Gravity is only a theory
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Ellery Schempp
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.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible. This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tends to push earth away.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals" which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with "fringe" mathematics. Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly turns to laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far out-weighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations." But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as heretical. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang," and important limitations in such sports as basketball would be lifted. This would greatly benefit the games and enhance revenue as is proper in a faith-based, free-enterprise society.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on "A Wing and a Prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
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.
OK, where did you steal this from?
Found it. I thought this was a parody of Intelligent design creationists arguments about evolution, and I was right.
Got it in an email.
Originally Posted by guthrie
And it'd be stealing if I put my name on it.
Really? You think?
Originally Posted by guthrie
There's no such thing as gravity. The entire Universe sucks.
As a mother, I am telling you
Gravity is a scam made up by elevator making companies and airlines...
Gravity is gods way of keeping us all down. Bastard.
Oh, God! That's the best one yet!
Originally Posted by superluminal
Registered Senior Member
Originally Posted by Syzygys
Well, I have to believe you, right? ..'cause you ain't never been wrong.
Originally Posted by Syzygys
Thanks for the info, I had it all wrong all these years.
Gravity IS taught in textbooks and in school as a "theory," not a fact. It used to be taught as a law, but now I seldom see this in school textbooks anymore, because we now know that it is relative - but proveable. Einstein proposed that it bends light waves and this was soon proven to be true during the course of eclipses to the excitement of the scientific community.
Originally Posted by Roman
Of course I guess Newton should get the most credit for pandering why an apple falls from a tree.
Your whimsical idea that the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge has no scientific basis in fact and is not even considered as a hypothesis, let alone as a theory, so there is no reason to teach a "whimsical" confusing thought in a public school; yet gravity does explain why Saturn's rings orbit around Saturn's gravitational pull rather than be ejected out into the surrounding orbit. Why Jupiter does not have rings is another matter unrelated to just gravity, dealing more with the gaseous materials present around a protoplanet during its formation.
You state, "It utterly fails to account for obesity." To the contrary, gravity does explain why objects on Earth, from the massive Himalayas to a the average person's height has it's height limitations. Just speculating here, but is it just a coincidense that obese people are shorter than tall thin people, or might it have something to do with gravity.
the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field).
Gravitons are only "hypothetically postulated" because of the great success they have had in helping to explain aspects of the field of quantum theory in modeling other forces of nature with similar particles, for example, electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. Gravitational interactions are only "postulated" to be mediated by gravitons and have proven to be an aid in reconciling curved spacetime in general relativity with Newton's original law of gravitation. I don't think any astrophysicists worth his weight will come right out and say that gravitons do esist beyond a doubt, but they have shown themselves to be an indispensable aid to further understanding our understanding of just what gravity is and of reconciling it with the other forces in Nature.
It took me a while to appreciate that this is a piss-take.
Very well written, it has to be said.
Made me smile.
Valich, do you have any sense of humor whatsoever?
Originally Posted by valich
As the allmighty Phoebe Buffet` affirmed: Sometimes I feel more like I am being pushed down, not pulled.
Maybe I'm getting too old - maybe? but don't feel it? What is a "piss-take"?
Originally Posted by Sarkus
After rereading all the threads on this forum, now I feel like I've been lured into a trap. Right? A "piss-take."
Look mate, no one has given an acceptable theory of gravity.
And if I say what it is I get bannnnned, even if I have the math to go with it.
Funny they picked on gravity
Why not electricity, heat, light, magnetism, atoms, and all the way to the Universe etc etc
Physics has used fantasy in place of reality since they invented time.
I would not believe anything, ah, but you must pass exams
so on with the fantasy.
Why would you be banned? Did you get harrassed from Vanderbilt University's Space Lab too? Yes, having fun with 'zero-gravity' research so they can resolve matters on the ground before they will ever be able to conduct long term space flights without its deleterious effects on the human body.
Originally Posted by URI
I'll tell them then. Gravity is linked to the mind of the universe which connects your autonomic nervous system to it.
Now what is 'it'? Chemicals, all chemicals.
I find that Aikido practioners, who know its philosophical connections, know more than the S.T.R. folk(special theory of relativity). Its about motion and mind, and shifting of atomic # and weight/planck time and space.
All facillitates the Universal Mind.
They are close to figuring the connection to 'mind', but then they would have to accept the concept of G-d as being real.
Talk G-d, and you get whacked on most science sites. Only to them, the scientist knows all; and many, want to be like G-d themselves. I've met a few on some other sites while trying to resource people with the critical backgrounds that could help me put into an equation my thinking of this comet that will hit in 2012. The Mayan calendar was based more in reality than people will ever know.
"Piss-take" (noun) - something that has had the piss taken out of it - a lampoon.
Originally Posted by valich
To "piss-take" (verb) - to extract the Michael.