacing her with a "vaccine skeptic," Jim O'Neill, and the good news is that this sensitive move by Kennedy, which I didn't think he would be able to do under Trump's authority, is that Trump is supporting it...after day one, anyway. This is the way for Trump to go if he wants to keep the congress after 2026.

But, he's always for anything that benefits himself. Let's see him expend himself for the sake of others alone, which is the true mark of a GREAT man. It's his core job as president to expend himself for others, and, according to Jesus, this is how a man helps himself, by not helping himself.

More good news is that at least three upper-level CDC officials have walked out of their jobs in protest, a very super turn of events. Good riddance to them, they can easily be replaced by better people. Let the leftist killers whine, but I'd like to see them in prison for the rest of their lives if they promoted the mRNA vaccines after it was well known that a striking percentage of people were seriously harmed, some of them essentially forced against their wills to receive the "vaccines." NEVER FORGET what the goons did. Here's Trump's current position on COVID vaccines for which he should be jailed for the rest of his life on top of multiple life sentences for what he did in Warp Speed:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/j615Lh5piswl

Trump is doing some super and snappy things about election fraud that will, at least, likely get to the supreme court. If this effort succeeds, the Democrats will probably not be in White-House power for another generation in order to overturn these anti-fraud efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXrRt1XpRk

If the Trump administration really cares for the people, it would de-classify the documents that poisoned people from the following military, chemical "tests". This should make us livid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upYvUe6hWEk

The real purposes of the testing may have been how best to kill Americans slowly, with fingerprints hidden as to the causes of the deaths. St. Louis has many Blacks.

Canadian leftists are gone more demonic than ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhcq0iGrcTc

"Green" energy projects that the canadian prime minister was depending on for his own pockets and his banker buddies are going broke since Trump decided not to fund some green energy projects. Oh so goodie. This hope of green-energy profits was perhaps the biggest reason that carney decided to run for the prime ministership.

A nice Christian video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxh4j27qOUk

---

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

---