“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.”
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.
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.”
Gravity (phenomenon) is neither a theory nor law, in a similar way that a cat is different from a picture of a cat or a dictionary entry describing the word cat or our collective understand of what a cat is. At the same time, gravity is also BOTH a theory and a set of laws in the same sense that you could point to a picture of a cat and say “that’s a cat right there”, and no one would correct you.
The distinction seems silly, but it is important. Theory, law, etc are structures/lenses through which we understand and predict things. A sort of formalized collective metacognition is the basis of science, and this is why we have these terms and distinctions. And theories and laws are fundementally different things in a way that’s may be best expanded by critically reading the resources provided by the other commenter.
“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.
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?
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.
You’re avoiding the question yet again, and now you’re resorting to sneering.
Pathetic.
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.”
So, it’s neither a law nor a theory, but also it’s both at the same time.
This is getting a little ridiculous.
I’m sorry you can’t understand.
Have a nice day.
I understand you’re contradicting yourself.
K
Gravity (phenomenon) is neither a theory nor law, in a similar way that a cat is different from a picture of a cat or a dictionary entry describing the word cat or our collective understand of what a cat is. At the same time, gravity is also BOTH a theory and a set of laws in the same sense that you could point to a picture of a cat and say “that’s a cat right there”, and no one would correct you. The distinction seems silly, but it is important. Theory, law, etc are structures/lenses through which we understand and predict things. A sort of formalized collective metacognition is the basis of science, and this is why we have these terms and distinctions. And theories and laws are fundementally different things in a way that’s may be best expanded by critically reading the resources provided by the other commenter.