I have a Problem with Gravity

I have a problem with Gravity. It does not strike me as a particularly satisfying organizing element of the space-time continuum. I have a theory that I want taught alongside Gravity in public schools in the United States. I developed it over the course of a particularly insightful afternoon and without the help of any mind-altering drugs whatsoever.

I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.

At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.

It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.

Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.

I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.

I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.

Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.

I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.

You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOL... nice one.

Vikram said...

heh amusing

Subramaniam Avinash said...

What I like best about your theory is the great care you've taken in choosing a name suitably scientific and difficult to pronounce for it. As any scientific or unscientific scientific theorist worth his gonads will testify, when it comes to Scientific theories, the name of the game is, often, the name of the game.

The Moving Finger said...

Suitably Germanized name for 'string' to sound scientific I guess.

Balajee said...

*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*

I liked the Stuhring theory.

Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.

Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.

I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.

The Cold Within

Six humans trapped by happenstance In bleak and bitter cold. Each one possessed a stick of wood Or so the story’s told. Their dying fire in ...