• MapleEngineer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1510 months ago

    A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

      • MapleEngineer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The Theory of Gravity is the well-substantiated explanation of gravity that incorporates laws, hypotheses, and facts.

        I hope this helps.

        • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          Please post a link from a reputable source explicitly citing gravity as a theory as opposed to a law.

          The link I posted quite clearly states that universal gravitation is a scientific law.

          Hope this helps.

          • MapleEngineer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            “The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.”

            Here’s a simple, easy to understand explanation of the difference between a law and a theory in science.

            And here is an explanation of the difference between a theory in common use and in scientific use.

            I hope these help.

            • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              Those are great explanations of the differences between a law and theory.

              However an astute reader would have noticed that’s not actually the topic of discussion here. I shall posit my question again:

              Can you show that gravity is a theory and not a law?

              • MapleEngineer
                link
                fedilink
                English
                410 months ago

                I love the confidence with which you’re wrong and it’s clear that you’re trying very hard to sound smart but while I can explain this to you, and have more than once, I can’t understand it for you.

                Have a nice day.

                • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  110 months ago

                  You’re avoiding the question yet again, and now you’re resorting to sneering.

                  Pathetic.

                  • MapleEngineer
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    4
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Had you read, and more importantly understood, the two links I posted you could have answered your own question.

                    You asked whether gravity was a law or a theory.

                    Gravity is neither a law nor a theory. Gravity is a fundamental reaction that causes any object with mass to be attracted to any other object with mass.

                    The law of gravity is a formula used to predict the effect of gravity.

                    The theory of gravity is our collected knowledge on the subject of gravity and includes the law of gravity.

                    So, the law of gravity is one small element of the theory of gravity.

                    That is a complete and correct answer to your question.

                    Now, unless you have a clear understanding of the difference between the idea of a theory in common parlance and the idea of a theory in science and how a law in science relates to a theory in science (which you would have if you had read and understood the two links I provided) you’re not going to understand this, despite my explaining it a third time, and you’re going to continue to argue with me instead of saying, “Oh! I get it now. Yes, I was wrong. Sorry, and thanks for the explanation.”