Since we don't know for a fact the root cause of Gravity, what explanation should be taught to children?

Question

Currently it is acceptable to teach Newtonian physics in school to children. But this classical physics doesn't explain the root cause of the attraction of two bodies with mass. Even 20th and 21 century Theories don't explain as fact the root cause. Should all ideas be taught to school children?
I propose that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is keeping objects on the ground using His Noodly Appendage.

Evolution is a Theory, it is not a fact. I have heard from some that we should teach in school the Intelligent Design Theory. Interesting almost 99% of them are Christians but they don't mention Jesus in their ID. I propose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created human. Since ID has no empirical evidence of "God" shouldn't equal time be given to the Flying Spaghetti Monster belief, even thou there is no empirical evidence, only faith?

Answer 1

Science class in public schools, should teach the scientific method of investigation. My science teachers in school demanded we test everything, repeatedly. The cause of gravity has not been identified in terms of natural phenomenon, there for it should not be taught, but tested by any means a student might suggest. I would suggest a test to determine the difference between the effects of gravity, and the effects of inertia. If you can determine why a body tends to stay at rest, you may be close to finding the source of gravity.

But I aggree, the noodle appendage is as nebulous an answer as 'God's Will', when asked about the cause of gravity, and other unknown qualities of nature. I would only remind folks, that most of physics is based on Heisenwinies uncertainty principle. Atheists seem to get their minds around uncerntainty as a practical notion in arguments, but have difficulty grasping trust/faith. Alas, subjectivity is so intrusive...

Answer 2

It is a fact that two bodies with mass will attract. This fact has been proven through experimentation, however, what we don't have is a simple, one-liner explanation for why. Then again, can we explain any of the natural occurances? Such as is energy cannot be destroyed/created, where did it come from etc...?We know that the bigger the mass the stronger the force of attraction, and can also calculate it. I believe you should teach children this and let them know that any further explanation would require years of research into the topic. Currently we are undergoing the development a universal energy theorm which explains and links all different forms of potential energy. When this is finally solidified, i believe it would be easier to understand how gravity works. However, the process is slow and has many dead ends.

Themeindzeye: Gravity is not a result of the centrifugal force. It is a fact that if you are to leave to objects floating in space, eventually they will meet each other through force of attraction, where time depends on distance and the the mass of the two objects. For us, we are basically just the smaller object and the distance between us and the earth is small

Answer 3

I think I've read that idea somewhere. Was that in a book? Don't remember. Anyway. I think Gravity's pretty much an effect of the centrifugal force of the planets spinning, isn't it? I mean, they're spinning pretty fast for stuff that freaking big, so the centrifugal force created would be a lot stronger than when you're whirling a bucket. But I haven't really put any time or effort into researching the spin and gravity of other planets, so I could be totally wrong. I don't think we should make things up, though. That's what archaeologists do, and why history gets so screwed up and we have to fix it later. We should teach them the facts we know and see if they can't figure it out for us later on down the road.

Answer 4

Your question brings up a good point and touches on the aspect that TMA was originally not slanted to be taught to young children in general originally. In Shito-ryu there are many knife hand strikes in kata at the intermediate and advanced levels and I think you can teach the kata first without teaching the actual application and them applying it in class until they have just a little more rank and maturity. Kids mature so fast in their thinking and there is a big difference in a nine year old and a ten year old in development if they are being raised properly. While that nine year old might be learning that is a shuto to the side of the neck they are not actually using and employing that technique until later in most of their training in my classes. Skipping over them in their training and them using and applying them I think is the right approach and the one that I take. As that child continues to train and study martial arts I can observe and view their attitude and approach and if they should learn lethal type techniques. I told more than one parent in the past that my school and classes were not for their child and to take them down the road where they play at learning and doing martial arts and not the real thing. This was often one of the things I would take into consideration when making such a decision along with the child's current approach and attitude towards things. A lot of schools play at teaching real martial arts and have a multitude of students that play at taking and doing martial arts. Can they learn enough to still hurt someone else? Most definitely I think but it won't be because I taught them or they were a student of mine. Beyond this I am not sure if there is anything else that can be done on my part that I don't already do. Your question does highlight a paradox though and I think the answer lies in downplaying some aspects until the student reaches a level of rank and maturity and then they practice applying and learning more in depth about those things that they might have been exposed to several months or more earlier in a kata or form.

Answer 5

Intelligent design is pseudoscience and is nothing more than creationism in sheep's clothing. If you would like to read there agenda... its called the wedge, look it up on the web or go to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
They make if very clear that their agenda is to drive a wedge between the public and the scientific community and to cast doubt on evolution.
You state that evolution is a theory not a fact, I would challenge that you don't understand what a theory is. It is not a guess, or a hypothesis, it is the method in which scientists explain a set of facts that have been observed and that can be tested and measured.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Additionally, gravity has been explained by several theories including general relativity, and although scientist have not found the particle associated with gravity, That does not invalidate the theory.

Answer 6

Religion is not science and never will be science. It has no place in a science class.

Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, the word "theory" carries more weight and significance than in does when used in other non-scientific contexts. A scientific theory is considered the best known explanation for a set of events. So, in science, the word theory is close to being synonomous with the word fact, because it is considering the BEST explanation, not just one of many. Evolution is considered by science to be the best explanation for the emergence and divergence of all the various species of life on earth. Science doesn't entertain multiple theories for the same set of events; it sticks with one theory at a time for each set of events, unless and until a better theory is put forth that does a better job of explaining the events.

Answer 7

In some radiation/photographic type tests of living things involveing a look at the energy field around them, I felt the "gravity" force was explained as well. I saw it quite a while ago on an educational channel. And, from the experiments they did and photos they took, I kinda came up with my own theory. It is this: these energy fields and gravity itself are all different levels of static electricity. Inside our bodies blood is rushing through our veins, air rushed in and out of lungs, and the constant gentle rubbing of the tissues aggainst eachother causes micro-static to occur. Likewise in the larger scale macro-static charges are created by the constant flow of above and underground rivers of water and/or lava/magma and even the wind and the possibley spinning core of the earth help to make us and everything else cling to the earth like socks cling to pants fresh out of a dryer. Of course I simplified everything in that explaination. But, I'd have to truly be a rocket scientist in order to present it the right way.

Answer 8

Really it is quite simple, since God is the creator of the universe, then gravity was created by God. Read Hebrews 1. this shows Jesus' involvement of the creation. Creationism like evolution is a theory about origins, the evidence is available, but it exists in the present. One can only speculate about the past. Evolutionists are bold in proclaiming that they base their findings on unobservable and unrepeatable events, and claim that to be scientific. Empirical evidence for God is not available, but we can see the complexity and variety of design in the world that points to a designer.

Answer 9

You are wrong- The universe and all that is in it is composed of matter kick out of the celestial litter box by the Great Cat Goddess. Or else it is a hairball she coughed up. Scholars debate.
We cat worshipers have more or less taught our faith to our children at home and let the schools handle secular science but now if all of these lesser cults are getting in we want equal time.
We believe that the disparity in the two creation myths of the Cat Goddess is a good way to teach children to handle ambiguity.

Answer 10

I think we should teach kids that it's only our faith as devout Christians that keeps everything firmly planted. We could back this up by telling them that, since there are no Christians in space, everything out there just floats around without hope (sort of like atheists). We could even enlist the aid of a few dozen crazy (for Christ) scientists who could publish papers on the connection between gravity and our collective faith in the lord Jesus Christ, who not only died for our sins but through his divine grace gave us gravity. We could warn our children of the dire consequences of allowing too many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans and atheists to live.