Explaining Heat Creation by Separating Atoms

Atomic physics and chemistry decided long ago, on nothing but a big-bang-supporting gamble, that all gases at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) have exactly the same number of atoms, such an inexplicable cosmic coincidence that every student having any smarts at all should instantly see the error. At one time, it was theory only, but as often happens, theories become textbook facts because nobody in a ruling position (wants to keep his job) within the physics kingdom cares a hoot about how badly you're deceived by evolution-toting "science." Honest people who openly ask questions don't get such ruling positions in a falsifying cabal.

And so the rulers invented the "mole," defined as a certain number of atoms that they actually think they can count, what a bunch of baboons. For example, as hydrogen gas is 16 times lighter than oxygen gas, and as they assign H gas with 2 grams per mole, they assign O gas with 32 grams per mole. This becomes a hell hole for more reason than the basic error of a mole. They assign 0.0446 mole per liter of ALL gases (works out to 22.4 liters per mole, for EVERY gas at STP).

Oxygen gas weighs 1.43 grams/liter, and chlorine gas 3.2 g/l, yet they assign chlorine about 36 g/mol and 32 g/mol for oxygen gas. In other words, they have the same volume (22.4 liters) of the gases weighing 36 versus 32 on the one hand, and then 1.43 g/l versus 3.2 g/l on the other hand, which is badly amiss. Yes, 22.4 / 32 = 1.43, but 36 / 22.4 = 1.6, not 3.2. We need to double the 1.6 to get 3.2.

When asking google to explain: "Chlorine gas exists as diatomic molecules (Cl2). Therefore, the molar mass of chlorine gas is double the atomic mass," by which is meant double the 36 (they use 35.5). In other words, the 36 g/mol is for a theoretical chlorine gas having lone chlorine atoms, while the weight doubles when they claim that each chlorine atom is really a molecule of two chlorine atoms. I've decided that diatomic atoms don't exist if they cannot be broken down to their lone constituents with some amount of heat and experimental evidence. Heat pops atoms out of each other.

I tested the imposters with a question to google on how much temperature is needed to separate diatomic chlorine: "At 3000°C, substantial dissociation is achieved." However, when asking "what percentage of chlorine disassociation happens at 3000 C," I was given 98% as per a FORMULA: 3000 K temperature at partial pressure = (4a squared x pressure) / (1 - a squared), where 'a' is the percentage of disassociation at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Do you trust this formula?

The problem is, if they use formulas to figure such things out, it's likely fake knowledge. It's likely for-the-public hogwash, where in reality the diatomic atoms do not separate, because they do not exist as diatomic. To hide this fakery, they developed a formula to "indicate" the temperature needed to break the diatomic molecule, and then they feed the results of those formulas to the public in place of true, experimental results.

The reason that I oppose the diatomic chlorine molecule is precisely because they claim that it can be separated into lone atoms. I'm absolutely convinced that gas atoms, repelling each other, will refuse to come together unless forced to by some applied force. Therefore, lone chlorine atoms can't come together to form a molecule.

Testing google's AI, which fetches the teachings or opinions of various scientists or science buffs, I asked whether atomic chlorine gas reverts to diatomic gas with nothing but mere cooling: "Yes, atomic chlorine gas rapidly reverts to diatomic molecular chlorine upon cooling. Atomic chlorine is highly unstable..." That's reversion is impossible. If indeed the atomic chlorine was turned into a gas with merely the addition of heat, the atoms could not come into a merger by simply allowing the gas to cool. I call FRAUD.

You should therefore interpret their "highly unstable" as "it doesn't exist." Or, they pretend it disappears before we can prove it exists. In other words, what they think is the diatomic gas is really the atomic gas.

Asking for evidence of its existence, AI fed me: "At 3000°C, the equilibrium constant (Kc) for the dissociation indicates that a significant fraction of the chlorine exists as monoatomic atoms." Yes, but the Kc (temperature constant) was seen in the formula above, though modified to Kp (temperature pressure), meaning that AI did not fetch me a real experimental piece of evidence, but just fed me: "the formula indicates." It's a trick. I call FRAUD.

The reality is that, due to chlorine gas actually weighing 3.2 g/l, as compared to 1.43 for oxygen gas, the chlorine gas has 3.2 / 1.43 = 2.24 times as many atoms. I know this because Galileo, though not realizing it, proved at Pisa that all atoms weigh the same. There is no other explanation for the fall of all materials to gravity at the same speed" but that all atoms weigh the same. The establishment decided it did not want that basis for its atomic model, and chose instead that all gases at STP have the same number of atoms.

Where the chlorine gas has 2.24 times as many atoms as the oxygen gas, at the same pressure, it means that the chlorine atoms are smaller such that every 2.24 of them create as much gas pressure as each oxygen atom does. The identical heat-particle quantity, at STP, within the gases push all their atoms toward the container walls with identical pressure, yet due to there being 2.24 times as many chlorine atoms, they need to have cross-sectional sizes of 2.24 times smaller (than O atoms) in order (for both gases) to produce 1 atmosphere of pressure.

The heat-particle density in all gases at STP is identical such that all heat particles repel one another by the same force for any gas. Therefore, an atom 2.24 times as small as an O atom will get pushed into the container wall with 2.24 times less pressure. If there were equal numbers of atoms in both gases, the chlorine gas would produce 2.24 times less pressure, but as both gases at STP exert the same pressure, the revelation is that chlorine has 2.24 times as many atoms in order to make up for the 2.24 times smaller size of its atoms. This is the correct way to understand the relative sizes and numbers of various gas atoms.

A way to confirm that oxygen is the larger atom by 2.24 times is where chlorine liquid evaporates at around -33 C whereas oxygen liquid evaporates at a much-colder temperature. The larger the atom, the easier it attains heat-particle lift from the liquid i.e. the lower the temperature needed to evaporate its atoms.

Next: "The density (weight per unit volume) of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) is approximately 2.76 g/L)" (figure from Wikipedia). That's less than the 3.2 weight of chlorine gas, fully expected because oxygen atoms are larger than chlorine atoms, and so as chlorine dioxide is partially made of oxygen atoms, there needs to be fewer chlorine dioxide molecules at STP than there are chlorine atoms (per identical volumes).

The 2.76 g/l is at 25 C, but at STP (O C) it's 3.0 g/l.

Every molecule of course weighs more than one atom, and so, even though the chlorine dioxide is made of molecules, it yet has a lighter gas weight, meaning that the distance between chlorine dioxide molecules is significantly greater than the distance between oxygen atoms in oxygen gas.

I'm not going to call this dioxide as, ClO2, because it's designed by the faulty system claiming that all gases have the same number of atoms/molecules. If you ask google how many volumes of O gas is needed to be mixed with Cl gas to produce chlorine dioxide, it does not likely report the reality from an actual experiment, but will feed you: "1 unit volume of chlorine gas (Cl) reacts with 2 unit volumes of oxygen gas (O2) to form chlorine dioxide (ClO2)." It gives the impression that all three volumes are perfectly equal in size, which may not be the case. Most-everything you ask for in this sort of investigation is reported from theory, not from actual practice. That way, the public will have a much-harder time of tearing apart their theories (where they deserve to be exposed).

I'm reading that chlorine dioxide cannot be made from simply mixing the two gases. But it can be reduced easily to separated chlorine and oxygen atoms, even by sunlight:

The decomposition of chlorine dioxide into chlorine gas and oxygen gas is exothermic [releases heat] because the total energy RELEASED [caps mine] by forming new, stronger bonds in the products is greater than the energy required [absorbed] to break the bonds in the reactant. While separating molecules does require energy, in this specific case, the high instability of the molecule makes its bond-breaking energy relatively low, resulting in a net release of heat.

"High instability" here means that even sunlight energy can break the bond, meaning that the atoms of the molecule are barely merged. Instead of telling us that the merger bond is weak, we get "high instability." They don't like you perceiving merged atoms.

The admission that very little heat is absorbed when separation takes place jibes with my claim that the amount of heat absorption is proportional to merger depth, and so to prove that merger depth is low for this molecule, we're told: "In air, sunlight quickly breaks chlorine dioxide apart into chlorine gas and oxygen. In water, chlorine dioxide reacts quickly to form chlorite ions." Meanwhile, modern chemistry thinks that the molecule is is flying dizzily around, and crashing zillions of times per second, at almost 700 mph (hahahaha). If that's not enough:

The atoms within a chlorine dioxide (ClO2) molecule do not have a single 'vibrational speed,' as they oscillate back and forth at incredible frequencies. However, their average speed during these vibrations at room temperature is approximately 1,000 to 2,000 mph.

HAHAHAHA. Highly unstable, but unable to break apart while vibrating and crashing that fast zillions of times per second. Then comes measly sunlight, and the molecule breaks apart, ahahahaha, such a good laugh.

My task is to explain how there can be a net-release of heat from this molecule's separation even though no merger of any of its parts is plainly evident. They describe the separation as ClO2 becoming Cl2 and O2, which is impossible in their books because Cl2 and O2 can be the product only of Cl2O2. Yet, that's how they explain the heat loss, because, instead of saying ONLY that ClO2 separates into Cl and O2, which has no potential to release heat by merger, they include some merger by the formation of a Cl2 molecule from two chlorine atoms. But this is a trick of their imaginations, invented only because they don't know the true source of the merger heat.

Their explanation is suspect because, after sunlight separates the chlorine from the oxygen, there's no expectation that lone chlorine atoms will come together as a molecule, in nothing but sunlight, unless one doesn't understand gas behavior. Gas atoms repel each other, period, that is a fact of nature EVERYWHERE. And sunlight does not cause gas atoms to merge.

I asked google to give an example of sunlight causing mergers, but it instead gave examples involving the break-up of dubious/diatomic molecules (by sunlight) that then involve dubious after-effect molecular bonding. Here's the claim:

Atomic chlorine (Cl) bonds into the diatomic state (Cl2) in sunlight through recombination reactions that occur alongside, and sometimes because of, the decomposition of chlorine dioxide (ClO2). While sunlight (specifically UV) provides the energy to break apart, the resulting high concentration of free chlorine radicals in a confined space allows for rapid RECOMBINATIONS [caps mine].

No, there is no recombination, it's a lie. The chlorine in the sky does not become a diatomic molecule, it's imaginary. Therefore, it's my task to discover where the heat release comes from when chlorine dioxide is broken up by mere sunlight.

The chlorine-dioxide molecule is predicted to be two oxygen atoms merged with one (or more) chlorine atoms. [After writing here, I think I discovered it to be two O atoms ringed by six chlorine atoms]. Rather than all the atoms of the molecule becoming disconnected such that no heat can be released, only the chlorine atom(s) separate from the two merged O atoms, allowing the latter to merge more deeply. See that? HEAT CREATION.

In that picture, an O2 molecule can exist, yet I still reject the concept that ordinary oxygen gas contains O2 molecules. In my model, O atoms can only come together as part of a multi-atom molecule, not with two lone O atoms. When the O2 molecule is released from a multi-atom molecule, it could be ozone, what the imposters call, O3, from the addition of one O atom to diatomic oxygen.
"UV [in sunlight] light breaks O2 [what they see as ordinary O gas) into free oxygen atoms (O), which quickly combine [only in their imaginations] with other O2 molecules to form O3." So, you see, ozone is likely normal oxygen, having lone atoms, joined to a second lone atom, or O2, not O3. I can be sure of this because sunlight cannot, as is implied in the above quote, cause O atoms to merge. If it could, you could make ozone soup on your front deck.

Of course, they are going to say that sunlight can't make ozone at ground level because they've decided that it can only be made high in the air...where it's too high for you to disprove its formation there.

AI answers my question: "Yes, ozone can be produced in a lab with UV light, but the process is generally less efficient than other methods like corona discharge." Later in the response, after telling that ordinary UV light won't work, it says, "UV methods typically produce low concentrations (0.5%–1%) of ozone. For high-volume production, Corona Discharge generators are preferred..." How are you going to prove that less than one percent (could be an exaggeration) of the O atoms at ground level have actually turned to ozone? Are they really there, or is this just a trick to keep the diatomic O gas alive as the definition of atmospheric oxygen?

Corona discharge uses electricity, which is much a different animal from weak sunlight, and so, possibly, O2 molecules could be produced from it, maybe even some O3.

If correct that chlorine-dioxide molecule where two lone O atoms are a part of the merger, then how does something force the two to make contact in order that a merger may result? First of all, at least one way to make chlorine dioxide: "When chlorine gas reacts with sodium chlorite (NaClO2), the primary products are chlorine dioxide gas (ClO2) and sodium chloride (NaCl, table salt)." As you can see, the two oxygen atoms are already merged in NaClO2, and the latter material was made from chlorine dioxide in the first place. I've read that forcing chlorine and oxygen gases to mesh atoms will not produce chlorine dioxide.

I asked: "if chlorine and oxygen atoms are forced together by mechanical compression, will they remain together after compression is released?" As part of the response: "...they will likely rebound and separate once the pressure is released, as the atoms lack the energy to overcome the repulsive barrier." That goes counter to what they teach normally in kineticism, and even makes mention of the "repulsive barrier" that they think all atoms possess, which they almost never mention in normal kinetic theory because they much prefer to lead you to think that atoms attract when nearing each other. The response is saying that the atoms don't have enough speed to break past a repulsion force that somehow exists, yet they normally teach that more atomic speed opposes atomic bonding.

As part of their repulsion barrier theory, they lie: "At long distances, neutral atoms can attract each other (Van der Waals forces). As they get closer, they reach a point where the repulsive force [between each others' electrons] becomes dominant and grows extremely quickly." The atoms are NOT neutral at "long" distances, but repel each other, and may only attract once they are in contact, which is when the proton-to-electron attraction starts to become active and, in some cases, prominent.

The repulsion force remains during merger but decreases in strength because many electrons go flying away, duh. They don't have such an option with their orbiting electrons, and while atomic merger is extremely impossible with orbiting electrons, the fools are too-far gone into folly to admit it. We might credit them for trying the best they can when going to orbiting electrons, if there were no other option, but they became fools, and remain fools, because they full-well knew that stationary electrons are a non-problematic alternative. I'm explaining how logically it works, and I'm just one man. Imagine how much better the explanations could be if thousands of atomic physicists tackled that stationary-electron model from the time of Einstein.

For chlorine dioxide, the attraction-versus-repulsion forces are roughly equal, allowing chlorine dioxide to remain slightly merged in the dark, and at cold temperatures. The response adds: "Experiments involving chlorine and oxygen gas mixtures have shown that while they can be trapped at low temperatures... these are often unstable and may break down..."

In my theoretical chlorine dioxide molecule, where two O atoms are solidly merged while the chlorine atom(s) is barely merged into both, it's to be strongly assumed that the O atoms merge deeper when the chlorine atom(s) departs from them. It's a much-better explanation for the formation of heat during chlorine-dioxide separation, than their explanation. "Decomposed chlorine dioxide gas releases approximately 1.55 kJ/g of heat when it breaks down into chlorine and oxygen gas." Something must be merging when that heat comes out of nowhere.

Atomic mergers always release electrons (heat particles) from the merged sections of the electron atmospheres. When, due to merger, the merged sections become highly increased in electron density, many electrons disappear into the air until the merged sections are back to the density prior to merger. Logical and expected. When atoms unmerge, each electron atmosphere is lower in density than the proton can achieve for it, and so the protons receive back as many electrons as went missing during merger. Logical and expected. If I alone can figure this out, imagine what big brains can do to unlock the mysteries of God to his glory. Instead, they keep to kineticism, orbiting electrons and photons because their motives are to glorify the big bang and its "holy spirit," particle motion-energy.

I read that the production of table salt and chlorine dioxide might be "thermally neutral" when chlorine gas reacts with sodium chlorite. That is, neither heat absorption or heat release. Elsewhere: "At room temperature and with no facilitation, the reaction rate [of chlorine and sodium chlorite] might be very low, and the rate of heat release will be minimal." In other words, the chlorine gas steals sodium atoms (when chlorine reacts with sodium chlorite, NaClO2), which causes heat absorption, yet it is roughly matched, or slightly exceeded, by heat release when parts of the remaining chlorine-dioxide molecule merges deeper, due obviously to the departure of the sodium atom.

Perhaps the pair of O atoms are brought together in the formation of sodium oxide / peroxide. "The dissociation of sodium oxide (NA2O) in water or its reaction with chlorine-containing compounds can produce sodium chloride (NaCl) or contribute to the formation of sodium chlorite (NaClO2)..."

It might be a COMMON trait of molecules having at least three atoms that, upon the departure of one or more of its atoms, the molecule's remaining parts merge deeper into each other. My atomic model reveals that to be true when at times it seems that the only thing taking place is atomic separation(s).

Finding Relative Atomic Sizes

I was looking for the relative size of the sodium atom versus the chlorine atom, and to discover it, I first asked google what the weight of sodium gas would be if it could exist at STP. I then thought of a different means by asking for the weight of chlorine gas at 883 C, the boiling point of sodium, and of course I had to ask for the weight of sodium gas at the same temperature in order to make a comparison. The problem is, any of the reported figures could be from a math formula that follows an "ideal gas law," which may deviate substantially from reality at such a high temperature.

I then realized a way to test the reported figures from what I had said above, that chlorine atoms are 2.24 times smaller than O atoms purely because chlorine gas weighs 2.24 times more. I had said that because the heat-particle density at STP is the same for both (and all) gases, the larger atom of the two will get 2.24 times as much push from heat particles. Well, I've just realized that due to heat-particle density being identical for a gas comparison also at 883 C (or any other temperature), the reported weights of chlorine and oxygen gas at 883 C should remain 2.24 times more for chlorine. And doing the math it worked out.

At a temperature of 883 C and standard atmospheric pressure, the density of oxygen gas is reported by google AI as .337 g/l (versus 1.429 g/l at STP).

At a temperature of 883 C and standard atmospheric pressure, the density of chlorine gas is reported as .747 g/l (versus 3.17 at STP).

I therefore did the math, .747 / .337 to see how close it would get to 2.24. I saw 2.217 times in my calculator. I then re-did the math that had obtained 2.24 with rounded-off numbers, only this time it was done more precisely with: 3.17 / 1.429 to find 2.218!! It looks like I've discovered a way to prove that my atomic model is BANG-ON correct because it predicts that very situation. I'll round the figure off to 2.2 times.

Let me explain. If we have the two gases at STP, or a hundred gases at STP, we can increase the heat-particle density (increase temperature) while keeping the pressure at 1 atmosphere by allowing a piston to rise. It allows the gas to grow larger as temperature increases, and due to the atoms moving further apart as the gas grows larger, the weight per liter goes down.

We start with each gas one liter large, then increase the temperature until both grow twice as tall to two liters in volume, at which point both will yet be at the SAME temperature, just higher than the temperature they previously shared. Once the volume has expanded to twice as large, each one-liter volume for both gases has half the atoms of the original liter. Thus, those liters with half the atoms will yet weigh a difference of 2.2 times simply because the chlorine atoms are ever 2.2 times smaller. In other words, my model can explain why this consistency is the general rule.

In general, where nothing else is going on: no matter how much we allow the gases to grow larger with increasing temperature, each weight comparison between the two gases will always be 2.2 times different, because there are 2.2 times as many chlorine atoms at all times per liter of gas. There is something else going on, however, with increasing temperature which makes the weight differences deviate from perfect inverse-proportionality with temperature increase.

The arriving to the 2.2 number above taught me that their ideal gas may operate fundamentally on the weight-temperature proportionality under discussion. Yet their kinetic view of temperature merely mimics the heat-particle-repulsion reality. They will argue that doubling the temperature makes the gas expand twice as large due to twice the kinetic punch, and consequently the weight ratios of the gases remain the same at any temperature-point comparison.

My model demands that, where the chlorine atoms have cross-sections 2.2 times smaller than oxygen atoms, there must be 2.2 times as many atoms, per liter, when the two gases are at the same pressure. Therefore, the reason that the two gases maintain a 2.2 weight proportionality with expanding gas volume is, not technically due to the one gas having 2.2 times as much weight, or 2.2 times as many atoms, but because the gas with 2.2 times as much weight has atoms 2.2 times smaller. It's the size of the atom that determines the expansion rate of the gas due to temperature increase.

No matter how much the gases expand with identical temperatures for both, they will always get a heat-particle push that is differenced by 2.2 times thanks to the larger SIZE of the one atom versus the other.

Although the weights of molecules can be expected to play a part in how close they come to each other while counteracting the heat force that seeks more distance between them, the fact that all atoms weigh the same means that we can ignore atomic-weight differences in a chlorine-to-oxygen comparison, meaning that atomic size is the only item to reckon with for causing gas expansion.

It's said that doubling the K temperature ideally gets twice the gas volume for any gas, but I would put it more meaningfully: doubling the heat-particle force is expected to get twice the gas volume because there is twice the force on all atoms to send them further apart.

However, I'm not sure whether doubling the K temperature is in fact a doubling of the heat force, first because the imposters are the ones who chose -273 C to act as 0 K, and secondly because I'm not confident that any temperature-measuring device can be accurate in telling us that 300 K is actually half the heat stuff as with 600 K. For example, a mercury thermometer measurers degrees of heat by the expansion rate of the mercury fluid, but if expansion rate, per degree, is not steady between 0 C and 300 C, then obviously the tool is not perfect in measuring heat stuff.

As the 883 C temperature used above is 1156 K, we double it by adding 1,156 to 883 to get 2039 C. To check whether their reported weight figure for a liter of oxygen gas is half as much as the reported weight figure for oxygen gas at 883 C, google AI reports an oxygen-gas weight of .169 g/l at 2039 C, which is essentially half the .337 g/l for 883 C. In other words, it checks out; I expected half the gas weight at 2039C.

Therefore, the gas math of the imposters is geared to their K scale, and not necessarily to when the amount of heat stuff is truly doubled. It may not be correct that oxygen weighs .169 g/l at 2039 C, but it may instead be the weight as predicted by the ideal-gas model.

It's a crying shame that google allows AI to report ideal-gas expectations rather than experimental facts from charts. What are they hiding? How far off are the facts from the ideal gas law that reflects their atomic model perfectly?

In any case, these reported numbers make my atomic model appear as though the number of atoms per STP gas follows closely to inverse proportionality to cross-sectional areas of its atoms. "Inverse" means only that LESS on the one hand, and MORE on the other, combine to perform proportionality. For another example, where oxygen has 16 times fewer atoms than hydrogen gas, the latter's atoms need to have 16 times more cross sectional area to provide identical gas pressure, which, for spherical atoms, is 4 times more diameter. That size seems too large for the comparison, but there is another way to interpret heat push (by electric repulsion only) where the H atom can be much smaller, on the order of 2.5 inches (where the O atom is represented by a one-inch sphere).

However, as gas atoms gulp up heat particles with rising temperatures, turning some of them into captured electrons that no longer act as heat force, gases are not expected to perfectly obey the ideal gas law, meaning that, for example, it's not necessarily true that H atoms, 16 times fewer than O atoms, have exactly 16 times more cross section. It depends on the temperature because atoms grow larger with increasing temperatures, and H atoms may not grow at the same rate as O atoms.

That is, H atoms may grow to 1.1 times larger at a different temperature point than when O atoms grow 1.1 times larger. Just when you thought that this is already too complicated for your comfort level, there's another monkey wrench tossed into the machinery. Yes, but monkey wrenches can also fix things. I'm fixing to fix things.

While I see H atoms 16 times larger at standard temperatures, and receiving 16 times the heat push, the imposters see hydrogen atoms 16 times smaller, but 16 times faster, and while that too will work to expand a gas by twice as much per doubling of temperature, it's not reality-friendly because kineticism can be proven erroneous by something so simply as gas expansion.

The fools have exactly the same definition for gas temperature and gas pressure, and while they ought to be moral enough to lay down their weapons at the feet of caloricists on that count alone, the kineticists fester in the education departments without any challenge whatsoever by those who espouse caloricism. It's shameful that someone so mentally-incompetent as myself should lead such a charge with no army behind me. Shame. Where are the spines of the big brains who love the truth? Why are those who possess the textbooks and tables that serve as weapons not using them as weapons? The imposters have effectively made confessions galore in all their textbooks by the blatant errors and inconsistencies that they've put in black and white, thinking they're invincible so long as they can intimidate caloricism by a great flood of fine-sounding trash dressed as high-brow science?

I'd like to add that, at 883 C and one atmosphere of pressure, the reported density of sodium gas is approximately .242 g/l, or 3.1 times lighter than chlorine gas, and 1.39 times lighter than oxygen (.337 g/l), when both are at the same 883-C temperature (boiling point of sodium). What this tells us is a complete surprise to me (if the .242 and .337 figures are nearly correct), because it tells that the sodium atom is larger than even the oxygen atom. It tells further that there are about three times as many chlorine atoms as sodium atoms, per equal volume, at the same temperature and pressure.

It can help much in seeking the true look of the sodium-chloride (salt) molecule...which they think is one chlorine molecule merged with one sodium molecule, not making sense to me where one is three times larger than the other.

As larger atoms are expected to have boiling points lower than smaller atoms, if atomic entanglements are not much in play, sodium's high boiling point tells that sodium atoms, though much larger than chlorine atoms, are much entangled. Although the boiling point of chlorine is below the freezing point of water, the boiling point of sodium chloride (salt), instead of being lower than 883 C, is 1465 C. It suggests that when the sodium and chlorine atoms are merged, the molecule only gets more entangled by the resulting shape(s).

The way to find relative atomic sizes for 20 atomic (not molecular) materials is to find their gas weights, in g/l, at the boiling point of the material with the highest boiling point. Or, you can trust AI to give you the theoretical gas weight of all 20 at STP (if they all don't form gases at standard temperature).

Finding the relative sizes of molecules needs more complicated work. For example, steam at 883 C is reported to weigh about .275 g/l, close to that of sodium at the same temperature, yet water is a molecule of nine atoms, much larger than the sodium atom. The reason that steam in a sealed container weighs roughly the same as sodium gas is that the steam molecule gets much more heat-particle push due exactly to its larger size. Where steam particles weigh nine times as much, they would need to be slightly more than twice as distant as sodium particles, for exactly twice as far gets eight times fewer particles.

Air-Weight Pressure

It's known that the weight of the air CREATES air pressure. Air atoms in the open atmosphere want to sail away into outer space, but gravity counteracts that attitude. The downward pull causes air-weight pressure to press in all directions equally, which cannot be the case if air atoms are merely racing around and crashing like dingbats in the imaginations of the dingbats.

The only way for atoms to apply downward-weight pressure equally in all directions is for the repulsion "stuff" between the atoms to re-route the downward pull. The repulsion forces hijack the downward pull. We don't know what the repulsion stuff is, but it's there, refusing to allow atoms to make contact. Are the dingbats more intelligent than God? Then let the dingbats invent repulsion force, if they are so smart. Let them put it into action from tiny particles so small we can never see them. If the dingbats were truly smart, they would shut their mouths before God.

The air pressure that these very-stupid and rebellious "scientists" imagine, from the speeds of air atoms, is NOT the same as the air pressure due to weight. These imposters are so utterly devoid of morality that they will tell you with straight face that air weight translates to (becomes) kinetic energy in the air atoms. MENTAL-CASE LIARS.

Knowing that atomic weight can't transfer through neutrally-charged air atoms, they use desperation to deceive the student, yet not one of them in their ranks speaks up on behalf of students, UTTERLY SHAMEFUL. Nobody commits to war against these warlocks of the big-bang religion, not even Creationist scientists. What can't the latter not understand about what I'm saying here about the necessity of repulsion force for the transfer of gas weight?

The whole / collective weight of air presses against the ground by atom-to-atom weight transfer through the repulsion forces between them. It's no small point, but is a revolutionary piece of argumentation. If only there were heroes in the establishment who would fight for science truth, this one argument alone can topple kineticism, and even make its entry into schools illegal by court order because there is exactly ZERO means to show how kinetic atoms can weigh on the ground. The idea is equivalent to Fairyland. It's a gross deception to claim that air-atom weight becomes the kinetic energy in atoms that then creates the 14.7 psi air pressure on the ground.

If we fill a vacuum with air to one atmosphere of pressure, it's not the same as when air is allowed into a jar, afterwhich we close the jar with an air-tight lid. This latter jar has one atmosphere of pressure too, but it includes the weight of the entire atmosphere, whereas the air that fills a vacuum has so little air weight that over 99-percent of its pressure is due to heat-particle pressure alone. We learn something here, that I was wrong to once share what physicists tell us, that all of atmospheric pressure is from air weight. I now see differently, having considered the situation more carefully.

I wrote on this recently, but can't recall everything of where I came down on the topic. I'm going to re-visit the challenge of explaining the reality. There are two means of creating atmospheric air pressure, both weight and heat-particle push. There is not more air pressure in the downward direction than in all other directions, meaning that the downward pull of gravity re-routes in all directions.

Modern science tells us that, if we go to a height in the sky where there are exactly as many air atoms above us as there are below us, the air pressure there will be exactly half of the 14.7 pounds per square inch of total air pressure. They claim this falsification because they do not acknowledge the proper caloric model of heat, which requires air atoms to repel each other due to heat particles in their midst. It changes how we are to view things.

They claim that, when we are at a height in the sky where half the atoms are above our heads, half the air weight is above our heads. None of it is touching the ground. Only a microscopic sliver of one-percent of the atoms below that point in the sky is in contact with the ground, yet on the other hand they admit that the full weight of the air transfers to the ground? It's impossible with the kinetic view of air atoms.

If they are going to claim that the full weight of air atoms translates to kinetic energy, they will also need to claim that every atom in the sky is touching the ground at the same time. It's clearly a fallacious theory. They are deceiving us with desperation, yet nobody in their ranks says anything to expose these frauds.

Where the atmosphere is warmer, in the lower realms, there will be more heat-particle pressure that transfers to air atoms. Therefore, when we are in the sky where half the number of atoms are both above and below us, there is more air pressure beneath us due to the warmer air there. It means that we will need to go downward a ways before we encounter a height at which the psi is half of 14.7. And when we get there, the number of air atoms above us will outnumber those beneath us. But that's not what they teach.

I tested google, and its AI answered wrongly: "Yes, that is correct. In the Earth's atmosphere, the point where the number of atoms above you is equal to the number of atoms below you is precisely where the air pressure is half of its sea-level value (approximately 7.35 psi)." Clearly, they are STUPID, and tend to make us all stupid with them, including me, but no more. Clearly, they view air-atom weight as the full cause of air pressure, even though they define air pressure at bang-bang kinetic atoms, which only serves to show what utter imposters they are.

One can argue all day that the weight of a cannon ball flying through a vacuum has kinetic energy due to its weight and velocity together, but unless it's contacting the ground, it adds zero weight to the ground. What can't they understand about that?

Moreover, when it lands on the ground and comes to a motionless state, it has given all of its kinetic energy to the ground, yet still retains its weight, showing that its weight does not translate to (become) its kinetic energy.

To put it another way, the ball's kinetic energy was originally from the force that put it into motion, and while that force is equal to its weight combined with its speed, the force is not at all its weight, not does the force originate from its weight. rather, the force originates from exploding gunpowder such that none of the ball's resulting kinetic energy originates in the ball's weight. Do I need to turn blue to make this point? Only a dingbat argues that the ball carries both the kinetic energy from the gunpowder plus the kinetic energy translated from its weight.

Just when we think they can't get more laughable, surprise. How can the weight of this ball become extra speed on top of speed from the gunpowder, unless it goes downward continuously toward gravity? But air atoms in kinetic theory have zero average direction because they go up as much as down, east as much as west. Besides, if all atoms started to race right now toward the ground, that's not going to result in weight transfer. If a cannonball hits the ground, that's not weight transfer to the ground, what can't these dingbats understand about that? If the big bang is the "gunpowder" of all air-atom motion, and if they strike the ground, how is that weight transfer??? Hello?

The question is whether upward heat-particle flow alleviates SOME atmospheric weight. It seems so for obvious reason. But there is also the likelihood that the FULL, collective weight of air atoms, not just some, yet transfers to the ground. It make sense because any upward push on the atoms must transfer downward regardless of the upward push, same as when you lift a cannon ball, it's weight yet goes to your feet.

In other words, I'm claiming that the upward push of heat on atoms doesn't reduce the full weight of the atmosphere, but transfers it through the repulsion forces of the heat particles, and consequently down through all air atoms all the way to all atoms in contact with the ground. This is because we can't disappear the atomic weight. It's always pressing downward no matter whether heat-particle lift is conquering atomic weight, or vice versa.

However, on hotter days, this lift is not the only player raising air atoms (or the atmospheric ceiling) to a higher height. There's also added heat pressure (as compared to colder days) acting to increase distance between atoms, and they have no where to go but up. Just the same, all air weight yet transfers to the ground, whether the atoms are moving further apart or closer together. I feel blue in the face, I think I've over-made the point. Gravity rules, or we choke to death.

Clearly, there is more heat-particle pressure on hotter days, yet we find this: "In the context of the atmosphere (open air), hot air is thought to be lower pressure. As air heats up, it becomes less dense, lighter, and rises, creating a 'low pressure' zone at the surface, while colder, denser air sinks, creating high pressure." I don't think that's correct. It only considers air-atom density, but that is not all there is.

I don't think it's as easy as saying that, the higher the atmospheric ceiling, the greater the volume of total air, and therefore the less air pressure per any volume of air at the same height above the ground. Yes, there are fewer atoms per any given volume on hotter days, but even the climatologists acknowledge the concept that hotter air has speedier atoms that produce more air pressure than colder air. They and I both are required to argue that, while hotter days produces less atomic density per any volume of air, there is also higher air pressure due to the greater heat.

Rising air is not to be taken automatically or absent-mindedly as having lower pressure. I'm going to argue that the density of atoms (hot or cold days) is irrelevant to the pressure level because a lower density of atoms is DIRECTLY caused by higher heat pressure. You can't have expanding air without higher heat pressure.

On both hot and cold days, the full weight of the air squeezes air atoms together until the repulsion pressure between them equals the weight pressure. There can be no other way to view the reality. The atoms are BALANCED between downward pull and outward push, and so it must be true that both are equal in force. So long as there is air, there is some outward/upward push. It may be less or more from day to day, or day to night, but it's always there, always doing battle against weight force, always counteracting it. It's got to be true that the two are always equal. It's a stalemate. Neither win outright.

As long as the upward force is greater than the downward weight, the atoms are FREE to move up. There's nothing restraining them. They will move up until the upward push equals the downward pull, a no brainer. But what is it that stops the upward push? If it stayed greater than the downward pull, the atoms would all fly off into outer space from the ground up. Therefore, when it gets hot out, and the heat becomes more powerful than the weight force, something weakens the upward push as the atoms become more distant, otherwise all atoms would fly off into space.

This now becomes a means to prove that gas atoms possess their own, innate repulsion force aside from the heat push that goes against them. If we entertain electrically-neutral air atoms, where heat-push between atoms is the only thing they possess, then we would die for lack of oxygen as air atoms are continuously raised for as long as the air is hot enough to overcome the weight force. See that? Yes, it gets cooler with height, but if even the first ten feet above the ground becomes devoid of air, we would have a serious problem.

Therefore, atoms repel each other innately in all directions such that they push each other all the way to the ground even when the heat-push rise is at maximum. But there's something else happening. Even when the heat overcomes the weight force, putting more distance between atoms, it's that very extra distance that WEAKENS the innate repulsion (of the atoms) until, upon spreading out just a microscopic distance, the weight force once again equals the heat push such that the atoms cannot move further upward...unless more heat comes along.

I've not realized it until tackling this weight-versus-heat situation, right here and now, that innate air-atom repulsion is necessary to keep heat from spreading air atoms too far apart. God is a Master. What a system. It's a fairly-delicate situation.

So, atoms in the open air are always seeking to move apart by a force of 14.7 psi at sea level. It must be true, for if they are exerting 14.6 psi at sea level, air weight has the upper hand and forces them closer until their innate repulsion force matches 14.7. Or if they could have the power (they can't) to achieve 14.8, they would move further apart due to having an upper hand on the weight force, but by putting distance between each other they weaken in innate repulsion until it comes down to 14.7.

In reality, the sea-level pressure never gets as low as 14.6 because the innate force acts instantly to bring things to equilibrium. When cold air moves in, the heat-particle push between atoms starts to move toward 14.6, but air weight instantly forces the atoms closer such that innate repulsion increases to keeps things at 14.7. Did the big-bang produce this stability? Are we dingbats?

Without heat-particle push, air would solidify, because it's heat that makes the gas from solid and liquid in the first place. Everybody knows that increased temperatures cause gas atoms to move further apart, and so it's a no brainer, at this point of the reasoning / investigation, that such out-spreading is not from innate repulsion.

Indeed, without heat-particle push, the innate repulsion would be unable to keep any atomic material from liquefying. This now reveals that, where there is very little heat, at air's boiling point, or at hydrogen's boiling point, the gravity force attracting the net-positive force "leaking" past the atomic perimeters is stronger than the atom-to-atom repulsion acting from that same net-positive force. Just a wee-wee amount of heat added to that situation allows the liquid atoms to gasify thanks to a combination of rising-heat lift (causes evaporation) and heat-push pressure.

By the time that temperatures get to normal air temperatures, the innate, positive-to-positive repulsion is expected to be weaker, yet it's the only thing I can see that keeps the heat-rise and heat-push forces from continually raising the air upward.

Again, if the were no innate repulsion, and if we imagine that air is fully down to the ground at 0 C or lower, then at 20 C there would be much more than enough heat push, in combination with heat-rise power, to send all the atoms at the ground upward, and we'd all choke to death. Without innate repulsion, there would be nothing to stop the heat-lift power except the cooling effect of higher altitudes. If the upward force is greater than the downward weight by even the smallest degree, the air would collectively rise until the cooler air higher up decreases the upward force. By that time, we'd be dead.

Innate repulsion works downward as much as it works upward. If a giant space monster were to take a big bite out of the upper atmosphere, at its ceiling region, the innate repulsion would help to quickly fill the bite hole by atom-to-atom repulsion into it. Or, if heat rise in unison with heat push were to create even an inch of vacuum at ground level, the innate repulsion quickly fills in the gap. See what I'm talking about?

Innate repulsion is the third upward force. Although it acts downward too, the ground prevents it from sending any atoms further than a few feet into the soil. Therefore, it's primarily a third upward force on the air atoms, yet it's downward capability/potential is what keeps the other two upward forces from taking air atoms away from the ground.

Innate repulsion keeps us alive, but the big bang didn't even know what our lives are, didn't know we have lungs, didn't know we need oxygen, didn't know the proper nitrogen-oxygen mix we need, didn't know anything but that kineticists are rebellious dingbats who will be jailed by God in a horrible Hell, not because God wants them there, but because they choose to go there by warring against Him to their deaths.

Heat rise is due to gravity repelling electrons, absolutely necessary to rid the planet of constant heat entry from solar-wind electrons. The imposters are worse than mere imbeciles to deny that solar-wind electrons enter the air. They are falsifying deniers of truth because they know that solar electrons can demolish their kinetic theory. Solar-wind electrons are the "caloric" that they continue to deny, and they realize how it can replace the kinetic model, and so they devised a pretend curbing of solar-wind electrons that flow around, and thus miss, the planet.

The reason that the air cools with height is because the volume of space becomes exponentially larger with height above a sphere. Therefore, both heat particles and air atoms are permitted to spread out with height, which translates to colder and sparser air. It means that air-weight decrease with height is proportional to the increased volume of space with height.

As space volume increases by eight times per doubling of distance, we learn that air atoms never get even close to twice more distant than they are at sea level. It is a fact that where air is eight times more voluminous, all particles in the air are twice as far apart. However, that situation can occur only 4,000 miles higher than sea level because sea level is 4,000 miles from the core of the earth sphere. Therefore, when you are at the peak of mount Everest (5.5 miles up), and the situation is already strained in supplying the body with sufficient oxygen, the air atoms there are more distant apart by a very small distance as compared to the situation at sea level. If not for the colder air allowing air atoms closer together, one might not get enough oxygen to keep the brain conscious, when on mount Everest.

Where is the capable one, human or Godly enough, to introduce this atomic model into the arena of the baboons, to show them that it works to explain everything that's needing an explanation, whereas kineticism fails from the outset due to its inability to explain air-weight transfer?

If there were no weight force, gases would exist all the way down to absolute zero, because there's nothing else to force gas atoms together. For such things as metal with high boiling temperatures, it's because their atoms are so small that they receive very little lift and heat-push force.

Gases in Containers Laugh at Kineticists

One can get an idea of how heat-particle push decreases by this AI response: "Assuming the air is in a rigid, closed container (constant volume), the air pressure halfway between its liquefaction temperature [-192] and 20 C would be approximately 0.67 atm." When asking for the pressure 2/3 the way to liquefaction (about -192 C), the response is .57, and when 9/10ths the way, .34 atmosphere. These figures are by ideal-law calculations, I assume, not from tables showing experimental facts.

If we go 9/10s the way between 20 C and -192, we have gone down 191 degrees to -171, which is .63 the way to absolute zero. I therefore think it's fair to say that, if heat-particle push is the only thing happening (i.e. no innate repulsion) amongst gas atoms, and if gravity didn't exist to liquefy the air gas, a reduction in temperature from 20 C to -171 should reduce the air pressure from one atmosphere to: 191 / 273 = .7 less than 1. That is, .3 atmosphere. If AI's figure of 3.4 is correct, then something is going on to keep the .3 a little higher in pressure at their 3.4, and the point is that I expect gas pressure to be due partially to innate repulsion between gas atoms.

However, I don't trust their 3.4 figure if it's derived on math that is itself based on expectations of the kinetic-heat theory. The experimental reality could be that the 3.4 figure is too low. It would be only normally generous, or commonly polite, of AI's programmers to give the world the differences between experimental realities and ideal-gas expectations, but very clearly, they are not only lacking in generosity, but are goons, because if you ask for the experimental realities, you get ignored. The moral expectation is that they should give us the realities and keep the ideal-gas law to themselves if they love it so much, because there is no justification in publicizing the expectations of a theory at the expense of the realities. But this is how the goons roll.

In a situation where a gas is permitted to cool at a constant volume, the atoms are always spread out to the max in the container. That is, the distances between atoms remains the same throughout the cooling. The only thing changing is how hard they repel due to a combination of innate repulsion and heat-particle push.

On the one hand, we may think that innate repulsion can't change if the distance between atoms remains the same. But, yes, it can if heat particles pressing in on atoms adds negative charge to their electron atmospheres. If that's true, then innate repulsion, if its positive as I think it is, becomes less-positive with increasing temperatures. It clearly exists at atmospheric temperatures due to the reasoning above. With decreasing temperatures, the innate repulsion becomes an increasingly higher percentage of the total atomic push-apart force, not including the force of heat rise due to gravity repulsion against heat particles. Heat rise in a closed container is negligible, only as slow as heat penetrates out of the container walls.

In this way, the weakening innate repulsion alleviates some of the atomic spreading in hotter weather, allowing us to intake more oxygen per breath. Innate repulsion becomes an air-density regulator in hot weather while heat-particle push becomes an air-density regulator in cooler temperatures. There has got to be a temperature point where the innate repulsion equals the heat-push "repulsion," because one weakens while the other strengthens with higher temperatures. This equalizing temperature point will be different for every type of gas material.

There has also got to be a temperature where gravity can no longer pull atoms at all, when the addition of heat particles to their electron atmospheres reduces the innate repulsion to zero net-positive force. At that point, the atoms are electrically neutral. However, as no gas is known (or at least not reported) to loose weight at temperatures that don't melt any container in which a gas is heated, it seems that atoms maintain their net-positive charge to several thousands of degrees in temperatures. While 5000 C is 27 times more K temperature than room temperature, I'm not sure that it's defined as 27 times the heat-particle density. It seems like plausible reasoning, and I haven't been able to make a break-through on this particular question.

At 27 times more particle density, the particles would be only about 2.5 times closer, a lot less than we might expect. The innate repulsion force is expected to go up by 27 times, minus all weakening of that force due to the increased sizes of the electron atmospheres (i.e. because it weakens net-positive force).

It is a fact that when heat particles are twice as close, they are eight times more dense. Therefore, and this is a fact that AI will corroborate: to bring atoms twice as close, a gas needs to be compressed by eight times the volume. At that time, the gas pressure will be roughly eight times as high, yet the temperature does not increase anywhere near as much. After all the excess heat is permitted to leave the container such that it declines to the room temperature existing prior to compression, the pressure, they assure us, will be exactly eight times greater, though this is ideal-gas law science, I assume. I don't expect a perfect eight times, but I'll assume it's close.

What gas compression tends to teach me is that, due to heat-particle push being equal before and after compression, ALL of the eight times more pressure is due to innate repulsion of the atoms. Where there is eight times more pressure after compression, my take is that the atoms repel each other with eight times the force, but this requires an explanation in order to understand the mechanics.

With a giant magnet attracting a non-magnetic nail, the force between two large magnets, each sending force toward EACH OTHER, would be about twice the force as per a magnet going against the nail. Therefore, we need to double the innate atomic repulsion force because every atom being repelled is also doing repelling of its own. When the total gas pressure is eight times higher, each atom contributes four times higher, because there is eight times the force between any two atoms.

The repulsion that exists when gases are compressed proves that atoms have innate repulsion, yet there is something else at play which I cannot explain as well as I would like due to the goofs being absolute goons, refusing to play honest with my queries. The increased temperature due to gas compression is not anywhere near as much as we are told it is. We are fed an exaggerated heat increase to help bring things in line with kinetic-heat predictions, which should infuriate us. For example, I asked: "what is the temperature rise immediately after compressing a gas to 1/8 the volume?" The response is too unbelievable, and it clearly follows the kinetic expectations but does not follow my expectations: "4.0 times the original absolute temperature for monoatomic gases (e.g., Helium, Argon). ~2.3 times the original absolute temperature for diatomic gases." As yet, I don't know why they reduce it to 2.3 for such things as air atoms, but I assume it to be erroneous too.

Four times the original temperature is ridiculous. Anyone who owns an air compressor knows that the temperature inside the compressor, when filling an "empty" tank to 8 atmospheres, does not quadruple from about 300 K (room temperature) to 1200 K (937 C), almost as hot as lava. I tested and asked the AI liar whether I can touch a tank filled to 20 atmospheres, and this time it told the truth: "Yes, you can touch an air tank that has been compressed to 20 atmospheres (roughly 294 PSI), but you should expect it to be noticeably warm or hot immediately after filling."

Yet it lies to me even when asking: "what is the temperature rise, according to experimental records, not ideal-gas law, immediately after air is compressed to 1/8 the volume?" I didn't expect a proper reply; it's now roughly 2.3 times higher because the goofs classify air atoms as diatomic:

Based on experimental observations of air compressed rapidly to 1/8 of its original volume, the measured temperature rise is approximately 410 K to 440 K assuming an original room temperature of 293 K (20 C).

...actual experimental records and practical engineering data from diesel engines and high-speed compressors show slight deviations due to real-gas effects and non-ideal behaviors.

Diesel engines? Compressor pistons? That's not what I'm asking. Those things have high-frictional heat, and how can anyone differentiate between it and the heat formed by the compression process alone. Forget such rapid compression, it's not the way to answer the question, obviously, but the kineticists are doing their best to get the temperature as high as they want it. I want only the amount of heat formed from the compression action. Plus, after asking a few other questions, I learned that the 400ish K in the response above is in addition to 293 K, which gets us to near 700 C, still way too high for the reality.

I rephrased the question, but to no avail, asking: "what is the temperature rise, according to experimental records, not ideal-gas law, immediately after air is compressed to 1/8 the volume WITH A LAB PISTON, not from an engine or compressor piston?"

Experimental records for the rapid compression of air in a laboratory setting show that the immediate temperature rise for a 1/8 volume reduction typically reaches approximately 280K to 410 K...

Do you see that? It's programmed to hide the lab realities from us. But persisting, I asked the exact-same question again but with "non-rapid lab piston" this time, and finally it coughed up a reasonable response:

For air compressed to 1/8 its original volume in a non-rapid laboratory setting, experimental records indicate a temperature rise significantly lower than THEORETICAL [caps mine] adiabatic PREDICTIONS [caps mine]. While the ideal adiabatic model predicts a rise of approximately 415 K, experimental lab results typically show a rise of roughly 32 to 140 K, depending on the specific speed of the "non-rapid" piston and the heat transfer characteristics of the cylinder.

The discrepancy occurs because a "non-rapid lab piston" allows time for heat to escape into the cylinder walls...

I can see its game. It wants us to believe that, for a split second, rapid pistons raise temperatures by 400K, but a lab piston is so slow that it allows most of that heat to enter the container walls. No, all of an excess of 400 C (700ish C total) cannot escape into and through the container walls so quickly as in the one second that a lab piston might take to do one stroke, for if it did escape, the container walls would become extremely hot. LIARS.

The response above first exaggerates the 32-C rise as high as a possible 140 C, and then blames such low numbers on heat loss through the container and piston. We therefore have a reasonable reality of about a 30-degree rise due the compression heat alone. That would make the outside of an air compressor merely warm, which is what happens.

I too need to explain why the temperature does not become eight times higher when compressing a gas by eight times. And they need to explain why kineticism predicts only 4.0 or 2.3 times more heat per eight times the gas compression. I'll show you yet another lie of theirs below. But first let me explain my model.

Firstly, I don't know that doubling the number of heat particles doubles the temperature. It makes sense that it should. In that case, when bringing atoms twice as close, which is what atoms do when compressed by eight times the volume, the heat particles do not come twice as close because electron atmospheres come to the rescue. They can be compressed. Therefore, even when a gas is compressed to the point that heat particles are expected to become twice as close, it can be argued that they push into electrons atmospheres such that the heat particles open up more room between each other. I thereby have a means to explain the low-temperature increase due to gas compression.

Simultaneously, the innate repulsion of the atoms is expected to go down a little, if indeed the foisting upon them of heat-particle electrons counteracts some of their net-positivity. On this basis alone, it predicts a result of less than eight times the pressure per compression to 1/8 volume. On the other hand, foisting electrons onto electron atmospheres is expected to increases the size of the atom such that they obtain more "repulsion" due to heat push. As per this very part of the discussion, it's where I badly need the experimental realities. I asked: "do you ever use actual tables from experimental facts when giving out information of gas behavior, or are you programmed to fool the public constantly with ideal-gas-law "facts" that are not facts?"

I do not use the ideal gas law to intentionally "fool" users; I use it because it is the foundational, universally taught model for introductory physics and chemistry.

Like I said, the whole world has been brainwashed. I had to ask the question below several times, each time adding a new source type that AI should not use, and every time it gave me a response with a final pressure of eight atmospheres, until, I finally added "without any math done" to the question, and AI gave 8.4 to 8.6 atmospheres as the response, wholly different from any other response. It looks like we might be getting somewhere.

The question was posed like this: "so, if I ask you for the real-life pressure (in decimals) of normal air at 1 atmosphere simply compressed to 1/8 its volume, can't you find a table that has the real facts instead of giving me somebody's claim at wikipedia, or someone's mere opinion at reddit or some science website, or some online calculator that could be programmed as per ideal-gas behavior, and without any math done to get your answer? How incompetent are your programmers that you are not permitted to use actual science tables for a response to that simply question? I don;t want you to teach me on gas behavior, I just want the answer to the question." The response is:

Based on standard experimental data for the compressibility of air (which accounts for non-ideal behavior where molecules occupy space and interact), air compressed at room temperature (20C) to 1/8 of its original volume (8:1 compression ratio) will result in a real-life pressure of approximately 8.4 to 8.6 atmospheres absolute (BCcampass Pressbooks).

I don't know the context of that statement, and the link that AI provided to BCcampass Pressbooks did not have that statement at all. Maybe some activist kineticist asked google to hide the page due to "error."

? Stingy AI gave me nothing else with that determined question, as if it now wishes to insult me, and moreover it gave no figure from any science table, even though such tables are expected to be rife online amongst scientists / buffs who work together on such topics. It's as I say, that kineticists have asked google not to dish out the gas facts. Everyone is learning that google is deliberately useless, on sensitive topics, in comparison to its abilities.

I asked: "ignoring ideal gas laws, and avoiding any teaching on how gas behaves, is it correct that compressing a gas by eight times from one atmosphere produces about 8.5 atmospheres of pressure when after-compression temperature is equal to before-compression temperature?" The response seems to verify that we are being lied to:

Yes, your statement is correct for many common gases (like air, nitrogen, and oxygen) at room temperature.

Under these specific conditions, compressing a gas by a factor of 8 does not result in exactly 8 atmospheres of pressure, but rather approximately 8.5 atmospheres. This phenomenon occurs because real gas molecules have a physical size that takes up space [bogus/irrelevant reasoning], making the gas harder to compress [bogus reasoning] than a theoretical "ideal" model would predict.

Never mind their explanation, because they don't know true gas behavior. The extra pressure in 8.5 has nothing to do with gas-atom crowding due to compression. The fact is, the atoms are providing 8.5 times the force when they are brought twice as close, while repulsion-force logic expects only 8.0 times the force. I need to explain the extra force, and I can do it where the atoms grow larger with gas compression, thus increasing heat-particle push. As 8.5 is 1.06 times larger than 8.0, I can begin to entertain that atoms grow in size by about 1.06 times per compression to 1/8 the volume. I don't think that's a ridiculous assessment of what goes on.

When a gas is compressed, the atoms that kineticists imagine racing around are not going faster. The compression would only make them collide while closer together. Therefore, they cannot argue that heat is increased at all, yet they know that some temperature increase is the fact. Therefore, here's another reason to knock kineticism, because gas-compression heat forces them to teach what is problematic to the point of laughable:
"Atoms create more heat through more-numerous collisions, even at the same speed, because heat is the cumulative energy transfer from atomic impacts, not the energy of a single collision. While a single atom may not strike harder, a higher frequency of collisions (more "hits" per second) increases the total kinetic energy transferred to an object, which is interpreted as a higher temperature."

Ya-but, quackers, if the number of impacts are included as part of temperature, temperature rise becomes identical with their own view of gas pressure, yet pressure rise and temperature rise are not at all proportional, and so how can these goofs openly portray themselves as such goofs unashamedly, and in the meantime they become absolute goons by lying to the world what is obviously a lie.

As they define temperature as atomic impacts, then, because they think there are eight times the impacts when reducing the volume by eight times, they are required to claim that both the gas pressure and temperature go up by eight times. And kineticists know without doubt that temperature does not go up by that much at all, though they try to find ways to get is looking as a high as possible for this very reason under discussion, where their definition of temperature rise is also their definition of pressure rise. WORSE THAN MORONS. We could excuse a moron if unable to think properly, but we are talking sheer deception here. GOONS.

AI falls for my trap, responding as expected: "When the volume of a gas is cut by eight times (reduced to 1/8 of its original volume), the number of atomic impacts on the container walls increases by a factor of 8." This is not correct, which makes them look like bimbos, which is too kind. Various shapes of containers, when reduced by a piston to 1/8 the volume, will have a different number of square inches remaining, and it's not often that the square inches remaining is eight times less than the original area of the container.

A container 8 inches square has 64 x 6 = 384 square inches of area, but when reduced by eight times the volume to 1 inch tall with 8 x 8 top and 8 x 8 bottom, it has 160 square inches of area, not even close to eight times less area. The latter container is eight times lower in volume, but has only 2.4 times less surface area for the bang-bang atoms to bounce off of. Clearly, the kineticist, who wants to rule the science world, can see the problem faced here by his kinetic predictions. Why won't he come clean with the public on this issue?

If we have a million atoms in both containers, surely he can see the difference between the bashing that the larger container receives versus the bashing received by the size-reduced container. If the million atoms have 384 square inches to bash on the one hand, and 160 square inches to bash on the other hand, how is that eight times more of a bashing, per square inch, on the reduced size? The atoms in both containers have atoms speeding hysterically at the same speed, laughing their guts out at the shamefulness of the play-dirty baboons. This is what gas compression can do to them, hang them out before the public as shameful, yet nobody in their ranks hangs them out.

They are not permitted to teach that heat is both the speed of atoms and number of atomic collisions per unit time. They first teach that two atoms striking each other can't add or subtract total energy, in which case, haha, it doesn't matter how many times they strike each other per unit time, since they would depart from each other, after each collision, with the same total energy, unable to increase their energy (duh) by more frequent collisions. What that means is that they are stuck: they must teach that more frequent collisions in a compressed gas CANNOT increase temperature at all.

In a nutshell: the only way they are permitted to explain heat transfer is with FASTER atoms. Same-speed atoms striking more often CANNOT raise heat because it doesn't make the struck atoms go faster.

These people are so pathetic, so in the spiritual darkness, unwilling to come clean even though they know better. I asked AI, their accomplice: "how can heat and gas pressure both be defined as the number of atomic collisions per unit time, since that makes heat increase proportional with gas-pressure increase?" The response failed to answer that particular question:

They are not defined exactly the same way. While both are rooted in molecular collisions, pressure is determined by the total force exerted by collisions, while heat (temperature) is determined by the average kinetic energy of those collisions.

That's a red herring. The average kinetic energy is EXACTLY the average gas pressure, in their own opinion. In their minds, heat REQUIRES atomic collisions, otherwise it can't be heat. What atoms do between collisions is irrelevant. It's in their collisions that they supposedly cause heat. Therefore, the goons know that the very same collisions they define as gas pressure is also heat transfer, if they define heat as both the atomic speed and frequency of collisions. The only way they can make a distinction is to define heat as speed alone, but that view proves that the kinetic model fails where compressing a gas does increase heat but cannot increased atomic speed.

Conversely, when a piston INCREASES the air pressure by eight times, starting at one atmosphere, the gas cools, meaning that the gas absorbs heat, yet kineticists will not admit that the gas absorbs heat, because the kinetic model has no way to perform such a thing. In reality, the heat particles are being allowed to thin out as the gas volume increases, and the very opposite happens, in every regard, as when a gas is compressed to 1/8 the original size.

? On the other hand, they break their own laws of motion by arguing: "As the atoms move apart, the average speed of the molecules decreases. Because temperature is a measure of the average speed (kinetic energy) of atoms, the temperature of the gas drops." Ya but, there is nothing in the gas to slow the atoms just because they are given more space to fly through. The only extra bang-bang speed is the kineticist punching himself in the face that doesn't know how to blush.

They themselves argue routinely, as a basic tenet of kineticism, that not even atomic collisions can slow the atoms down, and yet here they have pure space slowing the atoms...because they are falsifying goons who never admit that their kinetic model doesn't work.

Look at how the desperadoes frame their mechanics: "As atoms move apart, they have to overcome weak intermolecular attractions. This pulling apart consumes kinetic energy, causing the gas to lose thermal energy." I beg your pardon? So when the atoms are nice and cozy-close to each other, they don't lose speed even though it's harder at close range to overcome their attraction forces, but if the atoms are given more sky to fly through, suddenly they slow down because they need to overcome attraction forces? It's a red herring, a pitiful attempt to present any argument possible to keep the theory alive. If they needed more speed in this scenario, they would say that the attraction forces speed the atoms. They can use attraction force either way, to slow or to speed up.

They are not permitted to use their attraction force to alter atomic speeds because the attraction forces are always active, and therefore they would always accelerate or decelerate atoms, depending on whether they need to argue for faster or slower atoms. It's the same as gravity force; as it's constant, it continuously accelerates objects. If the baboons claim that attraction slows atoms, then they are required to claim CONSTANT DECELERATION, which of course they can't claim because, in their minds, it's defined as constant cooling.

If they are going to argue that attraction force slows all the atoms once the gas volume is expanded, the atoms must come to a full halt because that attraction force is always there, always slowing the speed. They can't argue that the slower speeds somehow eradicates the attraction forces.

Besides, gas atoms don't attract at a distance, it's make-believe, a vital part of the reason that kineticism was invented in the first place, to enable the theory of stellar formation by Newtonian gravity force. Without atomic attraction, no star formation. That's why science departments chose the kinetic model just as evolution was grabbing hold in ruling circles. Gas-atom repulsion was out of the question for star formation. The kineticists realized soon enough, after the discovery of the electrons, that the caloric model was exactly possible with them acting as the caloric, but hush-hush was their tactic.

The kinetic model is permitted to use speed alone in an attempt to define heat as moving atoms. It works only under the premise that atoms gaining speed, from a heat source, can then transfer faster speeds to all atoms they collide with. But if there's nothing in the compressed gas to speed atoms, neither can they argue that more-frequent collisions are heat transfer alongside faster atoms. If they say that attraction slows atoms when a gas volume is made larger, they should argue that making the gas volume smaller has faster atoms due to repulsion, or to less attraction force somehow, but that's not what they say, because decreasing a gas volume gives them opportunity to blame something else:

Gas compression increases the speed of gas molecules (atoms) primarily through mechanical work, where the piston acts like a tennis racket hitting a ball, transferring kinetic energy to the molecules upon collision. Because temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of gas molecules, this increase in speed directly results in a higher temperature, known as the heat of compression.

Are you kidding? This argument could fool readers if it concerns an engine piston, but there are slow pistons too that can't possibly create any detectable heat from piston motion, such as a bike pump, yet the response above goes on to say: "When you compress a gas (e.g., pushing down the piston in a bicycle pump), you move the boundary of the container inward." It doesn't matter how fast the piston goes, the same amount of heat will be created due to moving the atoms closer, and the desperate response above serves to prove that they can't find a way to claim speed for their atoms by moving atoms closer, wherefore they appeal to the only possible alternative, piston motion, what a shameful cabal of science flakes.

The response includes self-incriminating damnation: "Because kinetic energy is directly proportional to temperature, the increase in the average speed (kinetic energy) of the atoms is measured as an increase in temperature." Ya-but, they define gas pressure as kinetic energy, and so they confess that gas pressure is proportional to temperature, which is so easily proven wrong that they badly make a joke of themselves. It's not even close, and they know it, that eight times the gas pressure does not produce eight times the temperature. It's such a blatant red flag that they were long-ago compelled to admit defeat with this theory. Instead, they lied to your children, and to you, and to your teachers.

The response goes on to say: "Adiabatic Process: If this compression is done rapidly, heat cannot escape through the container walls. All the energy input stays in the gas, creating intense heat (e.g., in a diesel engine, this can exceed 700C)." "Adiabatic" means the attempt to measure the heat formation aside from input from other sources, or escape from the equipment. They are claiming with straight face that one stroke of a bike piston, no matter how rapid the piston, produces enough heat to make air at room temperature 700 C. "Joke" is too kind.

When a single stroke of a bike pump doesn't make air that hot, they claim it's due to too-slow a piston such that the 700-C's worth of heat escapes through the pump's walls, or through the tire's walls. TRASH. "The gas gets hot. If the process is slow (isothermal), the energy escapes, and the gas stays at room temperature." No, it stays roughly at room temperature, not because the piston is slow, but because there's not much heat forming due to forcing atoms closer.

They first claim that air atoms are moving at 1,100 miles per hour, and then say that merely the extra speed of a lab piston, at two mph, adds 700-C's worth of heat. You can't get more laughable than this. It's high time humanity turned the boot to these liars. Run'em out of town.

FACT: when a gas is compressed by eight times, the heat-particle density is expected to rise by eight times, minus the number that instantly go into an unknown number of atomic layers in the container walls, minus the number that get past the piston's seal, and minus the number that get crushed into the electron atmospheres of the gas and container atoms.

At normal temperatures and even much higher, the outer electrons upon atoms are not so unmovable that mere light waves cannot move them. Mere light waves cause commotion on the outer edges of atoms. We can know this because every upward thrust of an electron, away from the proton, causes one light wave through the aether electrons (the latter are the heat particles in the air). My point is that, due to electrons so easily moved by mere light waves, gas compression is expected to compress the electron atmosphere to a smaller size.

However, when I say that heat particles compress the atom to a smaller size, the atom actually grows larger due to the crushing in of heat particles, because they too are electrons. Prior to heat addition, the atoms are a certain size, and while those electrons are pressed to a smaller size, the incoming electrons that do the pressing increase the size of the atom. It's just a no-brainer. The incoming crushers cannot make the atom smaller than prior to crushing in upon the outer layers of the atom. The crushers become part of the atom, until the environment cools, allowing them to escape from the electron atmosphere, back into the realm of free-electron heat.

Now imagine an atom about an inch round while the electrons are about the size of a period on this page. Imagine them hovering on the edges of that one-inch sphere at ten diameters apart, for argument's sake. Imagine the heat particles surrounding the one-inch sphere at ten or twenty diameters apart; it doesn't matter how far apart they are for the making of this point. When a gas is compressed by eight times, the heat particles move twice as close, center-to-center, and so if they are 20 diameters apart prior to compression, they would end up 10 diameters apart after compression if they were unable to press in on electron atmospheres. But if they can press in on the atmospheres, we can easily how they could do so such that they end up maybe 18 diameters apart, almost the original 20, and therefore the gas gains a little heat force (i.e. a little temperature) by as much as 18 is smaller (more repulsive) than 20. This is the gas-compression reality. Of course, when the heat particles end up 18 diameters apart, they will soon end up at 20 again as the extra heat in the gas leaks out.

In this picture, the higher the temperature prior to compression, the more filled the electron atmospheres will be with heat-particle additions. The more filled they are, the more they can resist in-coming crushers. Therefore, a gas at 500 C will get less inward compaction of atoms (less crushing distance) per compression of the gas by eight times, wherefore the heat particles, when brought twice as close, will not be able to spread out as much (as at 20 C) by crushing into the atoms. Another no-brainer. It predicts that, the higher the gas temperature, the more temperature rise there will be when compressing a gas.

AI agrees with me in the following response to my question, yet do not accept their temperatures points as facts because the figures are the adiabatic exaggerations that kineticists have made for themselves:

At 20C: Compressing the gas by eight times its volume results in a temperature rise of approximately 380C. The final temperature would be roughly 400C.

At 500C: Compressing the same gas by the same ratio results in a temperature rise of approximately 1003C. The final temperature would be roughly 1503C.

You can tell by AI's 1003 figure that it's working off of math calculations rather than experimental facts. But you can see my point that, the higher the gas temperature to begin with, the greater the heat creation after compression (though it's not nearly as high as the desperate falsification of 1503C). My prediction works because it's the obvious reality for lack of any other possible reality. Where kinetic energy can't be heat, the only alternative is free electrons surrounding captured electrons, such a NO-BRAINER (for someone seeking the realities with much effort over decades).

NEWS

If you haven't seen it, here's JD Vance telling all Christians that his political fortunes are more important to him than standing up for Jesus and quitting the Trump administration, now that Trump has portrayed himself as Jesus, which can never be done as a mere joke, but rather this is Trump mocking both Jesus and the daft Christian supporters he still has left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwcnb2ckO0

After about 23 minutes of the video below, though you should listen to it earlier too, you can hear Tyler Robinson's defence team arguing in court that the police videos of the arrest of Tyler Robinson should not be released to the public, even though at-issue is the suspicion that Tyler was not arrested at the time that the authorities claim he was. In other words, the police videos are of paramount importance to reveal that high-level authorities, including the FBI, have framed Robinson, yet his defence team doesn't want the public to know it...because, OBVIOUS to me, the defence team is part of the staging of all the things the government hopes to accomplish with Robinson's arrest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XtLsXbRZNc

On the Thursday evening that the video above came out, Baron Coleman touched upon the same story, saying that the likely reason that Washington County police didn't wish to release the video of Robinson's arrest is that it shows the arrest prior to 6:30 pm, while some government authority (not sure which but the FBI makes sense) faked a text message from Robinson, a couple of hours later when he couldn't possibly have had his phone, a message having Robinson's confession that he did the killing. It's wunderbar that Baron makes that point.

However, he immorally refused to notify his audience that Robinson's defence team likewise argued that the video of the arrest should not be publicized. He's not wanting to provide evidence to his audience that the defence team appears as part of the illegal scam. The mystery cracker is keeping his own audience in the dark with a very-important piece of the mystery. The defence team does not want to reveal that Tyler's arrest was a frame job, as Baron sees it, or bogus, as I see it. Baron, a lawyer, should see this foul play first of all.

Instead of checking for clues that the defence is part of the staging, I expect Baron to be decided already that he's going to portray the defence team as sincerely fighting for Robinson. That's my prediction because he refuses to entertain even an iota that Charlie faked his death. He's headstrong-stupid in this regard. He's ignored and even disdained the evidence for that position. It's such an unpopular position that he's not going to gamble his golden opportunity to be a million-dollar podcaster. Candace will despise him at that point, and so will his other podcaster friends, and he's simply unable to go there.

Tucker Carlson revealed to anyone who watched him that he's not a true Christian because he showed too much love for the Islamic faith. Point made.

A released ATF report tells that there were four lead bullet fragments given to it to test as per the bullet that supposedly entered the body of Charlie Kirk. Nobody who's not part of the scam can understand how the bullet could have fragmented. This ATF report jibes with Turning Point's early claim that the bullet fragmented when striking a mighty neck bone in Charlie's neck. Nobody takes this seriously. It's virtually impossible for a bullet to break into two pieces by merely a neck bone, but four fragments stretches things so-much further. Nobody but those who support Turning Point / Israel -- i.e. people involved in pushing the scam -- thinks that the neck bone, at the very back of the neck, at the virtual skin, can cause the bullet to deflect to a nearby harder bone instead of exiting the neck upon striking a neck bone.

This is a well-done moon-hoax video, seeking to disprove the landings on an historical basis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_TV-9GTD8

Th best-ever evidence you can have that the moon landings were faked is at 12:30 in the video below, where some company produced a lunar-lander-like craft for testing on the earth. You can watch Neil Armstrong ejecting from this lander a second before it crashes. Furthermore, not only did NASA hide this crash from the world so that people might not realize the impossibility of using such a lander on the moon, but nobody has ever seen one successful landing here on earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqCZ-pL5WY

Two men would not go to the lunar surface in a craft that was not proven to work on earth. It's that simple, yet the evidence of fakery is enormous. I loaded two moon-hoax videos, and, although there are hundreds of others that youtube can choose from to give me more, it starts to feed me over a dozen videos (on one single page) to prove the moon landings instead, or to mock deniers, but no other, not even one more, videos showing further evidence of fakery. That's part of the hoax protection by the goons, which so obviously includes google and youtube.

? Imagine how many super Christian videos are being denied us, hidden in the dark. Soon, guaranteed, there will be blasphemous videos where youtube will start to favor those who rail against the Bible, as well as presenting false-doctrinal videos. It wants to do so at this time, but it knows that offending Christians isn't good for $$$.

---

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

---