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.
Originally posted by stressfire II: "I always get infractions in my disputes with you. I'm sure I'll get another one today."
Originally posted by Mr.jon: "god viper is raping you guys with the comebacks, not even kidding."
Originally posted by kfresh: "car companys do not intentionally put parts on that will brake"
__________________
Originally posted by DangerousPower:
This then preceded to us blindfolding each other and wacking each other off till the first one "came to forwishing" if you know what i mean."
Light Speed, blazin Chronic through the galaxy
Hydro, doja, chocolate thai weed
Or we might be sippin on gin or Hennessey
**** that, where that new ****, The Chronic Iced Teas
There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start....
For example: "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."
SUBJECTIVE
__________________ Penn State Alumni
PSN - fenix612
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.
if that were true, everything with a negative charge on earth would be repelled and sucked into the sun
__________________
crispy (krî'spë) adj. - Extra fresh
Einstein fixed a lot of the theory of gravity, if you can understand any of it. Things like space-time, and theory of relativity explain why all the planets do not get sucked into the sun by gravity and why we orbit. Really confusing stuff.
[IMG]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.[/IMG]
if that were true, everything with a negative charge on earth would be repelled and sucked into the sun
this is worse then the intelligant design bull**** they spew away in some schools.
__________________
When the stress burns my brain just like acid raindrops,
Mary Jane is the only thing that makes the pain stop.
I let the music take over my soul, body and mind
I AM Authority-When I think about it, almost all the **** Mink posts makes me laugh. A+ poster, will read again.im a machine gun-Don't argue with mink, he knows what the **** is up. IplayforRelentless-Because Mink IS better than you.
this is worse then the intelligant design bull**** they spew away in some schools. science has NO laws, only theorys as to why thing happens.gravity, evolution, magnitism,thermo dynamics, motion, that h2o is water.
There are LAWS of magnetism, thermo, motion and why H2O is water....
__________________ Penn State Alumni
PSN - fenix612
Einstein fixed a lot of the theory of gravity, if you can understand any of it. Things like space-time, and theory of relativity explain why all the planets do not get sucked into the sun by gravity and why we orbit. Really confusing stuff.
yet Einstein still didn't understand it. he proposed gravitons were the force which created gravity. but we still do not understand it. we can come up with some ideas why it happens, but the whole space time thing is the band aid we use until we figure it out and understand it.
__________________
The list of epic, I was there
7-11-09 Can I tap that?
9-11-08 My Thoughts on People
7-27-07 we witnessed /b/ fall
6-21-06 10pm real radio hide out
1-16-05 Parent PORNO
ST; S Snowboard Thread - Just leave, we don't want you. Go talk about snowboard in some other fourm.
I'm pretty sure everything in that article is wrong. Everything. I stopped reading it after the part about tides, which are perfectly understood. I ****ing hate it when *****es start *****ing about **** that they ****ing think is right, when they have no mother****ing idea what the **** they are talking about.
