Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Ellery Schempp
Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

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.​

`

Idiotic comparison

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Idiotic comparison

This is the science section, not the religion litterbox.

Make your arguments, if you can.

 

[Dagosa]

No. The Bible uses text to serve as a symbol. It was written in various letters in the culture at that time and it has been translated from Hebrew. I briefly studied the Bible for a few years to try and grasp it's meaning in a formal group. If you've not done something like this, I'm not wasting my time with you.

And the translation from Hebrew is another obstacle because when the letters were written, the word 'Inn' did not exist in Hebrew. So you have translation errors as well.

Such is the way of any Bible. Or course, it went way beyound the church to establish one universal language then translate everything to it……like science does.

So, all of this is an explanation why the Bible is a novel. After years of attending Catholic classes, I figured that out pretty early.

 

[Dagosa]

It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.

So, just because we call anything a “theory” makes it less important ? Nope……..like Einstein’s theory of relativity Newtonian physics and Quantum theory. We do get that a theory in science is the highest level of acceptance that any science ascribes to. Maybe you’re confusing “theory” with “hypothesis “.

 

[Dagosa]

applied science is real science,

Tell us what applied science is .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tell us what applied science is .

Applied science is engineering.

 

[Dagosa]

Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.

Yes, individual scientist may. But they all couch it within a closed system based upon what we know now. For example, if evolution is factual to a scientist, it is based upon all known studies and evidence and it’s the ONLY explanation we should accept at this time. A theory is an explanation, not an absolutism. It’s a set of working guidelines.

Institutionally, a theory is a theory is a theory and every theory with new evidence is subject to alteration and change. We have a plethora of theories that were altered or changed but remain relevant. Newtonian physics is no longer absolute, but it’s still functional within a certain set of parameters.

 

[Dagosa]

Applied science is engineering.

A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists? The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,

nearly........entirely..........really? That passes as science or ya?

All applied science is based upon acceptance of theories in theoretical science by ANYONE who uses it.
You really are science illiterate if you think TRIALS aren’t just a way of applying the science to generate acceptable outcomes. Geesus, wtf do you think science theory is if it doesn’t include TRIALS and applications. Geesus, they make fuck7ng prototypes of everything that needs a consistent outcome. The engineers are acting as theoretical scientists during trials to get outcomes they need.


Your fakery is stark.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But they all couch it within a closed system based upon what we know now.

No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.

Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.

 

[Dagosa]

Applied science is engineering.

Well, sounds like the Texas side step.
“Applied science is a discipline that is used to apply existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications,”

To be clear, anyone can apply already existing science. The engineer didn't develope the use for science unless he’s involved in the trials used to verify out comes.

Relying on applied Science before developing it is a little far fetch. How does one do that ?

Secondly, theories don’t exist until they ARE tried and verified. Applied science comes in DURING and after the fact But it doesn’t exist at all without the knowledge first. ,

 

[Dagosa]

No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.

Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.

Who are they who wrote these books ? “ They” are not institutions. They are not a dictionary. No science theory was ever developed without institutional support. So, just like any one with an opinion, you can always find someone to agree.
seriously…

Scientific Theory | Definition, Characteristics & Examples - Lesson | Study.com

Learn the definition of a scientific theory. This lesson will explain the characteristics of a scientific theory and the importance of the...

study.com

A theory is not a fact. It’s an explanation, based upon facts. If new facts or evidence reveals a an alteration of a theory, it can be changed. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. The facts include the evidence, the results of trials etc. . A law is a fact that applies to one cause and effect. But, it’s not an explanation or theory.

This is all why consensus becomes important. There will be disagreement on theories. But when 320 institutes of higher learning all agree, the theory is solid. But by definition, it’s not a fact.

 

[Dagosa]

Idiotic comparison

Like your avatar ?

 

[Dagosa]

No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.

Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.

And for every individual who does that, I can counter with a an institution that does not. The institution has dozens of scientists who back their own findings. You will
always be vastly outnumbered…….and incorrect. Really, even dictionaries disagree.

 

[Dagosa]

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.

They will say, they believe the consensus of the knowledge which is the theory, to be true.
Science theory change is nothing new. A theory involves many aspects to it. Many will hold true, some will not.
Do you understand that there are some things in Darwin’s theory of evolution that have been changed ?
That doesn’t mean a theory is right or wrong. It’s just an explanation given the facts Darwin had at the time. He didn’t have an electron microscope and he didn’t have all the fossil remains we have now.

 

[Dagosa]

No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.

Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.

Read this……it’s the real deal

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20

 

[meaner gene]

Secondly, theories don’t exist until they ARE tried and verified. Applied science comes in DURING and after the fact But it doesn’t exist at all without the knowledge first. ,

Theories can actually exist in the absence of facts. But under those circumstances it is not likely to become an accepted theory, just the rantings of someone. As more facts come to light to either support or refute the theory, it may evolve to eliminate the discrepancies.

Once a theory is mature enough to be reliable, comes the applied science based on the theory. Failures in the applied science may send the theory "back to the drawing board".

 

[Dagosa]

Theories can actually exist in the absence of facts.

That’s not science. That’s just an opinion founded in normal conversation not associated with a dictionary.
In science, a theory is the highest order of general explanation of a topic and is based upon FACTS and evidence. A theory is not a fact, never has been. But it needs facts to form the explanation. Maybe you’re confusing it with the word, hypothesis.

 

[Dagosa]

comes the applied science based on the theory

More of this bogus applied science sht. It’s a lot easier for someone else to do all the work I guess. Real science in developing theories is hard work. Applied science is Letting someone else do the heavy lifting while you fiddle fart around with someone else hard work.

 

[meaner gene]

That’s not science. That’s just an opinion founded in normal conversation not associated with a dictionary.
In science, a theory is the highest order of general explanation of a topic and is based upon FACTS and evidence. A theory is not a fact, never has been. But it needs facts to form the explanation. Maybe you’re confusing it with the word, hypothesis.

Even in science, theories have to start somewhere. Today we have the advantage that our scientists are "standing on the shoulders of giants", but it has not always been.
And of course, there is "good" science, and "bad" science. Just think of "cold fusion" for bad science that passed for good science.

 

[meaner gene]

More of this bogus applied science sht. It’s a lot easier for someone else to do all the work I guess. Real science in developing theories is hard work. Applied science is Letting someone else do the heavy lifting while you fiddle fart around with someone else hard work.

Applied science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine. Applied science is often contrasted with basic science, which is focused on advancing scientific theories and laws that explain and predict events in the natural world.

Applied science can also apply formal science, such as statistics and probability theory, as in epidemiology. Genetic epidemiology is an applied science applying both biological and statistical methods.