Gravity: It's Only a Theory

[Milton Platt]

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.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

You did not even bother to read your own link, did you?
Below the title of the article it says, "[..........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.]

The moon does revolve around the sun...it also revolves around the earth as it travels around the sun.
There is a great resource on the internet called Google. You should undertake learning how to use it. But to get you started, there's this:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/why-are-there-two-tides-day

and this:
The Universal Law of Gravitation says that the force, F, between two objects of mass m1 and m2 is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, between them. The proportionality constant (which just gets the units right) is G = 6.674 x 10-11 N·m2Kg-2.

 

[Nakosis]

You did not even bother to read your own link, did you?
Below the title of the article it says, "[..........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.]

The moon does revolve around the sun...it also revolves around the earth as it travels around the sun.
There is a great resource on the internet called Google. You should undertake learning how to use it. But to get you started, there's this:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/why-are-there-two-tides-day

and this:
The Universal Law of Gravitation says that the force, F, between two objects of mass m1 and m2 is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, between them. The proportionality constant (which just gets the units right) is G = 6.674 x 10-11 N·m2Kg-2.

You might want to check which forum section it was posted in.

 

[Milton Platt]

You might want to check which forum section it was posted in.

LOL!!! That's what I get for trying to do some rapid-fire posting in between other duties. *egg on face*

 

[Nakosis]

Jupiter does have rings though guvnor. Not the kind you can see easily with the naked eye mind.

''The planet Jupiter has a system of rings known as the rings of Jupiter or the Jovian ring system. It was the third ring system to be discovered in the Solar System, after those of Saturn and Uranus. It was first observed in 1979 by the Voyager 1 space probe[1] and thoroughly investigated in the 1990s by the Galileo orbiter.[2] It has also been observed by the Hubble Space Telescope and from Earth for several years.[3] Ground-based observations of the rings require the largest available telescopes''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter

View attachment 22981
Wiki Image - Rings of Jupiter, Schema.

So wait, your saying there's rings around Uranus?

 

[Revoltingest]

You might want to check which forum section it was posted in.

I half expected someone to accuse me of being a Christian creationist again.

 

[Revoltingest]

So wait, your saying there's rings around Uranus?

Complete with Klingons.

 

[Nakosis]

But it works. Hence humanity and what not sticking to the gravity source below you.

1 there are a lot of things not done. So that's something of a strawman. However gravitational effects can be observed at distant suns and galaxies to work as predicted. The sun dance at the centre of our galaxy is a fine example.

2 the pull of gravity has an inverse square property, the sun is far enough away that its gravitational effect on the moon simply pulls its orbit onto an ellipse while the gravitational effect of earth holds its orbit. Interestingly the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year.

3 fluid dynamics seems to have you stumped. Now all you need to do is prove your creator exists and he gave us tides.

Edit : sorry, the image seems to have fallen foul of the RF bug/feature. Just open the post up in a reply window to see it.

Cool graphic.

 

[ChristineM]

Cool graphic.

Cheers, based on real measurements but speeded up so mr average doesn't get bored waiting a few hours to see movement.

Very fast orbits by celestial standards, still slow on a visual standard

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ahh, intellegent falling, the art of flying in a nutshell. The art lies in learning to fall to the ground and miss.

Ahh....the infallibility of intelligent design.

That could also theoretically apply to people going over waterfalls inside a barrel.

 

[Mox]

So wait, your saying there's rings around Uranus?

Yes guv, I keeps em shiny.

 

[Mox]

Complete with Klingons.

Complete with dark matter....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Really, well try explaining this Mister Smarty Pants...

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity.

Good luck.

I'll save time, and just say "thank you" to all the other contributors who answered you so effectively.

 

[Nakosis]

I'll save time, and just say "thank you" to all the other contributors who answered you so effectively.

Fair enough. I thought you were doing an excellent job however.

 

[ChristineM]

Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity.

Gravity also fails to account for why pizza or bacon taste so good and fried dog poo doesn't.

It also fails to account for the deliberate ignorance of creationists

Was there actually a point to that claim

 

[Nakosis]

Gravity also fails to account for why pizza or bacon taste so good and fried dog poo doesn't.

It also fails to account for the deliberate ignorance of creationists

Was there actually a point to that claim

I think you nailed it.

 

[ChristineM]

I think you nailed it.

Just goes to show that a "theory of everything" is a long, long, way away.

Unless you consider "42" as the answer

 

[Shaul]

Yes, because evolution is as valid as the theories of phlogiston, eugenics, phrenology, the Uniformitarian Principle of geology, and about the Piltdown man. Because every scientific theory is as valid as every other one , right?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, because evolution is as valid as the theories of phlogiston, eugenics, phrenology, the Uniformitarian Principle of geology, and about the Piltdown man. Because every scientific theory is as valid as every other one , right?

Until disproved. Science has debunked, disproven or exposed as fraud most of those you listed, except one.

Now all you need to do is disprove the myriad evidence for evolution and you may have a valid point.

 

[Shaul]

Until disproved. Science has debunked, disproven or exposed as fraud most of those you listed, except one.

Now all you need to do is disprove the myriad evidence for evolution and you may have a valid point.

I already made my point, the one you just restated. Each scientific theory stands on its own merits. That some theories have been disproven or others have not been disproven has no bearing on whether the theory of evolution is valid or not. Some here implied that the theory of evolution is as valid as the theory of gravity, as if one theory gains credibility from the other. My post was pointed out that is absurd.

So yeah, I had quite a valid point.

Now I’ll make another valid point. No real scientist would presume to disallow that the theory of evolution can not ever be disproven. That being the case, it is a theory, not a tool for dogmatism.

 

[ChristineM]

I already made my point, the one you just restated. Each scientific theory stands on its own merits. That some theories have been disproven or others have not been disproven has no bearing on whether the theory of evolution is valid or not. Some here implied that the theory of evolution is as valid as the theory of gravity, as if one theory gains credibility from the other. My post was pointed out that is absurd.

So yeah, I had quite a valid point.

Now I’ll make another valid point. No real scientist would presume to disallow that the theory of evolution can not ever be disproven. That being the case, it is a theory, not a tool for dogmatism.

Apart from you lumping evolution in with a bunch of ignorant xenophobic ideas and proven frauds.

Ahh now we are getting somewhere, no scientist would consider any theory to be fact, new evidence may arise that demotes the theory. In the case of evolution this has not occured. In the case of all your other examples it has.