A Leauki's Writings
Published on May 26, 2010 By Leauki In Physics

I found this out today after doing some experiments and scientific research. And now I have indisputable proof that the so-called "scientific" theory of gravity is wrong.

This includes both common theories, Newton's and Einstein's, and demonstrates the need for a more factual alternative to be taught in schools, in science class, from now on.

How do I know that gravity is wrong?

Scientists tell us that because of "gravity" planets revolve around the sun. This has never been proven.

We see the planets sometimes and then they disappear and reappear, but the idea that between those points they follow a certain track as if they were determined to do so (remember that planets are soulless entities without will) is not only ridiculous but also completely unproven. For all we know they might be teleported away and then back to where the teleporter wants them. It's futile to try to predict what the teleporter decides.

Scientists also tell us that smaller objects, closer to a planet, will fall towards the planet. And it seems like this is true because we can see pebbless fall to the ground when we drop them.

But there is no evidence that this was the case hundreds of years ago. And in fact scienists claim that a rock would fall from ten feet to the ground if left unstopped but they have never demonstrated a transitional rock floating at three feet. The plain fact is that there is no evidence for rocks falling to the ground since we never found a rock in the transitional state between being at ten feet and lying on the ground. A real scientist would demonstrate a floating rock. But these gravity pseudo-scientists never have.

I believe Papa Smurf makes rocks "fall" to the ground. He wills a rock at ten feet to the ground and he doesn't want it to float at three feet and that's, obviously, why there are no floating rocks we can touch.

Papa Smurf is also invisible and magic. We cannot see, hear, smell, or touch him. And since he makes "gravity" happen, he is also exempt (as long as he wishes) from being subject to it (unless he moves himself closer to the ground). Now try to disprove that! It's water-proof.

In contrast to any "scientific" theory of gravity, there is no possible (or impossible) event that could disprove my Papa Smurf theory. This should be taught in science class instead of a "scientific theory" that has never been proven and was so easily disproven by just pointing out the absence of floating rocks.

Now, some detractors claim that floating rocks are an impossibility according to both Newton's and Einstein's theories and that finding such a floating rock would disprove gravity. But to that I say that the dictionary says the following about gravity:

The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

See? It doesn't mention floating rocks.

Now, I know enough about gravity to tell you that gravity is all about floating rocks. It's also about some rocks being better than others.

"Scientists" will tell you that gravity is not about the value of rocks in any sense except their mass, but I say pishtosh, because it's a nice word I got from a Dilbert book.

It is clear that "gravity" is only taught in schools to deny the existence of Papa Smurf.

Real science should be taught in school. Solid theories that cannot be disproven should be taught.

 

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
on May 26, 2010

Disproving a theory by stating that what the theory said would never happen hasn't happened.

It's awesome!

 

 

on May 26, 2010

Yes, it is rare for countries with a very religious population to feature a high crime rate.

Very religious people are usually very peaceful and not at all terrorists or wifebeaters.

 

on May 26, 2010

And if everyone believed in Papa Smurf, we wouldn't need laws.

Kinda contradictory when the 10 Commandments are in the Bible. Christians have laws, they are simply not subject to Human Gov't approval or disapproval.

on May 26, 2010

Kinda contradictory when the 10 Commandments are in the Bible. Christians have laws, they are simply not subject to Human Gov't approval or disapproval.

That was the joke. Of course it's contradictory. The entire Torah (books of Moses) is a law book. Judaism is all about laws. Christianity is based on that.

 

on May 26, 2010

That was the joke. Of course it's contradictory. The entire Torah (books of Moses) is a law book. Judaism is all about laws. Christianity is based on that.

Just in case, I meant contradictory to the guy on the article, not dan. Gotta love how people interpret religion their own way.

on May 26, 2010

Just click the link dude. 

 

 

on May 26, 2010

Wondered why I couldn't get my ass off the ceiling.

on May 26, 2010

Just click the link dude.

I did. And as i said, it's contradicting to say we wouldn't need laws considering the Bible has laws. He makes it seem like just because one is Christian that somehow we know not to do these things considered crimes by our laws, but it's not like we don't do them because we would simply be Christian, but because God's laws prohibit them. So he's really talking in circles. Goes to show that stupidity is not always limited to the democratic party.

on May 27, 2010

Sometimes I suspect that you go out of your way to be antagonistic, Leauki.

on May 28, 2010

Sometimes I suspect that you go out of your way to be antagonistic, Leauki.

I don't see why the Creationists should get away with it.

And, yes, you are right.

on May 28, 2010

I'm pretty sure we covered this already: your idea of creationism and the theory of evolution are non-equatable.  I'm not sure why you keep comparing the two - one is an idea on how life began and the other is a theory on how life progresses.  You are comparing apples and oranges, yet seem a bit smug about it anyway.

The term creationist is a bit vague, you know.  It could technically apply to everyone from Christians to Scientologists.

Oh, and didn't we already establish the fact that you're a creationist too? I distinctly remember you saying that you believed God started the evolutionary process.

on May 28, 2010

Oh, and didn't we already establish the fact that you're a creationist too? I distinctly remember you saying that you believed God started the evolutionary process.

Yes, I believe He did, just like He ultimately started everything that happens in His world.

But "Creationism" is not the belief that G-d created the world or influences it.

"Creationism" is the belief that G-d created each species as it is individually.

I believe that G-d created the world. But I am not a "Creationist".

(I also believe in freedom but I am not a "liberal".)

 

on May 31, 2010

But "Creationism" is not the belief that G-d created the world or influences it.
"Creationism" is the belief that G-d created each species as it is individually.

"Creationism" by definition is just the belief that a higher power, be it God or aliens or whatever else, created life on Earth.

Christians generally believe that species were created individually because the Genesis account in the Bible suggests that they were.

Thus, as you once pointed out to me that belief in evolution didn't necessarily mean a belief in abiogenesis, I will point out that Creationism doesn't necessarily always mean that God created everything we have today, nor that God is still creating today.

For example, Christian creationism doesn't mean we believe that God created every species of dog we have today - genetic variation and/or adaptation is built in with DNA systems, and breeding is obviously possible - but that He created one of each species which are known today as being able to cross-breed (i.e. wolves and coyotes may have been original creations, as opposed to domesticated dogs, which were later bred from those two).  So in my view, dogs were not created by God, nor were every type of bird you (or Darwin) might see in the sky.  However, God created a system capable of developing those variations throughout different generations of the animal.

 

Oh, and sorry for the delayed response.  I dropped off the face of the E-earth during Memorial weekend, haha.

on May 31, 2010

"Creationism" by definition is just the belief that a higher power, be it God or aliens or whatever else, created life on Earth.

That's not how Creationists understand their ideology.

 

Christians generally believe that species were created individually because the Genesis account in the Bible suggests that they were.

But that's different from creating life.

Evolution explains how the different species came to be. Creationism does not (in a scientific way).

 

Thus, as you once pointed out to me that belief in evolution didn't necessarily mean a belief in abiogenesis, I will point out that Creationism doesn't necessarily always mean that God created everything we have today, nor that God is still creating today.

That's not useful. When Creationists want Creationism to be taught in schools, they are not talking about G-d creating life and nothing else. Your definition is simply not useful.

Creationists believe that the advent of species was part of the act of Creation rather than an effect. That's what "Creationism" means.

 

 

 

Meta
Views
» 1250
Comments
» 37
Category
Sponsored Links