If a group of concerned parents gets its way, high school physics students may soon be required to learn about alternative explanations of gravity. The parents say that a one-sided focus on Newton's so-called universal law of gravitation is unfair to students who don't believe in gravity. If they prevail, physics teachers may be forced to read a statement acknowledging that our understanding of gravity is just a theory.
Is Einstein's 'theory of relativism' next?
By Cole Walters, education correspondent
Related Stories |
||
• Kansas Trial to Show Evolution is 'Monkey Business' |
DOVER, PA—It is a staple of high-school physics classes: the story of Isaac Newton's encounter with a certain apple. As scientific wisdom would have it, Sir Isaac was sitting beneath a tree one afternoon when the offending apple dropped down upon his head, leading him to coin an explanation of one of the universe's greatest mysteries: why do things fall out of the sky?
Called the universal theory of gravity, Newton's so-called law is taught to physics students everyday. But a growing movement of parents wants to change that. They say that Isaac Newton's theory of acceleration and velocity is just that—a theory—and that forcing students to accept a Newtonian view of the natural world is unfair to those who don't believe in gravity.
An accelerating movement
This small Pennsylvania town south of Harrisburg is at the center of the movement to force high school physics teachers to introduce alternative explanations of the force of gravitation. But parents here reject the claim that they're trying to ban teachers from mentioning gravity, or the increasingly controversial Sir Isaac Newton. Rather, they say, their goal is to supplement the existing physics curriculum.
"It's just not fair to the young men and women who attend physics classes in Dover that they learn about one theory over and over," says curriculum improvement advocate Lorraine Dittie. "What we'd like to see is a more a balanced presentation."
Just a theory
If parents and advocates for change like Dittie get their way, physics teachers may be required to read a statement to their classes as early as next fall, acknowledging that Newton's explanation of gravity is a theory, not a law as it has often been described in the past. "If it's a law, that means that there are penalties for breaking it," explains Dittie. "Newton obviously came up with one theory of how gravity works, but there are others as well."
God's will
One such theory holds that Isaac Newton was chosen by God, who signaled his interest in the British physicist and mathematician by dropping an apple on his head. While students would still be exposed to Newton's ideas, they would largely bypass his influential work on physics, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, focusing instead upon his deeply-held religious beliefs and his later work in which he attempted to date the events depicted in the bible.
Physicists gravitate to secularism
But not everybody is happy about the new plan. Dover Senior High School physics teacher and golf coach Lou DeGregorio says that he's already got enough to teach, and that adding new explanations of gravity may force him to cut other subject areas from his curriculum, including force and equilibrium, static electricity or simple harmonic motion.
Mr. DeGregorio also questions why the parents have chosen to single out Newton's law of gravity for their efforts, noting that the 17th century mathematical formulation has largely been replaced by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. "I don't want to say that these people are idiots but they obviously don't know a whole hell of a lot about physics."
Next up: the theory of relativism
For her part, Mrs. Dittie says that she's all too familiar with Einstein's theory—and that her curriculum improvement group is already contemplating launching a charge against the German physicist.
"At least he acknowledged that all he'd come up with was a theory," says Dittie. "But the last thing we need to expose our kids to is a theory of relativism. They're already being told that there's no right or wrong. If you want to learn about Einstein, fine. I just don't want my tax dollars going to pay for it."
Do you think it should be against the law for high-school physics students to learn about gravity? Talk back to [email protected].
‘You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to consider of it… That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity ...’ – Isaac Newton, Letter to Richard Bentley, 1693.
‘But if, meanwhile, someone explains gravity along with all its laws by the action of some subtle matter, and shows that the motion of planets and comets will not be disturbed by this matter, I shall be far from objecting.’ – Isaac Newton, Letter to Leibniz, 1693.
‘To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... therefore there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)
‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.
‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.
‘Looking back at the development of physics, we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the enfant terrible of the family of physical substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused to a great extent the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we have to give up the hope that through the presence of the ether sea, one co-ordinate system will be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute and not only relative motion. … After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say our space has the physical property of transmitting waves and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid. The omission of a word from our vocabulary is of course no remedy; the troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way. Let us now write down the facts which have been sufficiently confirmed by experiment without bothering any more about the ‘e---r’ problem.’ – Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, Evolution of Physics, 1938, pp. 184-5; written to get Jewish Infeld out of Nazi Germany and accepted as a worthy refugee in America. (Einstein was against ether in 1905 to wide praise from politicians, because ether had bogged physics down in speculation, but then in his inaugural lecture at Leyden in 1920 Einstein said ‘According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable’, and in 1938 conceded defeat at the e---r word!)
‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. See also Dirac’s paper in Proc. Roy. Soc. v.A209, 1951, p.291.
‘It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability.’ - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.
‘Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations. History of science, of course, is full of accounts of how crucial experiments allegedly killed theories. But such accounts are fabricated long after the theory had been abandoned. ... What really count are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance; where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes.
‘Now, how do scientific revolutions come about? If we have two rival research programmes, and one is progressing while the other is degenerating, scientists tend to join the progressive programme. This is the rationale of scientific revolutions. ... Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill, by refutation. Important criticism is always constructive: there is no refutation without a better theory. Kuhn is wrong in thinking that scientific revolutions are sudden, irrational changes in vision. The history of science refutes both Popper and Kuhn: on close inspection both Popperian crucial experiments and Kuhnian revolutions turn out to be myths: what normally happens is that progressive research programmes replace degenerating ones.’ - Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudo-Science, pages 96-102 of Godfrey Vesey (editor), Philosophy in the Open, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1974.
‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.
http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ :
‘It has been said that more than 200 theories of gravitation have been put forward; but the most plausible of these [the Lesage-Feynman pressure shielding scheme] have all had the defect that they lead nowhere and admit of no experimental test.’ - Sir Arthur Eddington, ‘Space Time and Gravitation’, Cambridge University Press, 1921, p64. Web-log: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/
Dr Luboš Motl: ‘… quantum mechanics is perhaps the deepest idea we know. It is once again a deformation of a conceptually simpler picture of classical physics.’
LeSage, between 1747-82, explained gravity classically as a shadowing effect of space pressure by masses. The speculative, non-quantitative mechanism was published in French (George Louis LeSage, Lucrece Newtonien, Nouveaux Memoires De L’Academie Royal de Sciences et Belle Letters, 1782, pp. 404-31: http://www3.bbaw.de/bibliothek/digital/struktur/03-nouv/1782/jpg-0600/00000495.htm ). Because gravity depends on the mass within the whole earth’s volume, LeSage predicted that the atomic structure was mostly void, a kind of nuclear atom which was confirmed Rutherford’s work in 1911. LeSage argued that there is some kind of pressure in space, and that masses shield one another from the space pressure, thus being pushed together by the unshielded space pressure on the opposite side. Feynman explained that the major advance of general relativity, the contraction term shortens the radius of every mass. He does not derive the equation, but we will do so below... (see http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ for the maths.)
Therefore, clocks slow down not only when moving at high velocity, but also in gravitational fields, and distance contracts in all directions toward the centre of a static mass. The variation in mass with location within a gravitational field shown in the equation above is due to variations in gravitational potential energy. The contraction of space is by (1/3) GM/c2. This is the 1.5-mm contraction of earth’s radius Feynman obtains, as if there is pressure in space. An equivalent pressure effect causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of objects in the direction of their motion in space, similar to the wind pressure when moving in air, but without viscosity. Feynman was unable to proceed with the LeSage gravity and gave up on it in 1965. However, we have a solution.
The big bang causes an outward force (Newton’s 2nd law) that results in an equal inward force (Newton’s 3rd law) which causes gravity as an inward force, Higgs field pressure. Where partially shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples are pushed downwards towards the earth, a space shield.
In quantum gravity, the big error in physics is that Edwin Hubble in 1929 divided the Doppler shift determined recession speeds by the apparent distances to get his constant, v/R = H. In fact, the distances increase while the light is coming back to us. What he should have done is to represent it as a variation in speed with time past. Whereas H has units s-1 (1/age of universe), the directly observed Hubble ratio is equal to v/t = HR/(1/H) = RH2 (and therefore has units of ms-2, acceleration). In the big bang, the recession velocities from here outward vary from v = 0 towards v = c, and the corresponding times after the big bang vary from 15,000 million years (t = 1/H) towards zero time. Hence, the apparent acceleration as seen in space-time is
a = (variation in velocity)/(variation in time) = c / (1/H) = cH = 6 x 10-10 ms-2.
Although a small acceleration, a large mass of the universe is involved so the outward force (F = ma) is very large. The inward Higgs field pressure gives the right value for G, disproving the ‘critical density’ formula of general relativity by ½ e3 = 10 times. This disproves most speculative ‘dark matter’. Since gravity is the inward push caused by the Higgs field flowing around the moving fundamental particles to fill in the void left in their wake, there will only be a gravitational ‘pull’ (push) where there is a surrounding expansion. Where there is no surrounding expansion there is no gravitational retardation to slow matter down. This is in agreement with observations that there is no slowing down (a fictitious acceleration is usually postulated to explain the lack of slowing down of supernovae).
Current teaching of general relativity, as causing a flat surface like a rubber sheet to curve into a manifold, is unhelpful to further progress in unifying quantum space with gravitation, since physical space fills volume, not surface area.
Gravity is the effect of inward directed graviton radiation pressure of the inflow of the fabric of spacetime inwards to fill the volume left empty by the outward acceleration of galaxies in the big bang. LeSage-Feynman shadowing of the spacetime fabric – which is a light velocity radiation on the 4 dimensional spacetime we observe – pushes us downward. You can’t stop space with an umbrella, as atoms are mainly void through which space pressure propagates! Recently, Dr t’Hooft admitted the fifth dimension is mathematically equivalent to the spacetime fabric by the holographic conjecture. It is good to drag in some real experts.
http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ :
I like the brief summary of the basic mathematics in general relativity given by John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline1.html although his more detailed explanation here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline2.html is less encouraging; it seems to omit both physics and the process by which general relativity was obtained. What can anyone learn from the conventional teaching of general relativity? The answer is mathematical manipulation.
On my page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ I give a discussion from a different perspective, considering the physical processes and historical development of general relativity. I also give simplified differential equations for the various tensors and their units very briefly. I do not give the full expansion of the Riemann tensor, for example. Students have to go elsewhere for that.
What seems more important for quantum gravity is the fact that the spacetime fabric can be treated as a perfect fluid.
‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, ‘General Relativity’, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.
‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus…. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – A.S. Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.
So the contraction of the Michelson-Morley instrument made it fail to detect absolute motion. This is why special relativity needs replacement with a causal general relativity:
‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden university lecture ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, 1952, p. 23.)
An overdose of the tensor properties of general relativity can give the reader the false impression that nature is mathematical not physical. This seems to be the case with the current interest in string theory. I don't doubt that extra dimensions, particularly the 4th dimension and possibly the M-theory compactified dimensions, have a mathematical equivalence to reality. But the answer might not be found by getting ever more mathematical. Electromagnetism is weird enough, with forces being propagated along electric and magnetic field lines, to believe that there could be some extra dimensional significance behind it. But you need a physical theory tied to experimental facts even more if there are extra dimensions, because you will get in a real tangle without sticking to physical reality. The vast number of ideas about branes and ways to deal mathematically with extra dimensions show this.
‘Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.’ – David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.
Posted by: Nigel | September 23, 2005 at 03:45 AM
A common thread of misunderstanding runs throughout today's Swift Report, and I've got to say that I am good deal more disturbed about the errors occurring in a publication I have grown accustomed to relying on for the unvarnished truth, than I am upset about the misapprehensions themselves. You've made the mistake, or have allowed yourself to appear to have done so, of thinking that the "theory" in The Theory of Gravitation, consists of its postulating that gravity exists, not at all, it refers to the how of gravity not the if. This is the same lame misunderstanding that allows the rationalists to use sow doubt in the mind of the rubes when it comes to Evolution, and its theory(ies). Decades before Darwin, scientists where coming to a consensus about the reality, the "if" of evolution, what Darwin did far better than anyone prior (leaving out Wallace), was to advance a possible mechanism for it to occur, the "how". The point I really wished to make when I started this was, that while you believed you were being tongue in cheek, the jokes on you, as far as testability, evolution's theory has a heck of a lot more in the way of demonstrable proof, than does gravity's, (theory) or did someone manage to roundup a quantity of gravitons while I wasn't looking?
Posted by: greeseyparrot | August 31, 2005 at 12:50 AM
theory of evolution?
theory of relativity?
atomic theory?
Why not,
theory of intelligent design?
theory of creationism?
theory of God?
Posted by: Concerned Human | July 20, 2005 at 05:11 PM
An important lesson for life: Some people, when speaking in poorly thought-out, ignorant terms that are based on a belief system: Need to be slapped, and then educated
Posted by: jaybev | June 21, 2005 at 11:10 PM
You will burn in HELLFIRE for your blasphemy!
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Duane Gish | June 20, 2005 at 11:49 AM
"Posted by: Lyn | May 24, 2005 09:22 AM
Why...are...Americans...so...stupid? My guess is that their idiocy breeds itself. This blog article is a perfect example, stupid people doing their best to condemn others to the same"
Not all Americans, just some-- the fundamental religious types. Their staunch refusal of reality creates breeding room for ideology of fundies to seep into places they shouldn't be-- the classroom. Their overly loud shiatfilled mouths give birth to crappy legislation that tries to stymie actual science with Bible-thumping idiocy. I'm an American and I am quite ashamed that shiat like this actually happens. If I had a choice, I'd commit genocide on all of those who impede rationality and corrupt our children.
Posted by: Jeff | June 18, 2005 at 09:51 AM
I just finished reading Quicksilver from Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, and if they really taught about "Newton's deeply held beliefs", theyd be raising a generation of puritanical sociopaths.
The man was brilliant to be sure, but I checked out some reference Stephenson cites and Newton was indeed very odd, to say the least.
Posted by: Bob | June 17, 2005 at 06:13 PM
oh my ...
perhaps we should start by saying that Newton did not expound a theory of gravity, but merely discovered certain laws of how gravity behaves.
Newton treated gravity in 1666, not by why it works, but by how it works.
(http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/gravity.html)
so contrary to what many seem to believe, gravity has been observed and Newton explained how it works, but not why. That question is open to this day, and there are several diverse hypotheses on what the mechanism behind gravity might be. The case is far from closed.
That said, the Christian explanation that gravity is caused by God seems to be the least probable, actually it simply skirts the question of mechanism and substitutes _belief_ for the ongoing quest.
I prefer to keep an open mind and watch out what scientists have to propose. And there is a whole series of the most diverse mechanisms that are being proposed, none of them generally accepted.
Don't believe me?
Google "cause of gravity"
Posted by: Sepp Hasslberger | June 09, 2005 at 01:38 PM
Satire? Yes.
Irrelevent? No.
It points to a current debate not between scientist but between people with a view based on faith and those inclined to a logical perspective.
As far as I'm concerned someone can beleive whatever they like just don't try to convince others of your point of view by mascreading as science.
In this context you have to admit gravity exist but as to how it is derived is the issue. I favor the nano-velco theory.
Posted by: Steven | June 03, 2005 at 01:20 PM
To a thinking christian or non-christian alike, this is the ultimate in stupidity. One has to remember that most if not all science postulates are 'theories'; models that cannot be observed such as atomic theory, quantum mechanics, evolution, electromagnetics, and of course gravity. These models help us quantize and understand, in an approximate way, natural phenomena. But when I see that now Newton's gravity is under attack, I cannot help but wonder if these new found conservatism, based on religious belief, aims at bringing back the dark ages. Let's just ban the teaching of all theories, scientific and otherwise, and plunge humanity, no, better yet, the USA, into a new dark age. That, coupled with our brilliant leadership and new found militarism, should put an end to reason. On second thought, there will have to be some scientists and technicians exempt from this, even if they go to hell, to develop new weapon systems...
Posted by: jose_carlos | May 30, 2005 at 09:51 AM
Think is to Believe as Oil is to Water, period.
Posted by: leo | May 29, 2005 at 02:45 AM
Think is to Believe as Oil is to Water, period.
Posted by: leo | May 29, 2005 at 02:44 AM
As funny as this article is, I think it overplays the issue of religion vs. science. There are only a couple of scientific theories that are still challenged by the church, and they all branch from either the "Origins of the Universe (i.e. Big Bang)" or the "Origins of Humans (i.e. Evolution)". The Bible explains these events very clearly, as do scientific textbooks, but of course the explanations are very different. So at the end of the day, people are forced to choose between what they read in text books and what they read in the Bible. Luckily, the Bible says nothing about gravity, so there is no chance that it will ever be challenged by the church.
Posted by: dpaul | May 28, 2005 at 05:52 PM
Gravity is a precious resource - conserve it. Join the Society for the Conservation of Gravity today.
http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~steve/humor/gravity.html
Posted by: Tony | May 27, 2005 at 11:33 PM
You've got to be fucking kidding me!!
So what do they want taught?
And if gravity is a theory then why are these old bags all wrinkled with sagging tits? Did God Intelligently design sagging titties?
Posted by: Toad | May 27, 2005 at 09:36 PM
A good Agnostic must always acknowledge that which he does not absolutely know. Scientific theories are there to be mental helpers to us in examining our world. If you are looking for morals, the person who is seeking ethical guidance needs all the help he can get. Scientific theories stand head and shoulders over ancient, inaccurate and uninformed "holy writings." That's my thought on this. Gimme back my Gravity!
Posted by: Rayo | May 27, 2005 at 09:02 PM
Erm.... that's DUCT tape.
Be well
-UF
Posted by: Flip | May 27, 2005 at 10:56 AM
The teaching of the theory of gravity as fact rather than theory is harming our children. When we learn that even something as basic as falling is driven by impersonal laws rather than by Almighty God, then children give up on learning morality. Why else do you think that communism, Nazism, two world wars, and the drive to give sodomites the special privilege of equality didn't happen until after Newton's Christ-denying theory of gravity? That's a well documented fact, but not one that you will read in the liberal media.
Posted by: Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality | May 27, 2005 at 07:44 AM
Multiple 'theories' need to be considered when examining events like the Kennedy assassination, or why 9/11 happened, NOT in cases where science has long since proven to have a highly accurate picture of the world. Scientific 'Theories' differ in that they have been PROVEN to be accurate representations of what happens in the world. One can use the available models to make accurate predictions of future events. No one claims it is the complete truth -- with further research into quantum mechanics, we're still learning things -- but new discoveries are merely refining current 'Theory'.
To simply equate someone's creative musings with centuries-long established scientific Theory is ridiculous at best. To further demand equal time in schools for such inanity is insulting to the scientific community and doing our children a great disservice.
Posted by: Ric | May 27, 2005 at 06:40 AM
Farmers in the midwest (often in Kansas) have to get new and stronger pesticides almost every year. Why? Because the bugs keep growing immune to them.
Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
So, what part of the theory are you arguing about? Or does God make new bugs every year because he just doesn't like our farmers?
Posted by: cinder | May 26, 2005 at 07:26 AM
I have looked for a theory on evolution but scientist disagree on it. Some are sure life began on another planet. . DNA scientist disagree with biologist who disagree with geologist about the geological record.
Look up snowball earth.
Modern man is relatively new and very different from any previous species including neanderthals who died out. How do we know that the fossil record that we see doesnt belong to neanderthals.
Comparing the theory of evolution with the law of gravity is stupid. Scientist are still debating the law of gravity. Look up dark matter and stop pretending like you know so much.
Posted by: Dennis Johnson | May 26, 2005 at 04:36 AM
As with "evoution" there are already several fairly well thought out theorys abt gravity out there, that would none the less presently threaten the entrenched accademic glacial orthidoxy. But glaciers are moving faster these days too, and hopefully at least those with tenure can afford to be more open abt the subject. As our 3rd millennial "M theory" appears to be already now. (great "Horizons" show on BBC TV) These indeed are fairly crucial issues to be ready and able to be open to further consider #1-our culture's creation story, and #2 understanding of together ness pas? In how many dimensions now.........
Posted by: Topher Lewis | May 25, 2005 at 03:09 PM
Gravity has to be an illusion. How could the rapture happen otherwise?
Posted by: gravityskeptic | May 25, 2005 at 01:47 PM
That there Isac guy are stupit. Everone knows there aint no graveity. The Earth just sucks
Posted by: G.Wya Brush | May 24, 2005 at 06:38 PM
PLease tell me these parents have something more constructive to do than to tell me that the law of gravity has no penalty for breaking it. When I fly over the handle bars of my bike in atttempt to violate the law of gravity, I get severely punished with bruises, cuts, abrasions and a damaged ego.
Posted by: mark | May 24, 2005 at 03:16 PM