CHAPTER 72        (Aug-2014)             INDEX TO OTHER PAGES

  1.   Having changed the atom from what man had in store; it stands to reason that for a number among them these are not about to see their life-work go out the window, nor that their cherished toys be dragged through the slime in the streets.   Man's accursed pride and arrogance will not allow it.  

  2. What therefore he does not realize is -- how it is for his very pride and his arrogance, as well as for his ego that not only his precious toys will be dragged through the streets, but he himself with it.

  3. For so the Almighty Creator of the universe said; "That He will dishonor all the honored in the earth, and turn the wisdom of the wise into foolishness."   

  4. And He is about to; "Unseat all the rulers of the earth, to never rule again."  And so He said "New wine is to be put into new wine-skins, for in the old that precious new wine will be lost, these having no taste for it."  

  5. And so it is for the young that I am speaking, and for a new generation when the old will have disappeared into the belly of the vultures and of the wild dogs, for that is indeed where they are heading, their fate in this world.

  6. If therefore you are among the young, and you do not have a closed mind, and to you knowledge as such is not an "affliction", like so many of the ancient look upon it, come with me to have a closer look into what the old have done.

  7. And contrary to the old we will utilize a degree of common sense and of logic whereby to judge their precious toys. The one thing that the old will do is - to violate the laws of nature, while we prefer to live and abide by them.

  8. If now I may quote what at one place was said to wit:   "Metallic bonds are a metal, and share outer bonds with atoms in a solid. Each atom gives off a positive charge by shedding its outer electrons, and the negatively charged electrons hold the metal atoms together."

  9. "Giving off a charge" What in the world is that?  What is a charge that it is shedding? Does it have a skin like a snake to shed its outer one?  Be realistic will you, come to talk some sense instead of like a chicken without its head.                              

  10. These persons have never seen a propeller turn, have they?  Nor a turbine wheel in motion.  Nor have these been educated in the laws of motion. As then for visual effect I added an animation.

  11. What for example is this thing of; "being charged?"  What is a charge?  Or charged with what?  And charged from what?   So I am prone to say; explain what a charge is - or keep your fantasies to yourselves.


  1. If you took a wheel of an automobile and you spun it around at 10 thousand RPM, and part of its rubber flies off, where do you think it will go? Would it come around to shake your hand and ask for you to fasten it upon another wheel also turning at 10,000 RPM?

  2. Of course not, only man's scientists are able to do so. At least in theory, which they expect us to believe, and that without question or reservation.  The animated illustration here is part of that fantasy.

  3. At a speed of more than a million revolutions per minute, the alleged electron, which is securely held by its core and within the confines of its overall coordinate -- is to fly out and make its home around another atom turning at high velocity?

  4. I suppose  that would be like a man speeding upon a freeway at some 120 MPH, when he loses one of his wheels, which then rolling down the freeway affixes itself upon the axle of another car also speeding on the freeway.

  5. A likely story is it not?  But then why do we as human beings believe upon such illogic? For as I gathered they have a great deal of the human race paying heed to these illogic ideals.

  6. These little balls, electrons as they are called, are not likely to leave whereby not only they would fly out into distance regions, becoming that which we call a radio active particle, but in leaving it would destroy the whole of the system. 

  7. For in a tongue of men: If it were of Hydrogen with only one electron, how do you conclude an atom of hydrogen to be of hydrogen when it no longer has that one electron upon which it depends for its very nature?

  8. Or if these will answer that all the atoms have "FREE" electrons, then they lied to us to say that Hydrogen had but one electron. And for that matter their lie is for every atom.

  9. Or by the same silly notion: If it were of Oxygen, how is oxygen to be known in 7 electrons?  Has it then become Nitrogen?  If so, you better not go anywhere near a thunderstorm, or you will choke to death for lack of air.

  10. And what then is my drift?  For when the lightning strikes, the flow of which -- according to the ancient -- must rob the elements of Oxygen and Nitrogen of a zillion zillion electrons, leaving our air to consists of perhaps nothing more than Lithium, and Beryllium, or of Boron and Carbon.

  11. As then all of these are solids, what happened to our air, when instead of breathing we are to eat the stuff?  Thank God therefore that the ancient are but dreamers, and never at all did any electron leave its host.  

  12. Or if not for the above reasons, we can all vouch for this:  How when a wheel is spun at a mere 100.000 RPM, and a speck of its metal flies off, it is not likely to feel sorry for itself to then attach itself to another flywheel at full RPM.

  13. If this my dear reader cannot be understood as a due law of motion, I suggest one might better quit and find a place to bury himself.

  14. For in that which I am speaking of - there is evidence galore, with no evidence at all to man's theories.


  1. One can make fancy illustrations as in Fig R, but when there is no reality, they are as we say, not worth the paper it is written on.  Only when something is on a track can it proceed by Fig R, like light as an immaterial coordinate following upon its track.

  2. Only a magnetic coordinate such as the magnetic coordinate of the earth, which is an immaterial entity that follows by a figure of eight, only these will follow such turns.

  3. But no material substance the likes of a ball or even a speck of dust will or can perform these feats, especially when it turns at the speed by which the atom is estimated to spin. They are having a hard enough time to separate U238 from U235, while these things are heavy atoms.

  4. Then by Fig F, and Fig W, there is this absurd notion how atoms of H, is to bond to one of Oxygen when its electron comes near to one of those of the O atom.  These mind you travel at a high velocity -- to in all reality make mince cake out of themselves.

  5. Or, is not the electron called to be a whole negative entity?  If then two entities do not like each other, and are bound on separation, how are they to be married?   Since when did electrical parts of like polarity come to join to one another?  Is there perhaps something new in nature that everyone has missed?

  6. What is the matter with you people, and I do mean most of the human race?  Did not God create you with a sense of reasoning, to apply some common sense to all that we encounter?

  7. How can you possibly believe upon these so called charges, electrical or otherwise?  Like in fig W, where two of the same repulsive charges that always under all circumstances depart from one another -- unite to form a bond between these atoms?

  8. Absurd - is what it is, for by their own laws these are always to repel from one another, -- and yet here they have them joining one another. How contradictory therefore can one be?   The evidence is right before our eyes, how two negatives - as poles of alike - always repel from one another.

  9. All this is merely to humor the blind, since the atom for its being is not anything of what the blind among men have made of it. It is altogether different, each atom a single whole with a single coordinates. It is different coordinates that sets one apart from the other, just like taste and smell as well as eyesight. If one has any common sense he will hear me, but if you are stung with man's poison my word will not serve you to life.


  1. We spoke of atoms bonding to atoms, and how man has made a mess of it, but we have yet to look at the atom all by itself to see what man has fancied to himself in that regards.

  2. By his own laws, positive electrical charges are to attract to negative electrical charges,  with charges of alike to repel from one another.  This now it not my law, nor any law of nature, it is no more than a virtual composition of the blind.

  3. Am I right, or am I wrong? I am right in both aspects, for that is the law these have to themselves; and the latter part is my right judgment regarding their self made laws.

  4. It now will not be of any avail to pose any questions to them, for they will not answer.  And why should they convict themselves of treason and of crimes against humanity, for which most certainly they will be convicted?

  5. Accordingly, for any question we will have to answer for them. The first question then that we have is;  Why these electrons do not immediately cling to the protons, seeing how much they adore each other?

  6. The most likely answer would be; "Because they are traveling in orbit, holding themselves aloof by their velocity." But that presents a problem in two ways:  First there are all those free electrons, and where do these lodge?  Or are they hung up on meat hooks until needed?

  7. Most likely; since they are in close vicinity of atoms, they find their bedroll in them, wherefore an atom of Hydrogen may have as many of 50 electrons bussing around, or bedded down.

  8. Secondly, they have these little rascals jumping in and out of orbit at the snap of a finger. Or is that how our scientists get these many free electrons, -- all the ones that missed their goal?

  9. To us it is more likely that our moon would fall upon us, rather than spin out to make a few turns around Venus.  For in order to do so, that moon would have to be highly accelerated.  

  10. And we all know the law that once in motion stays in motion, and for any action there has to be an opposite and/or equal reaction. Not that that means anything to our physicists.

  11. These accepted laws are only for most of mankind, it does not hold true for some, to whom violating natures laws of motion is their tasty treat, their very bread and butter.

  12. Then as the illustration 72-S1 shows in comparison to 72-S2, they got wise to the idea that the electrons cannot be circling as per 72-S2, that is to say, all on the same level, for that would be like having an freeway intersection of six levels all converging on a single intersecting point.


  1. And so for insurance sake, the premiums being too high, they have different levels.  But they are not keeping them on their levels, they are violating the rules of the road in not only jumping from one bridge to another, but out of the intersection altogether.

  2. But we have to give them credit, - for while none of us would dare walk across a six lane freeway during rush-hour, to them that is but a cinch, they do it every day.  Or perhaps that is why they have everything wrong -- they been run over a long time ago.

  3. But we do not want to get too stern with them now do we?  Yet we must make mention of a new invention that they have for our nature. These protons they got in the middle - even though they are positive that always draw whatever is negative, this is no longer true.

  4. For when you have a single atom its electrons have little interest in its protons, but with more than one atom, - it becomes a different story.  For it is then that these protons must have a good hold on those electrons in order to have a bond going from one nucleus to another.  You know -- pos. to neg. and neg. to pos. and all, you know the routine.

  5. Our air thus must conforms to this new invention, all these atoms of Oxygen and Nitrogen not having a mate, remain aloof from one another, with no intention of internally looking at one another, you know male to female to be attracted to one another.

  6. And they do have a point, for if those atoms of which our air consists attempted to bond with one another, our air would soon be solid, with neither man nor animal able to move through it.

  7. There is however one slight problem with this new invention, for in order to have any attraction or repulsion you need a force. And what force are we to call upon?   I will give us an answer by what one of them posted on the internet, quote:

  8. "If nature had only gravitational and electrical forces, the ones we encounter in daily life, a nucleus with multiple protons would blow itself apart: the electrical forces pushing the protons away from each other would be millions of millions of millions of times stronger than any gravitational forces pulling them together."

  9. Not that this man has even a clue as to what he is talking about, but he mentions "electrical."  And what a revelation!  For now we know.  Only we are not convinced. We have never seen any one electrical polarity to pull nor to push away from the other.

  10. Nowhere in any factory or household anywhere in the world has electricity been found to attract nor to repel, only magnets are capable thereof.  So what do man's scientists have? Did they tinker with nature?  If so, how did they manage that in all the rest of the universe?

  11. Perhaps they consider themselves wiser and more powerful than the Almighty Creator, as in fact I am sure they consider themselves wiser. That is until God - before the eyes of all the world - will make fools of them.

  12. I do have this correct now do I?  For by 72-S4; it is by some of that electromagnetic force that is left over from their last barbeque that the atoms are neutral.  All the good steaks are gone with only the scraps left over to power the atom.

  13. But when you put two or more together, all of a sudden there are lots of steaks to go around, then the electron of one will party with the proton of the other.  And so what are you my reader thinking? 

  14. That there are male and female atoms?  Or, how each one likes the other but hates himself? And that such is the law of nature? I always thought they were neither male nor female.  

  15. For if the ground beneath our feet starts to party male with male, and female with female, we will never be able to clean our shoes. 

  16. How do we suppose they came up with this, for the atoms to be neutral? May it be because otherwise we would not have any air? In the air they must all be single and quite neutral, that I agree with.  But I have a much better solution to that problem, one that is more realistic.  But this is not yet the time to go into that.

  17. As then we look at 72-S3 how these red protons are so close together with so much electrical potential upon them, millions upon millions, there must not be a single nucleus left in all the universe, seeing how these blue neutrons could care less about anything.


  1. There is of course this strong force to counteract all these protons. What that force may be even the best of man's scientists do not have a clue, so how should we?  It would be nice to have a name, and hopefully not electro-magnetic, since that dead bird has yet to be found.

  2. Or perhaps my reader will not believe me when I say that man's explanation for the nucleus is so childish it must have come from one who has not as yet seen the light of day.  And to evidence the same allow me to quote a few lines taking them in four parts.

  3. Part one: "The nucleus is held by the forces which protect them from the enormous repulsion forces of the positive protons. It is a force with short range and not similar to the electromagnetic force."

  4. He mentions two types of "forces," the super strong repulsive force as positive, and one with a short range even stronger than it, but neither electric nor magnetic, "Not similar" so they said. 

  5. And so why not tell us what that "strong force" is - when it has no similarity to magnetic, that as we know is the only force with any kind of binding capacity?

  6. And of all things - it has to be stronger than anything by which the stars are empowered, namely magnetic. If thus these fellows are greater than the Creator, to have invented a force more powerful than what God created to hold the whole universe together, why don't they let us in on it?

  7. Part two. "We know that the nucleus is made up with its fundamental particles that are the protons and neutrons. These are formed with quarks which are held together with strong force. This strong force is residual color force."

  8. Now it becomes a left-over something called "color."   But as we know "color" is nothing other than a spiritual interpretation of angular movements.  Shall then that new force be a spiritual one?

  9. And while they consider themselves wiser than God, they show themselves most unwise - to say that protons and neutrons are "fundamental" particles, since these, so they said; are made up of quarks. These protons and neutrons must therefore be compound particles with the quarks being fundamental.

  10. Part three:  "The basic exchange particle is called gluon which works as mediator forces between quarks. Both the particles; gluons and quarks are present in protons and neutrons."

  11. How sad, how sad, not so much in manufacturing none existent particles, but having the gall to classify a particle for being a force as well.  For a particle to at the same time be a force  is not only contrary to all of nature in what it presents, but by all means inconceivable to the mind of any rational person.

  12. If by example, you throw a ping pong ball at someone you will get his attention, but when it lies still on a table it is just a ping pong ball.  And what then is my drift?  My drift is that a particle is never at all a force of any kind, unless and until it is put in motion, like to bounce up against something, or a vehicle at 60 mph to hit a brick wall.  

  13. For it is then that we can speak of a force, its movement being the force.  Motion being force, as it always is by law here and everywhere in all the universe.

  14. Since then these gluons and quarks are all within a proton, (and a force) within something a hundred times smaller than any atom.  Where may we ask is their runway so as to get a running start for the power that these need? Or, do they employ ejector seats with 40 mm shells to get them moving?

  15. The ancient had the atoms to hold together with eyes and hooks.  And perhaps these gluons like to fish, throwing out their hooks upon the quarks, for we know that there are no runways for them, nor even catapults as we have upon our aircraft carriers.

  16.  We would however like to know how many of these quarks there are in a single proton along with the gluon's to glue these quarks one to the other so that we might have a proton, nicely built and ready for action.  Let us hope however that these hooks are not made of Chinese glue.

  17.  Since then the atom is but a tiny point in nature, with the proton a hundred times more minute, how small shall the quarks be?  As then the gluons must be even more tiny to throw their fish-hooks upon the quarks, how minute must these fish-hooks be?  

  18. At this point no one in his right mind will even believe that there are protons, seeing how with all these quarks and gluons taking up all the room, there is no place left for those infamous protons.

  19. Part four regarding the strong force: "Its main job is to hold together the subatomic particles of the nucleus (protons, which carry a positive charge."

  20. I now could be wrong, but I could have sworn it read that the gluons were the mediators binding the quarks together. And so why then the need for a strong force?  Are these fish-hooks not sufficient to mediate between the quarks?

  21. Nor is that proton anything singular, seeing how by definition - it is made up of smaller particles.  In other words a proton is a compound part of nothing more than a bunch of quarks and gluons practicing their illicit orgies.

  22. Since thus by man's definition these protons are in no need of any force at all, why have they endowed these quarks and gluons with a single sided coin, one that it is positive as well as charged?  

  23. Royal cheats as all these so called scientists are with their so called "CHARGES" as such, never once having any explanation as to what a charge is, nor what it consists of. That all in itself makes them liars and cheats, unfit to reside among the human race.

  24. Are you my reader getting sick of all this, how vain man can be, to dream up such things out of his imagination?  If not you my reader, I at least am utterly ashamed to have my abiding among the sons of men, that is among those more ignorant than the beast of the earth, stupid beyond comparison.

  25. But we must have this all wrong don't we?  Seeing how we really have no need of any strong force - it being as they said, "electrical." 

  26. And in saying electrical, there is no repulsion from these protons anyway.  Wherefore we may just as well put the neutrons on ice, or for a permanent vacation. All because being electrical, they cannot push nor pull, only magnets can. 

  27. And magnets as we know, always have two sides to them - a north as well as a south.  And so does the electrical, always a positive and negative. 

  28. While these protons that men plucked out of their imagination - are but one sided coins, an electricity with no on/off switch by which to complete any circuit.  

  29. I wonder how our scientists and physicists light their their homes, without any switches by which to turn on the lights? Or do these have an agreement with Ripley?

  30. Single sided coins mind you.  Ripley, believe it or not.  Something no doubt found only in the factories of man's physicist and nowhere else.  As we know it - a strong force, in whatever that bird may be, is as useless as an icebox is on Antarctica.  And seeing how there is no gravity in the nucleus either: "No problem at all," 

  31. These protons are after all nothing more than dead birds with no attraction nor repulsion upon them, to the dislike of the electrons who thought to be able to depend upon them when it came time for one atom to party with the next. 

  32. Well mister electron you are as dead as mister proton is, for neither one of you have the cloud to hold onto anything since you guys are nothing more than a single side of a coin that has never as yet existed.

  33. Electromagnetic, so it is said, and by it these attempt to defend themselves that it is all electro as well as magnetic.  Okay then, for the moment we will buy it provided these can give us an answer.

  34. Our question will be: "Where is the electro in your electromagnetic, and where is your magnetic in the same?  We know of electro-magnets, but for that you need some steel and some conductors encircling it in order to acclaim magnetic with electric.

  35. And so where are those copper conductors along with some iron in those protons?  As far as most of the human race is concerned, we have always discovered that there is a plus and a minus with any electrical, as well as a north and a south with anything magnetic.

  36. Would you guys not therefore rather revise your illicit dreams?  But as to how to put four poles onto a single proton so that it may be acclaimed electro-magnetic, don't look to us, we are not that competent.

  37. Nor to have two different forces on a single electron, one to go around the electron so that it may magnetize it, whereby to display a north and a south. Moreover, we have no idea where to plug that cord of the electrical into.

  38. With the thing going in circles and jumping from freeway to freeway, all these cords must be a tangled mess, with none of them plugged in.

  39. But then we are a mess is it not? We the whole human race.  For only the wise among us are able to manufacture single sided coins.   As for us we would sure like to know how to make a coin with just one side on it, if perhaps these will allow us to have a look in their factories.

  40.   It is pathetic, completely pathetic what man can dream up not beholding the facts in nature. To conduct himself so contrary to all that is realistic.  

  41. And why or how is that so? I will make you a quotation: "That hearing they cannot hear, and seeing they can not see."   To the end that they may believe the lie and not come to the truth.

  42. Because their throats are an open sepulcher, and their hearts desperately corrupt.   Therefore they will bear their punishment; says the Lord.

  43. And now for you the students sitting in a classroom to believe upon this nonsense which the teachers are teaching you; think twice will you!   Otherwise you are equally in need of a degree of common sense, and you would do better to leave, or teach the teacher a thing or two.

  44. Consider this for example - "how" these came up with these so called charges in the first place.  For here they have these magnets, which showed that the ends of the same polarity will always draw away from each other;  -- What does that suggest?

  45. Any takers?  Anyone with common sense to explain it?  Is it not movement? Are not these magnets moving - be it towards or away from each other?  

  46. And what may that mean, namely that MOVING?   Should not our answer be, "MOTION," namely that their "moving is motion?"   But what a riddle this is to say; "moving is motion," since the answer to that riddle not only implies, but clearly states that these so called charges are in fact nothing more and nothing other than motion.

  47. If then these will say that I am speaking of magnetism, while they are speaking of electrical charges.  I could have sworn they had the term "magnetic" fastened to the term "electro."  Moreover, have they ever seen an electrical charge, and considered what it might be?

  48.   Have you my reader, ever seen the positive and/or negative ends of an electrical wire to repel or draw towards or away from one another - like magnets do?  Of course you have not, no-one has.

  49.   Electricity in itself does not have the capacity to push nor to pull into the linear direction.

  50. And now tell me; why may that be so?  If you were to tell me it is because electrical are rotating movements compared to the linear movements of magnets, I would give you an "A" for common sense.

  51. And now provide me with a full answer; that the sparks flying off from an electrical charge is because in touching the two ends of a single circuit you are as such touching the likes of two grinding wheels in opposite direction of rotation upon one another.

  52. And yes so is the electrical since it is a rotating magnetic force, and as such it does not have any attraction nor repulsion as its magnetic cousin has.  

  53. Is not this common sense - how linear forces can move things linear, but rotational force will tend to draw in a circle?


  1. But O what liars men can be, and so contradictory to themselves. For while these know of magnetic force, but have no idea as to an electrical force, these go forth and drawing magnetic lines, have as yet the nerve to call them electrical, as depicted in fig 72-2 and fig 72-3.


  1. Are they therefore confirming our teaching, that electricity is likewise in fact a magnetic force? If now only they could tell the two apart, they might even correct their illustrations.

  2. It all boils down to reality, as to what in fact is shown to us in nature.   For in Figure 72-1, at any magnet there is an incoming movement (A), and an outgoing movement (B), both of which are linear.

  3. But in the electrical there is no such movement. There is not a push nor pull, nor attraction nor repulsion from the ends of the electrical, and yet the electrical force in the nature of -- is as much magnetic as its linear cousin.

  1. Since then both are movements, the difference is in the type of movement. And there being only two kinds, the angular and the linear, the electrical is angular. And that obviously so -- since that generator for it - as we conjecture, or last saw it - was turning in a circle -- that in turn interprets - into rotation.  

  2. The motion at C and D therefore being rotating movements, if there is to be any push or pull from them -- they would have to be in the circular.  

  3. Only we have never seen them to neither push nor pull.  All the cords on our hair-dryers are still neatly next to one another with no intention of splitting apart.  But when we take a hold of the end of the wire it will attempt to take our skin in a rotation with them.

  4.   Or if you face the two ends touching them together, - then each of them will attempt to convert the other to its mode of rotation.  We however have a way of making peace between them by inserting more rotations (turns of wire) to act as an intermediate. (Like a transmission)

  5. The illustration Fig M then is quite correct, but for Fig N, there is no such thing.  And if you wish to insult me by not believing me here,  -- then take the two end of an electrical circuit and see if you can get them to either attract or repel from one another.

  6. And since you can not find any such movement from electrical, why would you wish to put lies into the atom?


  1. And to return to Figure 72-1, it shows at H, and G, that the flow of the electrical movement is in twp directions from the generator at E to C, and D.

  2. That so called flow then is real in that the coordinate must obviously extends itself in that way, the generator being the source of it.  The rotation of its movement is however in but one direction, and that always so, wherefore we end up with the plus and minus.

  3.   Since thus there is no such thing as attraction nor repulsion from electrical charges -- how do the ancient keep the atom together? Or any one atom to bond to the other?

  4. If by Fig Z, these two are assumed as electrons, with their lines of movement as illustrated -- then they are NOT electric, but magnetic. To illustrate them as electrical points one would have to draw a series of circles around them.

  5. And so I should repeat how -- nature in all of its being indicates that there are no attractions nor repulsive movements seen in the electrical domain.

  6.     Wherefore neither the electrons nor protons have any cloud nor capacity to draw towards or away from one the other.   This is so - since as electrical agents - they may be turning, but are not as such linearly induced, which is just another way of saying -- how there is no attraction nor repulsion upon them. 

  7. All of man's atomic theories in that respect therefore are down the drain, nature itself pushing them down the drain.  Or you might say; Their own electrical charges cast them down.


  1. This of course is conclusive upon that platform from which man takes his initiative as if these parts were somehow electrical, or charged as such. And even that last part in saying; "Charged as such," is a fallacy in itself.

  2. By Fig 72-4, there is another illustration with the two ends of an electrical circuit. And so you see they do know that electricity is a turning movement, and that at its ends - in a U shape - these are in opposite direction of one another.   

  3. And also that with electricity - there is always a positive and negative side.   Always a plus and minus, and that for it to work - the circuit must be complete, a plus and minus connected to each other. 

  4. While thus they are aware of this - of what mind is man to manufacture half charges in the atom?   How, so I ask;  can one know what is right -- and yet act contrary to it?  Is it willful of them to plaster the young among us with such fantasies?

  5. By Figure 72- 5. they are again showing that they do know the flow of electrical in the extension of its force appearing outside of the wire. And seeing how they call that magnetic, well obviously - when you have a pork-chop it comes from a pig. 

  6. And though these lines join (Between the two) yet they do not attract nor repel from one another. And why would that be so?  Look at Figure 72-4,  and you tell "me" why!  Then you can also tell us what is wrong with Figure 72-5.


  1. Is it not an obvious fact -- seen in all that is in nature -- how there is never a charge in any kind of electrical to pull and/or draw away from one another, but that such is found only with magnets, that is to say - with magnetism? And magnetic always presents its format by a figure eight of movement.

  2. How therefore did man construct an atom in every phase of it - complete contrary and - in violation of any and all laws of nature, and of motion?

  3. No, you do not have to say it, for I know how angry these will be with me for defeating their ideals by which of course they are put to shame.  And why am I doing so?  It is because - these are deserving of it.

  4. If they had not been so proud and arrogant as if they knew all things, and boasted in it, while putting down all those that came with at least a few grains of truth, I might have tempered my speech. 

  5. But besides being so arrogant these had the gall to blaspheme the name of my Father, to make a mockery of Him who taught me and who gave me birth.   Since therefore it is anything but just to mock one's Father, do not conceive as if not only my Father but even "I" as well will conclusively reward them for it.

  6. Let them therefore be angry with me, for the more anger these show towards me, the less my mercy will be towards them in the day that having once died these are again reinstated in their body to receive all that is due to them.

  7. Since thus it is conclusive how -- for obvious reasons -- there is no repulsion nor attraction with the angular magnetic force better known as electricity, the atoms as constructed by mankind are as worthless as one would say; tits on a boar.

  8.   But have I been convincing enough?  For it is not easy to teach children that which is for the aged, or to show a sense of common sense for where little of it is present. And yes so is my view of man, but thank God not for all of them, wherefore also I have not ceased speaking.

  9. A single charge as such -- being nothing other than a single direction of movement, how is one to have an arrow moving towards a goal, and not to be moving away from its bow?  

  10. There is no way in heaven or earth for any man to show us a single motion (charge) upon, or from, or towards anything, other than thunderstorms that are two sides separated by a semi conductive media.

  11. Learn this lesson and learn it well, that a single sided coin does not exist, nor can it exist. Nor shall even a single sheet of paper however thin have but one side, and least of all man's - so called - protons and electrons.

  12. By man's interpretation of nature; how is a whole locomotive to be lifted up by a mere metal hook, when it are nothing than these puny electrons in their puny so called charges that never at all lock on to one another to hold that metal hook together?  

  13. I vouch to say that these electrons of the hook could not even lift a flea from the top of that locomotive.   If on the other hand we had the whole of the atom with a figure eight of force to quell upon the whole, the hook would at least stand a chance, since we know that such movements in coordinates holds whole planets and stars together.

  14. The animation here below, although intended for a different result, tells it all, how the instant when these electrons meet, there is a kaboom with not only the electrons as history but both atoms as well.

  15. I believe Oppenheimer was wrong to use Uranium or plutonium for his atomic bomb, he should have used Oxygen, or simply the air according to the interpretation that the ancient furnished us with.


  1. The things that  the teachers of the sciences teach their kids in the schools, in my view is not just atrocious, but horribly atrocious.  It is a shame yes, and one that for many is unforgivable.  When therefore I am confronted with it, I will look past their childish nature.

  2. But I will not forgive them for the mentioning of that most foul word termed evolution, (or evolved) since that is a sin not ever to be heard or condoned from anyone. A sin punishable by death, the real death.  And they will come to know it.

  Next page