NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
This is just brilliant! Throw off the conspiracy of the so called "Theory of gravity"! Nothing is holding you down! you can float right now if God wasn't keeping you from doing so!

Yes, every scientist in the world is lying to us! They are trying to keep us down! Hell no, I won't give in to Newtonian mumbo jumbo!

http://junkscience.com/images/nq050610.gif

Excellent. I was thinking of doing something vaguely similar, but it woudn't have been nearly as thorough. Plus I'm too lazy.

Bah, Newtonian Physics is so 19th century. Relativity is where it's at.

And really, this points out the major problem when dealing with those who don't understand science.

There is a Theory of Universal Gravity? Isn't that called relativity?

And by which mechanism does God create tides?

Lol, a well done parody. I like the name "Re-discovery Institute".

Who reckons we should send the link to a creationist website? See if they take it seriously or, better yet, link to it.

Who reckons we should send the link to a creationist website? See if they take it seriously or, better yet, link to it.
They would probably use it as proof that we cannot take evolution and carbon dating seriously because even gravity is a theory...Just saying that makes me giggle.

They would probably use it as proof that we cannot take evolution and carbon dating seriously because even gravity is a theory...Just saying that makes me giggle.

Well, look at the unintentional humour these characters already create. I say there's no harm in spreading a little laughter.

Anyone else remember that old Onion article about "Intelligent Falling"? :)

Who reckons we should send the link to a creationist website? See if they take it seriously or, better yet, link to it.

You underestimate them. They've probably seen crap like this a million times before; they might get a laugh out of it themselves but there's no way they'd take it seriously. Maybe if you sent it to a really small, poorly run site someone there might be dumb enough to make a link to it. But if you sent it to Answers in Genesis or something, they'd just delete it.

You underestimate them. They've probably seen crap like this a million times before; they might get a laugh out of it themselves but there's no way they'd take it seriously. Maybe if you sent it to a really small, poorly run site someone there might be dumb enough to make a link to it. But if you sent it to Answers in Genesis or something, they'd just delete it.

Interesting... you are saying they could see the anti-gravity argument was nonsense, but can't see the flaws in their own, even though it relies on similar rationale. Sounds like interesting material for a little sociological experiment.

[Goes off to work, while scheming.]

Yes, but we all know that gravity falls apart at the quantum level; acts really really weird in some cases (such as black holes), and is, for as of yet to be explained reasons, really freakin' weak. Your fridge magnet is able to overpower the gravitational attraction of the entire Earth, afterall.

The failings of the theory are obvious to anyone who has gazed into the night sky. For example, the moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can watch it happen. If the theory of gravity were true, the sun's gravitational force on the moon would be much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon.

I stopped reading right there, someone needs to teach the guy maths. Or does he think he can argue with standard theories with his "logic" and baby maths.
If your mathematical ability does not go into the university level, don't argue with scientists about standard theories in physics.

If your mathematical ability does not go into the university level, don't argue with scientists about standard theories in physics.

If your humor-detecting ability does not go into the human level, don't post.

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not.

This is enough to say that these guys are a bunch of idiots.

JUPITER HAS RINGS!

(source: www.nasa.gov )

Vital Statistics for Jupiter's Rings and Inner Satellites
Rings of Jupiter
Feature Boundaries (km) Optical Depth Thickness (km) Notes
Inner Outer
Halo 89,400 123,000 3 x 10^-6 ~ 10,000 Densest in a central core < 1000 km thick.
Main Ring 123,000 128,940 5 x 10^-6 ≤ 100 Metis and Adrastea orbit near its outer edge.
Amalthea Ring [1] 128,940 181,350 ~ 10^-7 2600 Inner component of the Gossamer Ring, bounded by the orbit of Amalthea.
Thebe Ring [1] 128,940 221,900 ~ 10^-7 8800 Outer component of the Gossamer Ring, bounded by the orbit of Thebe.
Thebe Extension [1] 221,900 280,000 ~ 10^-8 8800 A very faint outward extension to the Thebe Ring.

Anyone else remember that old Onion article about "Intelligent Falling"? :)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 yeah!

Wasn't there a NASA satellite recently that seems to confirm the first half of relativity to be correct?

I really liked that article. It stuck pretty well to the typical anti-evolution arguments and modified them for gravity.

A perfect demonstration of how people like to decide that scientific theories are wrong without properly understanding them.

Wasn't there a NASA satellite recently that seems to confirm the first half of relativity to be correct?

Wait... NASA is clearly full of god-hating self-appointed scientists who secretly plot to go into space and kill the Virgin Mary! (she was taken into heaven BODILY, not just in spirit, didn't she?)
;)

Teeheehee. An amusing site indeed.

Hey, the most telling part about the whole "Theory of Gravity" is that scientists can't even agree on it!!!! There are parts of gravity that they can't explain, which obviously disproves the entire concept!!!! And if I use enough exclamation marks, you won't see the illogic of my argument!!!!!!

:D

I do so love satire, and this is a good piece of it.

That was... prone to so many logical errors. I really hope that this was just satire.

Newton was wrong: The Earth sucks.

Newton was wrong: The Earth sucks.

The Earth doesn't suck, space blows.

The Earth doesn't suck, space blows.

Can't we compromise and say that the Earth does suck, but space started it all by blowing in the beginning? :cool:

The Earth doesn't suck, space blows.No you fool! It is vacuum that sucks!

The Earth doesn't suck, space blows.

Does she, now? For free?

Can't we compromise and say that the Earth does suck, but space started it all by blowing in the beginning? :cool:
I can agree to this.
Does she, now? For free?

I wish.

For the record, the moon does actually revolve around the sun; its orbit is rather irregular because of the near-by earth. It more closely resembles a "wave" than an elipise.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/o40.gif

http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
This is just brilliant! Throw off the conspiracy of the so called "Theory of gravity"! Nothing is holding you down! you can float right now if God wasn't keeping you from doing so!

But... but... I thought it was Biff's 'Universal Stickiness' that kept us on the ground... *is traumatized*

For the record, the moon does actually revolve around the sun; its orbit is rather irregular because of the near-by earth. It more closely resembles a "wave" than an elipise.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/pictures/o40.gif

Well, actually, the moon doesn't revolve around the sun, it revolves around the black hole at the center of our galaxy. It has a fairly irregular orbit, though, due to gravitational interactions from the sun and planets.

You underestimate them. They've probably seen crap like this a million times before; they might get a laugh out of it themselves but there's no way they'd take it seriously. Maybe if you sent it to a really small, poorly run site someone there might be dumb enough to make a link to it. But if you sent it to Answers in Genesis or something, they'd just delete it.

Oh I don't know, a surprising number of them were stupid enough to believe in Onyate Man (http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html).

http://www.nmsr.org/c1.gif

It's the Australians and suchlike I feel sorry for. Having to spend their entire lives desperately gripping a madly-spinning globe, with even gravity working against them trying to pull them into space :(

*Floats through thread*

Everyone knows that God invented gravity, along with electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces, so that he would have fewer things to worry about. I mean, who actually wants MORE work? There are idiots confusing aethism (belief that there is absolutely NO God) with agnosticism (acknowledges that there is no proof of or against God and, therefore, lacks belief in his existance or nonexistance). Scientology is trying to rape the earth. Bush is trying, possibly failing, to eat a bagel and hippy liberals are complaining about how he is oppressing the bagel and discriminating against cereal. Gravity+enough very high cliffs=fewer problems.

Everyone knows that.

There was a time not too long ago when you had to be smart to operate a computer. Now more than ever, I miss that. :p

There was a time not too long ago when you had to be smart to operate a computer. Now more than ever, I miss that. :p

So does everybody in Technical Support :p

So does everybody in Technical Support :p

Not everybody. :D

http://indigo.ie/~peterl/dogbert-tech-support.gif

http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-07-04-2002.gif

http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/dilbert-05-04-2002.gif

One of the Dilbert books once posited an alternative theory of gravity, just as a mind expanding exercise. The idea was that instead of everything being attracted to everything else, everything in the universe is expanding at a constant rate, filling up the space between. This works if you only look at what happens on earth, but it can't possibly explain orbits, so it doesn't quite work. Still, it was a rather good idea.

Well, actually, the moon doesn't revolve around the sun, it revolves around the black hole at the center of our galaxy. It has a fairly irregular orbit, though, due to gravitational interactions from the sun and planets.

Well, if you want to get REAL technical, the moon is rotating around a spot somewhere near the blackhole(s) at the center of the galaxy; the same spot the aforementioned blackhole is revolving around... the so-called "center of mass."

Now, gravity is the "theory" of gravity rather than the "law" of gravity because it is incomplete.

If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth?

I cracked up at this point...

and here

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. If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, it is ridiculous to take it seriously at this time.

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." And, 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.

Normally I would not comment on psudo-scientific babble but when I read this I just had to make a comment.

The failings of the theory are obvious to anyone who has gazed into the night sky. For example, the moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can watch it happen. If the theory of gravity were true, the sun's gravitational force on the moon would be much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon. So the "theory of gravity" states that the moon should rotate around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

I have news for you. The moon orbits the sun! I'll say it again, the moon orbits the sun! No really! The moon orbits the sun. Yes it's a pretty darn wobbly orbit, but if you look at the orbit of the moon around the sun there is no retrograde motion (when something would go backwards compared to it's general direction) whatsoever.

In fact this was the biggest argument the great chemist, philosopher, science fiction writer, Issiac Assimov used to argue that the Moon was in fact a planet.

Oh, science... boring... interest... fading...

I stopped reading right there, someone needs to teach the guy maths. Or does he think he can argue with standard theories with his "logic" and baby maths.
If your mathematical ability does not go into the university level, don't argue with scientists about standard theories in physics.

Indeed. The "force"(More accurately effect) of Gravity is affected greatly by distance. Gravity drops off extremely quickly in regards to distance. It is actually one of the weaker "forces" in the universe, really.

I don't remember the exact equations, unfortunately.

Oh I don't know, a surprising number of them were stupid enough to believe in Onyate Man (http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html).

http://www.nmsr.org/c1.gif

Oy. Those don't even look like fossils. People believe the stupidest crap, eh?

And for the record, this is the first time I've heard of this hoax.

To be fair, my science teacher used to say that gravity was only a theory. Depends how you define theory.Just tell your science teacher to jump off a tall building and to repeat what he said.

To be fair, my science teacher used to say that gravity was only a theory. Depends how you define theory.

Just tell your science teacher to jump off a tall building and repeat what he said.

Well, Gravity itself isn't a theory. However, the Theory of Gravity(Or Relativity, as per today's standards) is.

The same with Evolution. Evolution itself isn't a theory. It's an observed phenomena. However, the Theory of Evolution(And all incarnations of it) are.

It's how we explain what causes the Phenomena that is the theory. Not the actual phenomena itself.

Well, Gravity itself isn't a theory. However, the Theory of Gravity(Or Relativity, as per today's standards) is.

The same with Evolution. Evolution itself isn't a theory. It's an observed phenomena. However, the Theory of Evolution(And all incarnations of it) are.

It's how we explain what causes the Phenomena that is the theory. Not the actual phenomena itself. --> To be fair, my science teacher used to say that gravity was only a theory. Depends how you define theory.

-->

True, however it is possible that his professor was referring to the "Theory of Gravity", in sense.

True, however it is possible that his professor was referring to the "Theory of Gravity", in sense.So Hydesland may not have accurately reproduced what his science teacher said? Well, I guess that makes him an average prophet... :p

And by which mechanism does God create tides?


The...uh...big wavy one?

So Hydesland may not have accurately reproduced what his science teacher said? Well, I guess that makes him an average prophet... :p

No, it doesn't. The average prophet is correct 100% of the time. Of course, it takes some twisting of facts to do, and some scrounging around for something that could fit the vague prophecy, but they're still correct, durn it.

Depending on how you look at it.

You know, like that "cute girl" is "cute".

If in a dimly lit room.

With lots of smoke.

And you squint your eyes.

After about 10 shots.

And you just poured black pepper in your eyes.

It's really the same concept.

I'm tempted to refute this one point by point.

As I attempt to do so, I'm finding it difficult to take this seriously. I'm hard-pressed to imagine that someone actually holds this set of positions. This article might be satirical.

Still, I've started, so I may as well finish.
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
All textbooks and bibles should sport this warning.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in schools as a "fact," when in fact it is not even a good theory.

No one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that gravity is "universal." And gravitationalists are not attempting to remedy this lack of experiment evidence, afraid of failure, no doubt.
It's not belief. It's extrapolation. All of science is based on that. There's never any knowledge of what really is true in science - just what isn't true. We can only ever disprove theories. And when we do that, we discard them (unless we lack something better - see Ptolemy).
The failings of the theory are obvious to anyone who has gazed into the night sky. For example, the moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can watch it happen. If the theory of gravity were true, the sun's gravitational force on the moon would be much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon. So the "theory of gravity" states that the moon should rotate around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
First, this fails to take into account the vastly greater distance between the Sun and Moon compared to the Earth and Moon. Plus, as has been pointed out, the Moon does orbit the Sun. In fact, it would be more accurate the say that the Earth-Moon system orbits the sun. The Earth-Moon system itself simply rotates.
The existence of tides is often taken as 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 high tides every day--not just one. It is far more likely that tides were given to us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
Inertia. Centrifugal forces create the other tide.

A lack of understanding of inertia is common throughout this piece.
Astronomers seem to have a fetish for gravity. It relieves them of a pesky moral code. They tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same face to the earth. Only an intellignet designer could set up such a happy coincidence.
Or a molten Moon cooled with its core off-center so that its centre of mass is on the Earth-facing side.

This article is finding things it doesn't understand and rather than investigating them is simply declaring that God did it. This is why I abhor religion - it makes life easy by answering questions to which one shouldn't reasonably expect an answer.
Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. But 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? (This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of energy from actually degrades orbits.)
This passage is actually nonsensical. What's spontaneous about the orbits?
Micro-gravity? Yes! Macro-gravity? No! Micro-gravity 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. Now try to observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an oject 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 stuff 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. Some say that planetary orbits are proof of gravity. According to gravitationalists, gravity applies in a straight line between different objects; gravity does not make things spin in circles. But the planets do move in circles, and then they say such orbits prove macro-gravity. This is mere circular reasoning.
Inertia. Again. The force applies in a straight line, but the pre-existing motion causes elliptical orbits. Motion doesn't always occur in the direction the force is applied. I'd suggest watching some drift racing for an obvious example.

Or just swing a yoyo around your hand. The force is clearly being applied only by the string, and thus only directly toward your hand (you can't push on a rope). And yet, the yoyo doesn't immediately fly down and hit your hand - it travels in a circle.
Moreover, if gravity were a complete theory, it would show a full range of transitional forms. No one has ever found the missing links in gravity; instead it is presented as fact, with no adequate explanation of its origins.
What?
Gravity is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved without the hand of a designer. Here is the proof. Very early after the big bag, 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.
The Big Bang Theory actually doens't hold this to be true. The Big Bang Theory is unaware of what happened for the first moments after event one.
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 that the two important things happen at the same time with vanishingly small probability, especially if the future of the universe is at stake. So we can see that gravity is on very shaky theoretical footing.
There is no Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity. If I Google Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity, or even just Helm-Gibbholts, I get one hit. This page. You totally made that up.
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.
No. If there were an electrical charge we could measure it. There's no evidence of such a charge.
The U.S. 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.
This is why natural law and homeopathy have nothing to do with science.

Incidentally, I'd like to see one of these rejected anti-gravity papers, or even be shown anyone who lost their funding over it.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have imagined 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.)
Yes, everything new is "fringe" and therefore bad.

Algebraic mathematics is a sound logical system. It is, therefore, not complete (see Gödel). It can't calculate the things gravtiy needs it to calculate, so Newton devised a new system of mathematics. This was inevitably necessary.
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.
Gravity Probe B. Read abouts its findings and get back to me.
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.
Because the child-like conception of the world is always right.

Incidentally, does this mean you're arguing the world isn't round? Because that's what's required to make Australians not be upside-down relative to us.
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.
Is this complaint that gravtiy fails to explain every phenomenon in the universe? Seriously?

Gravity doesn't claim to be Unified Field Theory.
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.
Okay, so Unitarians are evil. Got it.
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.
Basketball? What?
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways.
By appealing to common sense, you automatically lose any reasoned argument.
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 superior methods that effectively overcome the weight of masses at Northwest, and thus harness forces that succeed over so-called gravity.
This objection would only make sense if gravity claimed to be the most powerful force in any system. It does not.

Oh, and by the way - aerodynamics.
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. If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, it is ridiculous to take it seriously at this time.

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." And, 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.
Okay, now I know this isn't serious.

I'll just stop now.

Now, gravity is the "theory" of gravity rather than the "law" of gravity because it is incomplete.

"Laws" are outdated. They're now called "facts". A theory never turns into a law/fact because it does something completely different. Theories explain the hows. Laws/Facts simply state what happens.

Does anyone else think that this whole gravity debate thing was started by a couple of really smart and mean people as a way to trick idiots? That these people might not believe in what they said, but are just saying it to trick morons and get attention? Plus, everyone knows that God invented gravity because he doesn't like to have to keep the Earth from flying off into the cold, dark space. Would YOU want something you spent a couple space days working on be sent flying into the void of space because you didn't want to turn off inertia? Space days could be billions and billions of earth days. That's a long time. Plus, they might not all be consistant. God invented gravity so that his job would be easier and more hassle free. Everyone knows that. Everyone except Scientologists, but they believe that aliens can fly dc-10s in space and nuke volcanoes without destroying the environment. They'll believe anything as long as it's in a poorly written sci-fi book.

Indeed. The "force"(More accurately effect) of Gravity is affected greatly by distance. Gravity drops off extremely quickly in regards to distance. It is actually one of the weaker "forces" in the universe, really.

As I remember it, it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The order is as follows:

- Strong Nuclear Force
- Weak Nuclear Force
- Electromagnetism
- Gravity

Of course it is. According to the holy gospel we are all being kept on earth by the noodly appendages of the FSM.

rAmen.

I don't know what's funnier -- the article, or the people who are actually taking it seriously on here.

As I remember it, it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The order is as follows:

- Strong Nuclear Force
- Weak Nuclear Force
- Electromagnetism
- GravityHowever, at sufficiently small distances or sufficiently large masses gravity overpowers all other forces.

However, at sufficiently small distances or sufficiently large masses gravity overpowers all other forces.

Small distances? Wouldn't that be large distances?

Small distances? Wouldn't that be large distances?that too. :p

As I remember it, it is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The order is as follows:

- Strong Nuclear Force
- Weak Nuclear Force
- Electromagnetism
- Gravity

Wait a minute. Electromagnetism is the strongest of the four forces and, if The Complete Idiot's Understanding of Einsten and the Science Channel are to be believed, the order from weakest to strongest is: Gravity, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, and Electromagnetism. I think the nuclear forces are what allow atoms to form molecules and what keep atoms from falling apart. Something has to keep them together. You have a mass of uncharged and positively charged particals in a small ball surrounded by negatively charged energy. It's not that stable without some kind of magical force. How long WERE those six biblical days? 4 billion, 5 billion years tops?

The part I find funniest is the Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity. Which doesn't exist.

"Laws" are outdated. They're now called "facts". A theory never turns into a law/fact because it does something completely different. Theories explain the hows. Laws/Facts simply state what happens.

Bullshit

You have Newton's LAWS of Motion, Kepler's LAWS of Planetary Motion, LAWS of thermodynmaics, etc.

They are called Theories because it is a theory of the mechanisims and not necessarily the correct description of how it works. There is no law of gravity nor law of relativity simply because they are incomplete. Conventional theories of gravity and relativity fall apart at the quantum level, and have issues with the whole space-time thing, especially at singularity. Until there is a unified theory that is correct 100% of the time, Gravity will remain "only a theory."

Wait a minute. Electromagnetism is the strongest of the four forces and, if The Complete Idiot's Understanding of Einsten and the Science Channel are to be believed, the order from weakest to strongest is: Gravity, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, and Electromagnetism. I think the nuclear forces are what allow atoms to form molecules and what keep atoms from falling apart. Something has to keep them together. You have a mass of uncharged and positively charged particals in a small ball surrounded by negatively charged energy. It's not that stable without some kind of magical force. How long WERE those six biblical days? 4 billion, 5 billion years tops?
Uh... no... it goes (from strongest to weakest) Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EM, gravity. If the EM forces were stronger than the strong force, then atoms would not form due to coulomb repulsion.

*from the friendly neighbourhood physics student

You have Newton's LAWS of Motion, Kepler's LAWS of Planetary Motion, LAWS of thermodynmaics, etc.
Artifacts of age.

They are called Theories because it is a theory of the mechanisims and not necessarily the correct description of how it works. There is no law of gravity nor law of relativity simply because they are incomplete. Conventional theories of gravity and relativity fall apart at the quantum level, and have issues with the whole space-time thing, especially at singularity. Until there is a unified theory that is correct 100% of the time, Gravity will remain "only a theory."
You have no understanding of science, do you? Theories never become laws. They're two completely different things.

Bullshit

You have Newton's LAWS of Motion, Kepler's LAWS of Planetary Motion, LAWS of thermodynmaics, etc.

They are called Theories because it is a theory of the mechanisims and not necessarily the correct description of how it works. There is no law of gravity nor law of relativity simply because they are incomplete. Conventional theories of gravity and relativity fall apart at the quantum level, and have issues with the whole space-time thing, especially at singularity. Until there is a unified theory that is correct 100% of the time, Gravity will remain "only a theory."

Boy-oh-boy. So, here's the "Scientific Theories for Idiots" version of what a scientific Theory is:

You make an observation of a given phenomenon. You then make a hypothesis of how that phenomenon occurs.

You test your hypothesis. If it holds true, for the most part, you have the beginning of a Theory.

You continue testing, to make sure that the results are repeatable.

You change your hypothesis as needed, or completely rework it if it doesn't work out.

After rounds of testing, you submit it. Others repeat your tests, looking for holes in it.

Then you rework it again if someone finds a problem.

Ad infinitum until you finally come to something that is an accurate, repeatable, and observable prediction of a phenomena.

At this point, it is a Theory.

A Theory basically says:

"If I do A, B should happen under my theory."

A "Law"(Archaic, and out of date term) states:

"This is what happens, period."

Note the lack of prediction. Note the lack of anything useful. You can use a "Law" to base your theories on, but a theory is an entirely seperate entity than a "law".

As my professor put it:

Facts alone are useless to scientists. You can't predict anything with them.

So, as a Theory is a prediction, a law is more or less an observation, in a sense.

Two completely separate issues.