Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Gravity...... Only a theory?
Found this on the internet, are these the ravings of a loonatic? Have the Amish ste up a website?
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 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day.
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 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Well Gravity needs some work but the reasons are nothing to do with tides.
There's the question of why it's so weak compared to the other forces.
There's the question of why it's so weak compared to the other forces.
14:54 Wed 07th Oct 2009
It's a wonder that the writer hasn't said the earth is flat. All of what they say is demonstrably false.It's not new, either, to think the tides had nothing to do with the moon. Isaac Vossius, a Dutchman, published a book, translated into English and published here in 1677 as 'A Treatise concerning the Motion of the Seas and Winds'. In that he rejects the influence of the moon and other forces, arguing that the heat of the sun was the sole cause of tides. [You've missed a chance to buy a copy.One was sold at Bonham's auction house this week for £900 hammer price !]
Well Gravity needs some work but the reasons are nothing to do with tides.
Firstly it doesn't fit in with the other forces. There should be gravitational waves and a carrier particle called the graviton. Neither yet have been observed.
There's the question of why it's so weak compared to the other forces.
The issue of Dark Energy/the cosmological constatnt which may be a problem with Gravity
And if we don't find the Higgs Boson you can add that into the mix too.
All in all Gravity is the least satisfactory of the descriptions we have, it has a real feel of "work in progress".
So actually I'd say "Right but for the wrong reasons"
Firstly it doesn't fit in with the other forces. There should be gravitational waves and a carrier particle called the graviton. Neither yet have been observed.
There's the question of why it's so weak compared to the other forces.
The issue of Dark Energy/the cosmological constatnt which may be a problem with Gravity
And if we don't find the Higgs Boson you can add that into the mix too.
All in all Gravity is the least satisfactory of the descriptions we have, it has a real feel of "work in progress".
So actually I'd say "Right but for the wrong reasons"
Not the ravings of a lunatic.
This is written by Ellery Schempp who is a physicist and a strong proponent of the separation of religion and state.
As a schoolchild he successfully sued his school over their policy of mandatory Bible readings.
The article is a spoof intended to highlight the absurdity of the kind of arguments presented by creationists.
Do a Google search and you will find the full article which just gets sillier.
Bizarrely you are most likely to find it on a fundamentalist religious site because some of them take it seriously!!
This is written by Ellery Schempp who is a physicist and a strong proponent of the separation of religion and state.
As a schoolchild he successfully sued his school over their policy of mandatory Bible readings.
The article is a spoof intended to highlight the absurdity of the kind of arguments presented by creationists.
Do a Google search and you will find the full article which just gets sillier.
Bizarrely you are most likely to find it on a fundamentalist religious site because some of them take it seriously!!
eltelioni:
Gosh, thanks for that! Fancy me, a ‘Good Jewish Boy’ falling for a religion-hating nutter(!)
You see, the thing about creationism is that it gets us non-fundamentalist types a bad name. As it happens, and contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in G_D as the creator of the universe. This does not make one a ‘creationist’
What of the (many) scientific inconsistencies in the story of creation? you may ask. Well, as anyone who has studied the Bible (not just skimmed through it with a sneer on their face) knows very well, very many of the stories in the Bible are allegorical. That is, they were not meant to be taken literally. In the case of the story of creation, this tale was couched in terms people living over three thousand years ago could understand. It is obvious to anyone (That is, anyone not wearing a long black beard and ringlets of hair at their temples) that the ‘days’ described in the creation story are not ‘Earth Days’. How could they be, if the sun and moon were not created until ‘day’ four?
In many ways, those who mock and deny religion are as guilty of narrow-mindedness as any they claim to denounce.
Gosh, thanks for that! Fancy me, a ‘Good Jewish Boy’ falling for a religion-hating nutter(!)
You see, the thing about creationism is that it gets us non-fundamentalist types a bad name. As it happens, and contrary to popular belief, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in G_D as the creator of the universe. This does not make one a ‘creationist’
What of the (many) scientific inconsistencies in the story of creation? you may ask. Well, as anyone who has studied the Bible (not just skimmed through it with a sneer on their face) knows very well, very many of the stories in the Bible are allegorical. That is, they were not meant to be taken literally. In the case of the story of creation, this tale was couched in terms people living over three thousand years ago could understand. It is obvious to anyone (That is, anyone not wearing a long black beard and ringlets of hair at their temples) that the ‘days’ described in the creation story are not ‘Earth Days’. How could they be, if the sun and moon were not created until ‘day’ four?
In many ways, those who mock and deny religion are as guilty of narrow-mindedness as any they claim to denounce.
Not believing in God for solid logical reasons can hardly be described as 'narrow minded'.
To believe in an all powerful, supernatural being that has the power to create the universe, planets and life and yet seems unable or unwilling to stop horrific natural disasters, seems particularly narrow minded to me.
The claim that atheists are narrow minded is an oft repeated one and for most atheists it fails to stand up to scrutiny. How can someone be described as narrow minded who, when presented with a fantastic theory, asks for proof of that theory?
Surely, asking for someone to provide the evidence for a fantastic theory is simply saying, “Okay, I'll believe it if you can prove it to me with verifiable evidence”.
The fact that the 'proof' for the existence of God is anecdotal at best. What is there really? Very old books written by fallible human hands which, as you have correctly pointed out, are mostly allegorical.
To believe in an all powerful, supernatural being that has the power to create the universe, planets and life and yet seems unable or unwilling to stop horrific natural disasters, seems particularly narrow minded to me.
The claim that atheists are narrow minded is an oft repeated one and for most atheists it fails to stand up to scrutiny. How can someone be described as narrow minded who, when presented with a fantastic theory, asks for proof of that theory?
Surely, asking for someone to provide the evidence for a fantastic theory is simply saying, “Okay, I'll believe it if you can prove it to me with verifiable evidence”.
The fact that the 'proof' for the existence of God is anecdotal at best. What is there really? Very old books written by fallible human hands which, as you have correctly pointed out, are mostly allegorical.
1 to 9 of 9
