Why isn't gravity considered law or fact?

[Epidemic]

It would seem to me that it is pretty well proven, even beyond evolution which is often refered to as fact.

Yet Gravity at first blush would seem to be more tested and more completely testable than evolution. I.E. I can drop an apple, but I can not find a transitional creature. I believe in evolution but I do believe it is very difficult to prove beyond tons and tons animals with similar characteristics, but with every new species there are substantial differences leaving a rather fantastic change from species A to species B.

But dogs are dogs and bears are bears so far there are no dog bears.

So why is Gravity considered almost universally Theory and Evolution more often than not as fact?

[Steve R Jones]

So why is Gravity considered almost universally Theory

The short answer is where did you get this idea from?

Doesn't "Newtons LAW of Gravity" work for you like it does the rest of us

ps. Don't bogart that joint my friend...pass it over to me.

[tony_j15]

This might help

[Epidemic]

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this scholarly article
No I am not presenting this as fact.

But looking at the general concensus on the internet.

Gravity is both law and theory depending on how deep you delve into it.

correct me if I am wrong, Gravity's effects are law, gravity's cause is still theoretical?

[Theophylact]

Gravity is both law and theory depending on how deep you delve into it.

correct me if I am wrong, Gravity's effects are law, gravity's cause is still theoretical?

Which "effects" are you talking about? Aristotle (and before him, Adam) knew that an apple falls to the ground. That's not a law, it's an observation. It took Newton to recognize that if you threw an apple horizontally and fast enough, it would never fall to the ground; and he recognized that the same principle was what kept the Moon in its orbit. What's more, he derived mathematically the relationships between the mass and the velocity of the objects that accounted for the forces between them and the shape of their motions. Those are what we call Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Gravity.

But he never proposed a cause for any of these. Hypotheses non fingo, he said;

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

Einstein derives somewhat different mathematical laws to account for gravity, but they closely approximate Newton's for objects of ordinary size. Newton's Laws fail dramatically for objects of very large mass or very high velocity, and they also fail in the quantum realm.

[tony_j15]

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this scholarly article

omgjeezusWTFamireading?

[CERuppel]

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this scholarly article
No I am not presenting this as fact.

But looking at the general concensus on the internet.

Gravity is both law and theory depending on how deep you delve into it.

correct me if I am wrong, Gravity's effects are law, gravity's cause is still theoretical?

OMG! I just lost IQ points reading that "scholarly article".

[Epidemic]

OMG! I just lost IQ points reading that "scholarly article".

I thought you would get a kick out of that.

[Gomer]

This might help

For Ep - From the thread you reference and the National Academy of Sciences:

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.

and

Even scientific theories that are firmly established continue to be tested and modified by scientists as new information and new technologies become available. For example, the theory of gravity has been substantiated by many observations on Earth. But theoretical scientists, using their understanding of the physical universe, continue to test the limits of the theory of gravity in more extreme situations, such as close to a neutron star or black hole. Someday, new phenomena may be discovered that will require that the theory be expanded or revised, just as the development of the theory of general relativity in the first part of the 20th century expanded knowledge about gravity.

[JEROY]

They say that gravitational powers is the key to understand the theories of everything ... I have to admit with Epidemic that Gravity is still a theory thereby .

[tony_j15]

Of course it is! It is also a law when applied locally. it can be both. You use the law of gravity to make a plane fly. You use a theory about gravity to explain the process.

The thing people need to get into their heads is a scientific theory isn't the same definition as your everyday conversational use of the word. "I have a theory" in conversation usually means "listen to me spew some bull****." In science, when we have a theory, it means we have a set of variables that have been measured repeatably and we have disproved the null hypothesis. In other words, in science, we set out to disprove ourselves. Only when we have eliminated all contingencies do we allow ourselves to accept the validity of what we are attempting to prove. Logically, if you have considered all the other possibilities, the one left must be fact.
As Gomer said, the goal is not to end up with a law. A law is an immutable set of ideas more or less set in stone. While these are of great use for technological innovation, they lack the ability to morph as new evidence is discovered. Therefore, theory is what we strive for. Does this leave things a little murky? Yes. But that is the beauty of life. Living on the edge of discovery.

[no1_vern]

I am annoyed that articles like Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp actually exist on the net.

Yes, I think free speech should be allowed, but NOT intentional lies(distortion of facts). How do discern/eliminate the latter without damaging the former is the real problem.

[Gomer]

I am annoyed that articles like Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp actually exist on the net.

Yes, I think free speech should be allowed, but NOT intentional lies(distortion of facts). How do discern/eliminate the latter without damaging the former is the real problem.

It's even worse when it is being taught in schools like creationism.

[Theophylact]

I am annoyed that articles like Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp actually exist on the net.

Yes, I think free speech should be allowed, but NOT intentional lies(distortion of facts). How do discern/eliminate the latter without damaging the former is the real problem.

The Supreme Court has upheld the right to lie, as long as it's not in service of fraud (or under oath).

[Epidemic]

It's even worse when it is being taught in schools like creationism.

is this being taught in schools?

[tony_j15]

Private schools, home schools, after school programs, churches, "science" camps. You can pick up Creationism pretty much anywhere.
Also, some public school districts have required it via freedom of choice or whatnot.

[Epidemic]

Private schools, home schools, after school programs, churches, "science" camps. You can pick up Creationism pretty much anywhere.
Also, some public school districts have required it via freedom of choice or whatnot.

The cause of gravity being taught wrong and teaching creationism with a firm grasp of existing DNA and you really don't change a thing.

[tony_j15]

So you're OK with allowing kids to be taught things incorrectly? Follow that through to it's conclusion. Where does that put us several hundred years down the line? Completely regressed due to ignorance!

No. it's a terribly stupid idea.

[no1_vern]

So you're OK with allowing kids to be taught things incorrectly?

Tony, do you think children should be removed from their parents? Remember, parents are the first teachers for their babies/toddlers/children. Its obvious many children(babies and toddlers) are being taught the wrong things, so how do you correct that?

IYO, WHAT exactly are the correct things that should be taught to all our children?

[tony_j15]

Tony, do you think children should be removed from their parents?

Some, yes. That's what DFS is for, silly! Or, to put your question back to you in an equally ill-worded fashion:
Vern, do you think children should be forced to live with abuse parents who rape them?

Remember, parents are the first teachers for their babies/toddlers/children. Its obvious many children(babies and toddlers) are being taught the wrong things, so how do you correct that?

With schooling. Duh. if childhood behaviors were uncorrectable, we'd all still be messing our pants and screaming whenever we didn't get our way. Socialization via group setting situations and access to elders with knowledge allows us to become more.

IYO, WHAT exactly are the correct things that should be taught to all our children?

Readin', writin' n 'rithmatic'. Science. Arts. Sports. Ethics. Reason. Logic. As important as what is taught is how it is taught. Our schools are antiquated, ill-funded, ill-taught due to poor curriculum, and run as factories instead of learning environments.

The point I was making is we have a duty within the education system to teach things as we know them to be for fact, which is what allows for us to develop and move forward. I shouldn't be having to make this point. Everyone should know it, get it, and agree with it.