This made me lmao so I thought I would share:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
This textbook contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a natural law of attraction. Gravity should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in public schools as a "fact." It is not a fact. It is not even a good theory.
Is gravity universal? Maybe. Maybe not. No one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. And gravitationalists are not attempting to remedy this lack of experiment evidence, afraid of failure, no doubt. It is undeniably a religious belief that gravity is universal.
Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?
According to gravitationalists, gravity is a force between objects with mass; Lines of gravitational force are straight. Gravity does not make objects spin in circles or ellipses. But planets are observed to move in elliptical orbits around the sun. Trying to dodge this contradiction, gravitationalists turn logic on its head and claim orbits somehow prove gravity. Circular reasoning and elliptical reasoning are common among gravitationalists.
The universe is tuned.
The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth. Little Willie Dembski has calculated the chances of that happening at random and it is exactly 1 in 15 septdecillion. That exceeds the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent. Only an intelligent designer could arrange such a happy coincidence, always presenting the familiar side of the moon to us. Imagine how it might have altered human history if, for all these millennium, we had been gazing at the unfamiliar face of the moon.
Don't change the channel.
Astronomers are the lowest of the many subspecies of gravitationalists. Astronomers are barely scientists. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great astronomers, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities.
Gravity relieves astronomers of a pesky moral code. Astronomers never have to say "We would like to drink ourselves into oblivion tonight, but that would violate Gravity." Instead they say, "Let's do it. If we fall down, it's just gravity." Astronomers subscribe to gravity not because it's science, which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Gravity lets them off the hook morally.
Boltzmann bounces Newton.
Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it.
Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!
Microgravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity.
God of the gaps.
The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.
In the beginning...
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang."
Very early after the big bag - so called, there was only one object with mass. If you think there were more objects than that with mass, then back time up a little until you finally believe in the time point of one object with mass. At that time point there could not have been gravity because gravity requires two objects with mass, and a distance between them. Now let time creep forward until the second object with mass appears. Suddenly you have not only two objects with mass, but a distance between them. The arrival of the second object and the establishment of the distance between them would have to happen simultaneously, or the universal law, so-called, of gravity would fall into disarray. But the Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity tells us that two important things happen at the same time with vanishingly small probability, especially if the future of the universe is at stake. By Helm-Gibbholts we know that gravity is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved without the hand of a designer.
There is not a single mention of gravity in the Bible. Nor is there mention of gravity in the constitution. Did Jesus not rise from the dead? Yes. As he rose, did Jesus have to worry about violating the Universe Theory of Gravity? If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, and could be switched off and on at will by Jesus, who are we to take it seriously?
Teach the gravity controversy.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis with gravity. 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. Opposite charges attract and the force between them follows the inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts used to use this same logic as the explanation for electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. But then electrons stopped orbiting and began inhabiting orbitals, with all those strange shapes. Who made up those weird f-orbitals? The source of this mind-numbing complexity is simple: it helps gravitationalists at places like Princeton line their pockets with safe, cushy government grants.
Let the private sector decide.
The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for gravity or 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.
Newton knew nada.
Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said.
Testable predictions?
Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs.
Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it.
To make matters worse, gravitationalists 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.
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 present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. 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.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. 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 effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called.
The Law (of gravity) is an ass.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be out-and-out repealed given the present geo-political climate. But we should introduce the controversy into the K12 curriculum. 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. Relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, names like "Universal Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Universal Gravity" have distinctly socialist rings to them. Secularists like to use confusing language and big words. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. Gravitationalists claim that gravity should apply equally to the righteous and the sinner, to the heathen and the born-again. We demand relief from such universalism. Universal Gravity today will surely lead to Universal health care tomorrow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has profound social and moral implications. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it must be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
Let's get back... to the fundamental things.
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of gravity so that the actual science has become corrupted. The problem is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining fundamental truth, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about gravity. We must always start with the obvious premise of a unique and special place of each and every person in creation. This fundamental truth must be safeguarded. We must be wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. The "Laws" invented by secular scientists must be held secondary to fundamental truth. Aspects of these "Laws" that undermine fundamental truth should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. We must constantly remind secular scientists of the lack of significance of their work.
Source
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
This textbook contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a natural law of attraction. Gravity should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in public schools as a "fact." It is not a fact. It is not even a good theory.
Is gravity universal? Maybe. Maybe not. No one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. And gravitationalists are not attempting to remedy this lack of experiment evidence, afraid of failure, no doubt. It is undeniably a religious belief that gravity is universal.
Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?
According to gravitationalists, gravity is a force between objects with mass; Lines of gravitational force are straight. Gravity does not make objects spin in circles or ellipses. But planets are observed to move in elliptical orbits around the sun. Trying to dodge this contradiction, gravitationalists turn logic on its head and claim orbits somehow prove gravity. Circular reasoning and elliptical reasoning are common among gravitationalists.
The universe is tuned.
The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth. Little Willie Dembski has calculated the chances of that happening at random and it is exactly 1 in 15 septdecillion. That exceeds the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent. Only an intelligent designer could arrange such a happy coincidence, always presenting the familiar side of the moon to us. Imagine how it might have altered human history if, for all these millennium, we had been gazing at the unfamiliar face of the moon.
Don't change the channel.
Astronomers are the lowest of the many subspecies of gravitationalists. Astronomers are barely scientists. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great astronomers, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities.
Gravity relieves astronomers of a pesky moral code. Astronomers never have to say "We would like to drink ourselves into oblivion tonight, but that would violate Gravity." Instead they say, "Let's do it. If we fall down, it's just gravity." Astronomers subscribe to gravity not because it's science, which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Gravity lets them off the hook morally.
Boltzmann bounces Newton.
Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it.
Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!
Microgravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity.
God of the gaps.
The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.
In the beginning...
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang."
Very early after the big bag - so called, there was only one object with mass. If you think there were more objects than that with mass, then back time up a little until you finally believe in the time point of one object with mass. At that time point there could not have been gravity because gravity requires two objects with mass, and a distance between them. Now let time creep forward until the second object with mass appears. Suddenly you have not only two objects with mass, but a distance between them. The arrival of the second object and the establishment of the distance between them would have to happen simultaneously, or the universal law, so-called, of gravity would fall into disarray. But the Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity tells us that two important things happen at the same time with vanishingly small probability, especially if the future of the universe is at stake. By Helm-Gibbholts we know that gravity is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved without the hand of a designer.
There is not a single mention of gravity in the Bible. Nor is there mention of gravity in the constitution. Did Jesus not rise from the dead? Yes. As he rose, did Jesus have to worry about violating the Universe Theory of Gravity? If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, and could be switched off and on at will by Jesus, who are we to take it seriously?
Teach the gravity controversy.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis with gravity. 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. Opposite charges attract and the force between them follows the inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts used to use this same logic as the explanation for electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. But then electrons stopped orbiting and began inhabiting orbitals, with all those strange shapes. Who made up those weird f-orbitals? The source of this mind-numbing complexity is simple: it helps gravitationalists at places like Princeton line their pockets with safe, cushy government grants.
Let the private sector decide.
The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for gravity or 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.
Newton knew nada.
Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said.
Testable predictions?
Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs.
Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it.
To make matters worse, gravitationalists 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.
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 present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. 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.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. 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 effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called.
The Law (of gravity) is an ass.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be out-and-out repealed given the present geo-political climate. But we should introduce the controversy into the K12 curriculum. 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. Relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, names like "Universal Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Universal Gravity" have distinctly socialist rings to them. Secularists like to use confusing language and big words. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. Gravitationalists claim that gravity should apply equally to the righteous and the sinner, to the heathen and the born-again. We demand relief from such universalism. Universal Gravity today will surely lead to Universal health care tomorrow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has profound social and moral implications. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it must be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
Let's get back... to the fundamental things.
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of gravity so that the actual science has become corrupted. The problem is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining fundamental truth, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about gravity. We must always start with the obvious premise of a unique and special place of each and every person in creation. This fundamental truth must be safeguarded. We must be wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. The "Laws" invented by secular scientists must be held secondary to fundamental truth. Aspects of these "Laws" that undermine fundamental truth should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. We must constantly remind secular scientists of the lack of significance of their work.
Source
[/FONT]
