Not that this is going anywhere, but because I came across this page via random walk in a particularly nitpicky mood: The presence of gravity is still theoretical, it's the observability of gravity which is demonstrable fact. Counterarguments to the existence of gravitational force (Newton was skeptical of the idea himself but couldn't think of something better) do need to also account for why we see what appears to be a force pulling matter together, but there are valid counterarguments which so far do so with consistency. Not that it isn't incredibly easier to describe things if you accept the concept of gravitational force, but if you're instead assumimg our perceptions and conceptual framework are already so divorced from reality that we can't see how thrown objects and celestial bodies travel in straight lines, it's reasonable our natural languages would also be poorly designed for describing physics.
...Yeah. I'm not even suggesting editing that note on the main page, I just feel the need right now to make that point.
Except that you can't reproduce old earth views because obviously no one's been around for the supposed millions of years to do so.
Fly High, Seek Peace Hide / Show Replies
PS and what's often pointed to as 'evolution in action' is really micro-evo...changes within a species, genetic mutation. No information is lost or gained, and no new species are formed.
Fly High, Seek Peace
Plus, the added fact that macro-evolution actually contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, which many biologists fail to mention. Huh.
Please...the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is broadly an open system.
Edited by HerpNDerp
This might be a good reference for some of the more misinformed people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Violation_of_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics
Except that is a lie that has already been debunked a million times. There's no distinction between so-called microevolution and macroevolution, and evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics for it only applies to enclosed systems which the Earth is not because the existence of the FREAKING SUN. Quit being so ignorant while pretending that you had beaten science.
The 'Tabletop Games' example seems biased. I think it should either be edited to better reflect the trope or removed.
I thought this was about people doing things that actively defy gravity. Like a Hurricane Kick.
I don't think the section on "theorums" (theora?) belongs in this article. It and the TV Tropes page it links to present the idea of a "theorum" as "between a theory and a theorem" as if it were a definition in common usage.
Hide / Show Replies
This page doesn't have any section on theorums as such, it has a section about how this trope is used on other theorum level theories other than gravity. This page does not claim that the word is common, and the linked page begin with clearly stating that the word was invented in 2010.
KVLFON
a note: Ohm's law, I am told, is not really a law in the proper sense of the word (which should be a general, basic principle behind things), more like a relation that is true for metals in most of notable cases. I don't think it is important enough to warrant an edit, so I'll put it here as a curiosity.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"
Adding this title as a redirect for Gravity Is Only A Theorum.
There's currently some guys on TRS who want to make this the main title. I prefer the current one, but I'm quite okay with this one. Just in case they switch so this becomes the main title, here's the YKTTW archive.
By the way, I named the first draft for this trope "Never Trust A Newtonist". Both titles we're currently choosing between are way way preferable. :-)
Hide / Show Replies
This title have the same qualities as the theorum alternative, although less sharply. As suedenim pointed out, this version of the title also works as a Stock Phrase. And thus I'm making the switch now.
A note on the extended trope. Not covering gravity examples is obvious, since that is the main trope. The reason it doesn't cover evolution examples either is that the Real Life controversy regarding evolution makes fictional examples narratively different from examples where for example the existence of magnetism gets called into question.
The climate change entry is incorrect. While a majority of climate scientists support anthropogenic global warming, the number is very far from 97% or even a supermajority
. 52% of scientists surveyed by the AMS in 2012 agree with the proposition, and 48% disagree. Further, 53% acknowledge that the issue is hotly contested and far from settled.
Edited by Aleksei