A Little about Gravity

Every now and then a topic comes up on twitter that you’re “less than prepared for”. I had one of those days yesterday, so I did a little research in case I have another rainy day. So this dude, (@Supreme_King78) henceforth known as “the king of the gravity canard” had a three part argument prepared.  His first assertion is that the existence of gravity hasn’t definitively been proven.  Second, accepting the current research on gravity is a “faith based” belief, and finally, attempts to close the analogy by saying that where “belief” in gravity and “belief” in the science surrounding it, ipso facto, one can reliably have “faith in the existence of god in spite of the fact god’s existence hasn’t been proven.

Should anyone reading this have to deal with this gentleman, you need to also be aware of the other tactics used to flummox his opponents. He will flood (about 20 inside a min) your mentions/TL with repeat tweets. He refuses to engage in any area other than his “gravity canard.”  He will also try to put the onus of refutation on the debator, and refuses to substantiate any of his claims with anything other than the bible.

Here’s what I could find on the latest theories about gravity.


http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html Covers Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation flaws, and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.



If anyone has any better or newer information, links to info, or thoughts on the subject, I’d be very glad to hear them.

An update: I guess I need to debunk the following webpage: http://worldview3.50webs.com/scientmethod.html

More to follow-


About Egg Zackly

Retired amateur pundit.
This entry was posted in Religion, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A Little about Gravity

  1. Gravity is a theory. From a certain point of view, nothing can be really proven (because for that you will have to prove that you really exist, which is impossible). And only one apple that falls up instead of down can kill the theory. BUT the theory can (said simplified) a) explain everything that happend until now (planets as well as apples) and b) more importantly, make predictions about the future: If I throw this apple, it will move this way. As long as this is true, the theory can be considered true enough. As soon as something changes, for example that the movement of the planets is measured as being not exactly as predicted by the theory of gravity, the theory will has to be changed, too. The whole process is called science. You never assume that you’ve got the perfectly true theory now, just that the theory you have may be adequate to explain everything you know until now good enough.

    This is, where a scientific theory is different from a faith: A faith can explain what happend, but it cannot make any predicitions. If god was predictable – “If you this, god will kill you by lightning immediately” – then religion would become a scientic theory. But it isn’t. No religious “theory” can predict anything that happens. You can test the theory of gravity by simply throwing stuff around. You cannot test a faith. And you never change the faith (ok, in reality you do, but not based on reality, just on church politics).

    No need to go deep into the theory of gravity if the guy obviously doesn’t even understand the concept of a scientic theory 🙂

    • P Yew says:

      Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. You’re right about his science. He’s latched on this gravity thing because the rest of it quite weak. Yesterday was a perfect storm of twitter things. (sigh)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s