Reports of the National Center for Science Education

Gravity: It's Only a Theory

Gravity: It's Only a Theory
Reviewed by
Ellery Schempp

[Textbook disclaimers are down,
but not out. 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.

All physics textbook should
include this warning label:

This textbook contains material
on Gravity. Universal
Gravity is a theory, not a fact,
regarding the natural law of
attraction. This material
should be approached with
an open mind, studied carefully,
and critically considered.

The Universal Theory of Gravity
is often taught in schools as a fact,
when in fact it is not even a good

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

There are numerous other
flaws. For example, astronomers,
who seem to have a fetish for gravity,
tell us that the moon rotates on
its axis but at the same time it
always presents the same face to
the earth. This is patently absurd.
Moreover, if gravity were working
on the early earth, then earth
would have been bombarded out
of existence by falling asteroids,
meteors, comets, and other space
junk. Furthermore, gravity theory
suggests that the planets have
been moving in orderly orbits for
millions and millions of years,
which wholly contradicts the
Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Since everything in the Universe
tends to disorder according to the
Second Law, orderly orbits are
impossible. This cannot be
resolved by pointing to the huge
outpouring of energy from the
sun. In fact, it is known that the
flux of photons from the sun and
the "solar wind" actually tends to
push earth away.

There are numerous alternative
theories that should be taught on
an equal basis. For example, the
observed behavior of the earth's
revolving around the sun can be
perfectly explained if the sun has a
net positive charge and the planets
have a net negative charge, since
opposite charges attract and the
force is an inverse-square law,
exactly as proposed by the increasingly
discredited Theory of Gravity.
Physics and chemistry texts
emphasize that this is the explanation
for electrons going around the
nucleus, so if it works for atoms,
why not for the solar system? The
answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.

The US Patent Office has never
issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why
is this? According to natural law
and homeopathy, everything exists
in opposites: good–evil; grace–sin;
positive charges–negative charges;
north poles–south poles; good
vibes–bad vibes; and so on. We
know there are anti-evolutionists,
so why not anti-gravitationalists? It
is clearly a matter of the scientific
establishment elite's protecting
their own. Anti-gravity papers are
routinely rejected from peerreviewed
journals, and scientists
who propose anti-gravity quickly
lose their funding. Universal gravity
theory is just a way to keep the
grant money flowing.

Even Isaac Newton, said to be
the discoverer of gravity, knew
there were problems with the theory.
He claims to have invented the
idea early in his life, but he knew
that no mathematician of his day
would approve his theory, so he
invented a whole new branch of
mathematics, called fluxions, just
to "prove" his theory. This became
calculus, a deeply flawed branch
having to do with so-called "infinitesimals"
which have never been
observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity,
he, too, used an obscure bit of
mathematics called tensors. It
seems that every time there is a
theory of gravity, it is mixed up
with fringe mathematics. Newton,
by the way,was far from a secular
scientist, and the bulk of his writings
is actually on theology and
Christianity. His dabbling in gravity,
alchemy, and calculus was a
mere sideline, perhaps an aberration
best left forgotten in describing
his career and faith in a

To make matters worse, proponents
of gravity theory hypothesize
about mysterious things
called gravitons and gravity waves.
These have never been observed,
and when some accounts of
detecting gravity waves were published,
the physicists involved had
to quickly retract them. Every
account of anti-gravity and gravity
waves quickly elicits laughter. This
is not a theory suitable for children.
And even children can see
how ridiculous it is to imagine
that people in Australia are upside
down with respect to us, as gravity
theory would have it. If this is
an example of the predictive
power of the theory of gravity,we
can see that at the core there is no

Gravity totally fails to explain
why Saturn has rings and Jupiter
does not. It utterly fails to account
for obesity. In fact, what it does
"explain" is far outweighed by
what it does not explain.

When the planet Pluto was discovered
in 1930 by Clyde
Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational
calculations". But
Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal
religious group that supports
the Theory of Gravity. The modern-day Unitarian-Universalists
continue to rely on liberal notions
and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as
heretical. Tombaugh never even
attempted to justify his "gravitational
calculations" on the basis of
Scripture, and he went on to be a
founding member of the liberal
Unitarian Fellowship of Las
Cruces, New Mexico.

The theory of gravity violates
common sense in many ways.
Adherents have a hard time
explaining, for instance, why airplanes
do not fall. Since anti-gravity
is rejected by the scientific
establishment, they resort to lots
of hand-waving. The theory, if
taken seriously, implies that the
default position for all airplanes is
on the ground. While this seems
true for Northwest Airlines, it
appears that JetBlue and
Southwest have a superior theory
that effectively harnesses forces
that overcome so-called gravity.

It is unlikely that the Law of
Gravity will be repealed given the
present geo-political climate, but
there is no need to teach unfounded
theories in the public schools.
There is, indeed, evidence that the
Theory of Gravity is having a grave
effect on morality. Activist judges
and left-leaning teachers often use
the phrase "what goes up must
come down" as a way of describing
gravity, and relativists have
been quick to apply this to moral
standards and common decency.

Finally, the mere name‚
"Universal Theory of Gravity" or
"Theory of Universal Gravity" (the
secularists like to use confusing
language) has a distinctly socialist
ring to it. The core idea of "to each
according to his weight, from each
according to his mass" is communistic.
There is no reason that gravity
should apply to the just and the
unjust equally, and the saved
should have relief from such "universalism."
If we have Universal
Gravity now, then universal health
care will be sure to follow. It is this
kind of universalism that saps a
nation's moral fiber. It is not even
clear why we need a theory of
gravity: there is not a single mention
in the Bible, and the patriotic
Founding Fathers never referred to it.

Overall, the Theory of Universal
Gravity is just not an attractive theory.
It is based on borderline evidence,
has many serious gaps in
what it claims to explain, is clearly
wrong in important respects, and
has social and moral deficiencies.
If taught in the public schools, by
mis-directed "educators", it has to
be balanced with alternative,more
attractive theories with genuine
gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

This version might differ slightly from the print publication.
If you support evolution education, support NCSE.

National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, EIN 11-2656357. NCSE is supported by individuals, foundations, and scientific societies. Review our annual audited financial statements and IRS 990 forms at GuideStar.

© Copyright 2020 National Center for Science Education. Privacy Policy and Disclaimer | Disclosures Required by State Law