Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

[abu afak]

Oooooph! I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is merely a theory'. Not knowing Science does NOT use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
And Doublespeak is really quite easy.


Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
Ellery Schempp
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/schempp.html

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.

[...... Big snip........]

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and Spiritual gravitas.

`
`

 

[abu afak]

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics'.
No more far fatched than "ID" or other fertilizer regularly posted here by God-ists.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
NEWS • Science & Technology • Science • Christianity • ISSUE 41•33 • Aug 17, 2005

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "Theory of Gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how Angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision.".....

 

[Rockland]

"Intelligent Falling"... "Evangelical Physics'.
No more far fatched than "ID" or other fertilizer regularly posted here by God-ists.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

You know The Onion is a satirical website, right?

 

[baruchMenachem2]

Well, it is just a theory, but so far no one has has disproved it. things do fall down.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Gravity is a lie. Why can't you see it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Just ask PC.

 

[abu afak]

The author of the OP in the wake:

Gravity: Only A Theory « The Skeptical Teacher

GRAVITY: ONLY A THEORY–ANNOTATED by Ellery Schempp

I wrote my “critique of gravity” as a spoof on the arguments used by creationists and proponents of “intelligent design” in their attacks on evolution and the efforts to put “disclaimer labels” in biology textbooks that “evolution is only a theory”. It was intended as a Parody of the creationists, using all the best techniques of half-truths, non-sequiturs, logical fallacies, over-simplification, misleading statements, authoritative assertion, biased words, and general absurdity that I learned from them.

To my surprise, some people didn’t get the joke; others wondered what was really true. One wrote me a lengthy email, ending: “If you would like me to refute any of the other points made in the article, I will happily do so but I believe the discussion above is enough to set the record straight.” That anyone would not get the joke is a sad commentary on the state of science knowledge or our sense of humor or both! I mean, if you tie in gravity to obesity, Saturn’s rings, moral ‘decline’, and universal health care, and you don’t see the fun, what’s to say?
[....]

 

[whitehall]

Gravity and evolution? The low information anti-religion left must be desperate. "Gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law".

 

[hangover]

Evolution, archeology, religion, gravity, all theories that undergo revisions continually. That's why they're not facts.

 

[rightwinger]

Gravity is a myth...

Things fall to earth because God makes them do that

 

[abu afak]

Evolution, archeology, religion, gravity, all theories that undergo revisions continually. That's why they're not facts.

No, that's very wrong and the [missed] point of the string.
Above are all Science/sciences and FACT-based except Religion, which is FAITH-based.
Science changes with New discovery/evidence; religion has No evidence.

`

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

The Copernician Theory, that the earth revolves around the sun, is also just a theory.

 

[hangover]

Evolution, archeology, religion, gravity, all theories that undergo revisions continually. That's why they're not facts.

No, that's very wrong and the [missed] point of the string.
Above are all Science/sciences and FACT-based except Religion, which is FAITH-based.
Science changes with New discovery/evidence; religion has No evidence.

`

Archeology continues to prove the evidence of religions. i.e. the flood, the Anunnaki, Puma Punku,the Nazca lines, Tiwanaku, the pyramids of Egypt and the Maya, Stone Henge. A lot of religion is history based.

And science has proved much magic with the ATOM being 80% empty space, and no one knows how they stay together. That makes you 80% empty space, even though you are 70% water, because the atoms that make up the molecules of the water are 80% empty space too. That goes a long way to proving the possibility of God. They've even found what they call the "God particle". Now why would scientists call it that if there was NO evidence?

 

[hangover]

The Copernician Theory, that the earth revolves around the sun, is also just a theory.

Here's a new one...the sun travels around the galaxy....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs]TRUTH! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - The exposure of hiding - in April 2012. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hangover]

part two.....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCUhm63ioCU]The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - PART 2 -The exposure of hiding - January 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Desperado]

Gravity is a myth...

Things fall to earth because God makes them do that

damn

I was told that there is no gravity, it is just that the earth sucks.

 

[abu afak]

Evolution, archeology, religion, gravity, all theories that undergo revisions continually. That's why they're not facts.

No, that's very wrong and the [missed] point of the string.
Above are all Science/sciences and FACT-based except Religion, which is FAITH-based.
Science changes with New discovery/evidence; religion has No evidence.

`

Archeology continues to prove the evidence of religions. i.e. the flood, the Anunnaki, Puma Punku,the Nazca lines, Tiwanaku, the pyramids of Egypt and the Maya, Stone Henge. A lot of religion is history based.

Holy Books DO make references to Real events and places, however, the fact they are mentioned is No evidence of a god or act of thereof. God/religion are wholly Fabricated as causes/effects for the events, real or not.
People may build things because they Believe in a god but that is not Evidence of one either.
In fact, people who believe in different, even contradictory godS, build monuments to them.
All we have proof of, ergo, is most are necessarily wrong about which 'god'.
Most gods [we created all] have gone by the wayside Because of Science.
If you built, ie, a pyramid for the Sun, Fire, Rain, Lightning, 'godS' etc, it is Not proof nor even evidence of the existence of one, still just a belief/myth.

And science has proved much magic with the ATOM being 80% empty space, and no one knows how they stay together. That makes you 80% empty space, even though you are 70% water, because the atoms that make up the molecules of the water are 80% empty space too. That goes a long way to proving the possibility of God. They've even found what they call the "God particle". Now why would scientists call it that if there was NO evidence?

How is that "magic"?
How does that "go along way towards proving the possibility there's a god"? :^)
If the atom was 40% empty space would that be "evidence of god" too?
If it was 0% empty space might that not be better 'proof' of god/intelligent design?
Since when is wasted space god-like?

IOW, if/because Superstition is your Predisposition you can just point to anything and say "god".

`

 

[Katzndogz]

Gravity really is only a theory. They are still looking for the God Particle which would be that particle that gives the atom mass. Mass is why there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is merely the physical manifestation of one object's attraction to another object. Once they find that particle gravity won't be a theory any more. That's what the super collider is supposed to do.


Until then the theory of gravity will only be a theory because there is no explanation of what it is.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Gravity really is only a theory. They are still looking for the God Particle which would be that particle that gives the atom mass. Mass is why there is such a thing as gravity. Gravity is merely the physical manifestation of one object's attraction to another object. Once they find that particle gravity won't be a theory any more. That's what the super collider is supposed to do.


Until then the theory of gravity will only be a theory because there is no explanation of what it is.

Wrong.

The Copernician Theory has been proven. Yet, it is still considered a theory.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Science for Dummies:

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.