the theory of Intelligent Grappling

| 15 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

New Group Hopes To Break Monopoly On Gravity Theory

A Georgia group calling itself Teachers for Equal Time has asked that stickers be placed in all new physics textbooks which note that mutual attraction and relativity are not the only theories available to explain gravity and should not be taken as fact.

Teachers for Equal Time hopes that the addition of the warning stickers will pave the way for the teaching of its alternative theory, Intelligent Grappling, the theory that certain intelligent and conscious agents “push” things together.

Dr Elf M. Sternberg, the originator of the theory of Intelligent Grappling, or “IG” as some call it, and president of Teachers for Equal Time, announced the group’s plans to seek legislation requiring the stickers at a Cobb County school board meeting.

“Mutual attraction has had a monopoly on the truth for too long,” said Dr. Sternberg, “it is time we let children see all of the theories.”


2 TrackBacks

Some time ago, via Moira Breen's Inappropriate Offerings, I encountered... Read More

Some time ago, via Moira Breen's Inappropriate Offerings, I encountered... Read More


The link is dated 9/2/2002. Two years old is “new”? What took so long?

The text in the link refers to the title of the article. It certainly was new to me and I thought it to be an interesting (humorous) twist.

Well it’s about damn time.

For too long the ‘gravity’ community has viciously suppressed opposing viewpoints. For example, it is virtually impossible to get a Ph.D. in Astrophysics without pretending to believe in imaginary things like the Gravitational Constant–WHICH NOONE HAS EVER SEEN. It should come as no surprise that physicists, who it should be objectively mentioned hate God, endlessly parrot their ‘invisible force’ nonsense. Anything to try to hide God. But obviously, a false theory will sooner or later collapse under it’s inability to make predictions and guide fruitful research, which ‘gravity’ is currently doing.

I have already begun work on Icons of Gravitation. The first chapter will explode the lies implicit in these stupid grid graphs(1). When’s the last time you saw a purple grid in space? I thought so. Stick to the facts, science.


People familiar with Usenet will get this joke:

Nearly ALL worldwide members of the scientific CULT called “Physics”, headquartered in AREA 51, NM, have been KEPT IN THE DARK about the MALICIOUS CRIMES that believers in the CULT OF GRAVITY, also known as GRAVITATIONISTS, have committed against TRUE SCIENCE. They are EACH being SCAMMED out of BILLIONS and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS which they would NOT be paying to this DANGEROUS CULT if they knew the REAL TRUTH about these MALICIOUS CRIMES.


Anyone care to guess whose rant style I just parodied?

And no, it’s not Ed Conrad.

Robert E McElwaine

Boy do I remember him well, memories…

Feel free to wince, Pim: the text I cribbed and morphed out of shape is from August 17th. It was crossposted to such worthy newsgroups as alt.conspiracy and alt.religion.eckankar under the title of “Eckankar CRIMINAL SCAM” and may or may not be the real thing since parodists have been having their way with McE’s unique style for years.

If it is him, he’s got more than one account with AOL - which shouldn’t be surprising, understand the problems that multiple AOLusers have caused on as of late.

You know, this is why I don’t visit as frequently as I used to. Ya’ll keep pointing out how my move from Honduras to Georgia, is like going from one third-world country to another, but worse. At least in Honduras, they would have liked an education. Here, we resent it. What was good enough for your fathers, or your great (choose exponent here) grand father ought to be good enough for you, and how dare you want to show off your edumacation, and make your daddy feel bad. Get back tothe fields/factory and work like anyone else.

Besides, gravity is a myth that only works if you don’t deny its existance. Once you deny it, you can fly.

I love the grappler theory.

In “The Character of Physical Law”, Richard Feynmann makes some observations about Kepler’s Laws.

“.…These three laws of Kepler give a complete description of the motion of the planets around the sun.

“The next question was - what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler, some people answered this problem by saying thet there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction.”

So here is what we have. Hundreds of years ago there was an attempt to explain a physical phenomenon by a group of religious people who simply did not understand science. It now shows up as a parody of another attempt to explain a physical phenomenon by a another group of religous people who do not understand scince.


Karl Marx once said, “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, so to speak, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.” For once Marx was right.


Maybe there’s some hope for my Intelligent Electron Theory ;-)

(note: it’s 4n+2, not 2n+2)

What a wonderful argument against ID. Keep up the good work PandasThumb

T. Russ

T. Russ Wrote:

What a wonderful argument against ID.

Well none of these are arguments against the general notion of ID, if that’s what you mean, because ID in the general sense is unfalsifiable. They just show the absurdity of ID pretending to be a theory.

A wonderful argument against the ID strategy is, IMO, comment 6694 on the Walter Bradley thread.

P1: ID in the general sense is unfalsifiable C: ID in the general sense is unfalsifiable


T. Russ: What a wonderful argument against ID. Keep up the good work PandasThumb

Who said anything about ID until T.Russ brought it up? Could this be one of those “if the shoe fits…” situations?

And is there some intimation here that there is nothing at this site more substantial or informative than the occasional reminder of how amusing creationism can be when butting up against reality?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on August 20, 2004 6:44 PM.

New Contributor: Alan Gishlick was the previous entry in this blog.

Walter Bradley at DDD1 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter