[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img] After years of litigation and appeals, the US Box of Business (US BoB) v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS) finally reaches the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice: It’s my understanding, Mr. Moneybags, that the US Box of Business believes NASA should hold public hearings on the science underlying the law of gravity. Is this correct? Do I understand your position?

Mr. Moneybags: That’s correct, your honour. We believe that NASA should publicly defend its finding that the law of gravity is keeping us grounded.

CJ: And what is NASA’s response to this?

Mr. Egghead: We motion to dismiss this lawsuit, your honour, on the grounds that science is out side the jurisdiction and methodology of the legal system. Science is not determined to be true or false based on who can trot out the best rhetoric in a courtroom.

CJ: Mr. Moneybags?

MM: It’s not the science we dispute but NASA’s administrative process in deciding how to use the law of gravity, your honour. Specifically, we want to demonstrate that NASA and other proponents of gravity have ignored other evidence. In fact, they don’t even know what gravity is.

CJ: Explain.

MM: Well, your honour. According to Newton, gravitation was defined as inversely proportional squares of the distance between two massive bodies. He reached this conclusion through the dubious method of induction. Not a very good start. Then came general relativity to overturn Newton’s theory, with gravity presented as the curvature of space/time. But even that wasn’t the end of it, your honour. There is a discrepancy between science’s two major theories, relativity and quantum mechanics. This has led to positing gravity as a fundamental force with corresponding particles called gravitons, although even this theory fails at short distances the order of Planck length.

CJ: Planck length?

MM: Yes, your honour. A distance of 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.

CJ: Continue.

MM: So now we have all sorts of theories to address the discrepancy. Quite frankly, I don’t understand them but they include string theory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and so on.

CJ: That’s all very well, but what does the Box of Business hope to accomplish?

MM: We believe that NASA and the scientific community have politicized gravity towards the own end and downplayed serious objections. It is our hope that a public hearing will allow us to raise objections and present evidence that his been thus far ignored by NASA.

CJ: Your response, Mr. Egghead?

ME: Again, your honour, it’s not necessary to hold public hearings. As science evolves with greater knowledge and greater mathematical and experimental techniques, our understanding of the universe increases as well. While it is true that we not fully understand what gravity is, we do have a better understanding than we did during Newton’s times. Most importantly, however, is the fact that we still use Newton’s equations today. They work with sufficient accuracy for many everyday purposes. But this is all missing the point, your honour. Gravity is a phenomenon that exists; there is no denying that. And our understanding, imperfect as it is, has allowed to vastly improve humanity. It is our belief that US BoB is attempting to use these public hearings as a means of casting doubt on the science of gravity and therefore fulfill the interests of their members.

CJ: Could you clarify that?

ME: Your honour, they are seeking nothing less than to overturn the law of gravity itself. After all, it would drive down shipping costs, it would reduce medical costs associated with trips and falls. US BoB is playing for novemquinquagintillions of dollars. And all by questioning science in a forum that is inappropriate for determining scientific truth or not.

MM: Your honour? If I may? There are those words again. Scientific truth. It is precisely this arrogance that blinds NASA to errors and omissions in the science. Hence the need for a public hearing that can carefully weight the pros and cons of the science of gravity, hear what the best experts on both sides have to say, and then decide what the truth of gravity is. This is the spirit of America, your honour. This is what life, liberty, and the pursuit of profit is all about.

ME: Your honour. Truth in science is always open to revision…but always based on the best available science. It is the evidence that matters. It can’t be settled by a public hearing. The truth in science can only come from a methodological process of investigation, experimentation, confirmation, replication, and so on.

MM: We have evidence that NASA and other scientific agencies have used gravity for their own benefit…they’ve been sending “explorers” to Mars, putting satellites in orbit. NASA has a financial stake in the law of gravity.

CJ: NASA is a public agency, Mr. Moneybags. Doesn’t that mean the whole public benefits?

MM: No, sir. This means that a bureaucracy is perpetuating its own existence and pilfering taxpayer dollars on the basis on uncertain science. We want to explore those uncertainties.

ME: And give your members the opportunity to step in and profit from the chaos.

CJ: Please direct your comments to the bench and not to opposing counsel.

ME: My apologies, your honour.

CJ: Well, I think we’ve heard enough. We’ll make a decision right now. There is so much uncertainty with gravity that it is, indeed, ludicrous for us to be bound by it. And as such, we rule that the law of gravity as currently understood is unconstitutional. It is therefore repealed.

MM: Cha-ching, your honour! Thank you!

Subsequent to the repeal of the law of gravity, the Supreme Court and lawyers for US BoB and NASA began drifting off the surface of the planet into space, followed by buildings, plants, animals, and the entire human population. Much suffocation ensued. Then the planet itself fell apart.

Frédérik invites you to discuss this week’s article at his blog.