National Center for Scientific Education – by Ellery Schempp
[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at “only a theory” disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]All physics textbook 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 two — not one — 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, the fact that there are 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 Second 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’s 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 proposed by 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; and so on. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite’s protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peerreviewed 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 elicits 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 outweighed 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.
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 seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue 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.
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 communistic. 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. 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.
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.
My Fellow Americans:
Ok,… here we have an EXCELLENT example of pyscho-babble,.. TO THE EXTREME.
I will just take the first case, and leave the rest for other commentors to mock and ridicule in a comical way.
He (she??) states that the gravitational force by the sun on our moon is FAR greater that that exerted by the earth.
Really??,… where is his simple equation to back this up
In addition,… he seems to have overlooked the tinee-tiny fact that the moon is a mere 239,000 miles away from us, compared to the 93 MILLION miles from the moon to the sun. (This is a difference of 99.7% closer to us, than the sun), hence the moon is caught in our local gravity well,… as WELL AS,.. being caught in the sun’s gravity well,.. and perhaps he didn’t notice,… the moon DOES go around the sun,.. but it is synchronized with our revolution around the sun since the earth has localized “capture” of an astrological body.
The rest of his reasoning than falls off a cliff into a pile of pig crap as he tries to justify his overt, and somewhat offensive display of stupidity.
We all know the old saying,… “you just can’t fix stupid..”
JD – US Marines – Some people are better off hiding their idiocity and outright dumbness,… the author of this article, Ellery Schempp, is one such moron.
Ellery,.. do yourself a favor,… and get that lobotomy this week!!!
.
.
Although it’s true that we have not a thorough understanding, Ellery can at least admit the physics is good enough to calculate spacecraft trajectory. Not to mention, airplanes are not anti-gravity, but create upward force due to a wedge (airfoil) pushing on mass (air) to overcome the force of gravity. Clearly, Ellery should stick to preaching and leave science to those who observe reality.
Hi U.S.Marine
Good post….while I’m almost with you….two questions for you…first- do we know for certain that the sun is 93 million miles away?….and second- how do you explain why the US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity?…look forward to your reply…have a great day!
actually, you’re right – there’s no proof of the 93 million figure, and that distance has changed significantly over time.
This essay is a shotgun blast of glaring scientific misconceptions. For example, the moon’s gravity is not solely responsible for the tides. And the moon orbits the earth rather than the sun for the same reason that the sun’s gravity doesn’t rip each of us off the face of the earth and pull us into the sun: we’re close enough to the earth that the earth’s gravity overpowers that of the sun, which is extremely far away.
There are many more errors like these in the essay, but I want to get to the main issue: the author misunderstands the term “theory” as it’s used in science.
Contrary to the way “theory” is used in casual conversation, a scientific theory is NOT merely an educated guess. The latter is called a “hypothesis” in science. Basically, a scientific theory is a collection of data, mathematical calculations, and/or logical arguments that’s used to explain what we observe in nature.
What a theory of gravity does is attempt to explain the observed FACT of gravity — or, if you prefer, the Law of Gravitation. No one doubts this law (at least where nonrelativistic speeds and macroscopic objects are concerned). It’s been proven countless times and never contradicted within its explanatory domain. A theory of gravity simply attempts to explain WHY gravity exists, or where gravity comes from. And there can be more than one such theory. An older theory of gravity is General Relativity. String Theory attempts to explain gravity and other forces of nature as well. In short, gravity is a fact, but most theories of gravity are works in progress.
How about evolution? Well, the evidence that it happened is overwhelming. That evolution has led to biodiversity is a fact that’s readily deduced from many independent lines of evidence. The theory of evolution is merely an explanation for HOW evolution occured — the genetic mutations, natural selection, etc. The only people who doubt it are those who don’t WANT to accept it (typically because it clashes with their religious dogma) and/or those who are not sufficiently familiar with the evidence. But to each his own; I have no emotional stock in that debate.
If it wasn’t for gravity .
My puke from drinking to much would still be floating around in my dingy trailer.
One thing that always amazed me was how the moon has so many craters.
Deflecting all the asteroids etc.. that would hit earth.
People just don’t know how fragile life is with all these comets and roids coming at us.
If they knew.
They would be on their knees begging God for forgiveness.
“They would be on their knees begging God for forgiveness.”
Are you saying the Dinosaurs didn’t have knees, and that is how god punished them?
there is no proof that dinosaurs existed. none spotted prior to 1867 or thereabouts. think about it: all the building/digging in all the time humans have been around, and no giant dino bones/fossils spotted until conveniently, after Darwin’s 1859 treatise is published? why?
ITS A JOKE GUYS…. SHEESH!!!!!!!!
🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXiprz-hQic
Give me liberty or give me Schempp!
there is no gravity… the earth sucks
The annotated version with references to the real science is here:
https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/tag/ellery-schempp/
It is sad that so many failed to see the contradictions and the parody.
2 words: “Intelligent Creator” -> Discard.
The fact that I throw up a rock and it comes down proves gravity enough for me. The fact that people write this drivel to prove an “intelligent Creator” makes the existence of said “intelligent Creator” highly improbable.
If 7 billion people believe that a myth is true, it isn’t more then a myth but if 7 billion people predict correctly what happens with a rock thrown in the air, I recon, it is true that the theory within correct defined limits works and that is all that science does and needs to do.
Now I am waiting for the fool that states that the “Intelligent Creator” throws the rock back.
Hmm, the concept of “gravity” is not really needed; doesn’t “density” explains why rocks thrown up fall down? Ever heard of that Occam fellow and his razor? Occam’s razor is the idea that between two or more competing hypotheses (that all account for the phenomenon of interest), the one with the with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
And anyway, I never understood why the moon, which is much smaller than the earth, would have any sort of gravitational pull for anything on the earth. Larger bodies are said to exert gravitational pull on smaller bodies. That is afterall why scientists say the moon revolves around the earth, and not vice versa. Does the earth have some gravitational pull on selected materials on the sun?
Maybe you guys who are so certain can explain that one to me.
Your humble servant,
Dot
p.s. i’m a secular critic of evolution, too. there’s no evidence that humans evolved, and we clearly aren’t adapted to earth to the same degree other species are. why do we need to cook our food, wear shoes/clothes, and get sun burned? why do we have so many genetic diseases — way more than any other species. Only one other species has such a hard time giving birth.
“Hmm, the concept of “gravity” is not really needed; doesn’t “density” explains why rocks thrown up fall down?”
Yes, but what makes them slow down then?
Density becomes less with altitude.
The earth is larger than the moon, but the moon is larger than the oceans. As for your contention that the earth might rotate around the moon, the positioning of the satellites in reference to the positioning of the moon gives a visual of the fact that the moon rotates around the earth.
Nothing is for certain, but according to math, which is the best we have for defining the reality around us, the moon rotates around the earth that rotates around the sun that rotates around the center of the galaxy. And I even believe the earth is round as it leaves a crescent shadow when it is between the moon and the soon.
Now, what are we going to do about all these communists?
heheh, the communists will choke on their own waste in good time.
For the record, i never said that the earth orbits the moon!
Now, why isn’t the water in swimming pools affected by the moon’s gravity, too? That never made sense to me. I grew up near the great lakes – do they have tides, too?
You can trying teach me all about physics, Henry & TranceAm, but I never could pass that course! Density affects altitude? Why? Makes no sense to me. But I’m more than a little dense when it comes to that sort of thing. I also think that – get this – the flat earthers have a point when they mention that the earth’s curvature is not so great as to allow one on earth to see two points, A and B, that are say more than 60 miles apart. (I’m not sure about the exact distance, but it’s not that far.) The earth’s curvature should prevent it, and a good camera with a zoom is all that’s need to debunk the curve “theory.” Gosh, after they lied to us about 9/11, the h-a-caust, aids, etc., etc., anything is possible. I hope one day to investigate more.
Am I kicked off the site yet??? I hope not, cause you folks are groovy, freedom-loving real americans and I’d be lost without this site (and lewrockwell’s)!
Dot
No, you are not kicked off the site, only zionist communists, zionist fascists, and their backers, the stupid, are unwelcome.
You are not stupid, just a little crazy like the rest of us. 🙂
The term ‘crazy’ of course being relevant to the false reality being presented as sane.
hugs! you totally rock, Henry!
Dot