TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [82]
1
 2  3 4

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory":

 1 annebeeche, Sat, 21st May '11 7:44:45 AM from by the long tidal river
watching down on us
Read this article by Ellery Schempp.

Excerpt:
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.

After reading the article, tell us what you think.
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
 2 storyyeller, Sat, 21st May '11 7:46:31 AM from Appleloosa Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
This joke has been going around for years.
Life is simple: it has no nontrivial normal subgroups.
 3 annebeeche, Sat, 21st May '11 7:47:29 AM from by the long tidal river
watching down on us
It may have, but today's the first time I've heard it.

It's still a brilliant article, no matter how old it is. Let's leave it around for people who haven't read it yet.
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
 4 Milos Stefanovic, Sat, 21st May '11 7:51:37 AM from White City, Ruritania
Decemberist
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools.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.

A troll.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
 5 annebeeche, Sat, 21st May '11 7:57:57 AM from by the long tidal river
watching down on us
Wow, I just noticed that the website hosting this article is a website for creationism and intelligent design.

They got trolled and they didn't even know it.

[up] Yeah, this guy is one boss troll. In 1958 he was protesting his school's mandatory bible readings by reading from the Qur'an instead.

edited 21st May '11 7:58:59 AM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
[up] Why do you think that? What do you think their reason was for putting up the article?
<><
See ALL the stars!
Gravity is not flawless, though.
Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
 8 annebeeche, Sat, 21st May '11 8:06:31 AM from by the long tidal river
watching down on us
[up][up]A walk around the site reveals the fact the article is filed under "Science (Evolution/Creation/Intelligent Design)" —> "Wacky Science: Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, and (Catholic) Creationism".

On closer examination, the other associated articles are also against religious pseudoscientific theories, but the site itself is for people seeking to learn more about the Catholic Church, which makes me a little confused. Why would they host a series of articles on ideas they don't agree with?

[up]No scientific theory is flawless, but they are always in flux.

edited 21st May '11 8:07:20 AM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
 9 del diablo, Sat, 21st May '11 8:22:56 AM from Somewher in mid Norway
Den harde nordmann
Well, it is the most brilliant joke, and it should be presented quite early in school pensum, JUST to properly hammer in that "normal vocabulary != scientific vocabulary".
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
Is that cake frosting?
On closer examination, the other associated articles are also against religious pseudoscientific theories, but the site itself is for people seeking to learn more about the Catholic Church, which makes me a little confused. Why would they host a series of articles on ideas they don't agree with?
Well, Catholicism, as a whole, is very much opposed to Biblical literalism and to the kind of creationism that seems popular in some Protestant branches. When people talk about Catholic creationism they usually mean something along the lines of "God created everything, directly or indirectly. If you want to know what the intermediate passages were, ask Science. Not our business."

This site, in particular, seems to be the work of some guy (who in any case, as far as I can see, speaks only for himself) who gathered a bunch of articles on various religious topics. I did not check anything in detail, but it seems that many of the things he linked to — in some cases, it was stuff copypasted from discussion boards — argue for different positions on this topic.

I'd guess that he just gathered random stuff that he found interesting, nothing else.

edited 21st May '11 8:40:02 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The fallacy here is that some people expect scientific theories to be 100% accurate. Nothing will ever be 100% accurate, it's technically impossible.
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
 12 annebeeche, Sat, 21st May '11 11:27:50 AM from by the long tidal river
watching down on us
Nothing is 100% accurate, but scientific theory is supposed to be as accurate as it can possibly be with what we know and what we can do.
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
Of course. I'm not criticizing gravity, I'm criticizing people who expect scientific theories to be 100% correct. What I'm saying is - those people make impossible requests
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
The part about associating gravity with socialism and moral relativism hits the nail on the head about what the creationists are doing wrong; they are conflating the statements about what is (survival of the fittest, in the wild) with statements of what "should" be, when this is most definitely a false equivalence.

edited 21st May '11 1:14:42 PM by neoYTPism

See ALL the stars!
[up] No, you're entirely wrong. They don't think that logically.tongue

edited 21st May '11 1:19:37 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
[up][up] That's not a fallacy in their worldview. As, according to their beliefs, it was god who created the natural world and he made it good. Therefore what is, is as god made it and how it should be.

[up] That isn't Christian theology as I understand it. Quite the opposite post-Eden.

On closer examination, the other associated articles are also against religious pseudoscientific theories, but the site itself is for people seeking to learn more about the Catholic Church, which makes me a little confused. Why would they host a series of articles on ideas they don't agree with?

Maybe because the vast majority of Christians (and even creationists) are not the he-man science haters commonly portrayed?

Personally, if I was running a creationist site, I'd put that article up as an example of my opposition's lack of understanding of what I actually believe.

edited 21st May '11 3:19:45 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
Yes, well... if only christian theology was as coherent and united as the faith itself, eh?

[down] Sarcasm, text, etcetera...

edited 21st May '11 3:42:08 PM by GreatLich

[up]Christianity is very divided about every thing, even basic faith issues. Just check out how many denominations are there.
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
I remember someone asking some Christians why they never thought to question the Theory of Electromagnetism.

Which is basically still hilarious to me, So I find this hilarious as well.

[up] Well, I do question it, though that comes from my general epistemological philosophy rather than my religion...

edited 21st May '11 3:42:10 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
The funniest thing about it is that Newton theory of gravity really is wrong! We regularly teach kids ideas that were proven false over 60 years ago yet nobody cares.

mostly because the math behiund einstein's theories on gravity would make a small child's head explode.
Going Forth!
[up][up]It's not really wrong or false. Nowadays it can be (and usually is) used as a simplified model that will introduce the concept before learning more complex relativistic gravity. Also, it's enough for general purpose - just like when you do equations about speed of a car you don't need to use Einstein's equations that include speed of light and other fun stuff because a) in most of circumstances it's too little to mean anything b) it would be too tedious to do it in such minor things

edited 21st May '11 4:21:45 PM by nzm1536

"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
I first ran into this in Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth, wherein I believe he used heliocentrism * as his 'gravity'. Obviously, he was comparing it to evolution, saying that evolution was 'only a theory' in the same sense that heliocentrism is 'only a theory'.
 
Total posts: 82
1
 2  3 4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy