Universal Gravity: theory or fact?

[We Never Know]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

"[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]"

 

[We Never Know]

"[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]"

So no answer but a wrongfully placed face palm.
You are dismissed.

 

[Heyo]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

Why isn't the poll multiple answers? What if I don't know and don't care?

And what if universal gravity is a theory and a fact?

 

[We Never Know]

Why isn't the poll multiple answers? What if I don't know and don't care?

And what if universal gravity is a theory and a fact?

Ok you have 3 choices.

What if it isnt either?

 

[rational experiences]

Old men said rock came about by space empty nothing pressures as cooling spins the mass.

Earth is still cooling. So it still spins. It's God a stone ark balancing in spaces pressure position two cups.

Two cups places a H O pillar situation within terrestrial magnetism symbol.

Cold rock equator two poles.

Gods earths pillars balance the spin.

So don't change polarity or god loses the pillars strength.

H not I or J is the H ..Holy. A letter sent to itself O. Planet earth.

Reasoned earths rock gases set alight by sun.

So earth is still spinning.

As space becomes larger as mass is burnt consumed pressure upon the energy brings it closer to rock.

Dusts already own lesser energy than rock blew apart when mass O had been depleted as gods body as first type in law history.

So man said never try to alter God. Removal of mass can bring about separation into dusts only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So no answer but a wrongfully placed face palm.
You are dismissed.

That should get a double face palm, but I forgot that you do not understand how to use them properly. Your article was not a serious one. It was satire. Did you not see the quote from it?

 

[We Never Know]

That should get a double face palm, but I forgot that you do not understand how to use them properly. Your article was not a serious one. It was satire. Did you not see the quote from it?

Humor me. Which one? I sure hope that is a properly asked question

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humor me. Which one? I sure hope that is a properly asked question

I only posted one quote in this thread. How did you miss it? When you see one of these " at the start of a passage and another " at the end that tells you that it was quoted from a soruce.

And there was only one source provided so far in this thread. Maybe you can figure it out.

 

[We Never Know]

I only posted one quote in this thread. How did you miss it? When you see one of these " at the start of a passage and another " at the end that tells you that it was quoted from a soruce.

And there was only one source provided so far in this thread. Maybe you can figure it out.

So you can't even humor me with an answer to support your claim with a properly asked question. I already knew that would happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you can't even humor me with an answer to support your claim with a properly asked question. I already knew that would happen.

What are you talking about? I answered your question. What part of the answer did you not understand?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Subduction Zone quoted it above, OP. The article is satire. It appears to be talking about gravity but (really) it's making commentary on evolution.

Here's the rub. To a scientist, there is no distinct marker between fact and theory. There are basic facts (ie laws of nature) that science pretty much CAN'T contest, because they are basic observations of nature. Theories try to understand more complex things. There is no distinct line between law, fact, or theory when you get right down to it.

If Polymath wants to share his insights, I'm curious about his take things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone quoted it above, OP. The article is satire. It appears to be talking about gravity but (really) it's making commentary on evolution.

Here's the rub. To a scientist, there is no distinct marker between fact and theory. There are basic facts (ie laws of nature) that science pretty much CAN'T contest, because they are basic observations of nature. Theories try to understand more complex things. There is no distinct line between law, fact, or theory when you get right down to it.

If Polymath wants to share his insights, I'm curious about his take things.

Perhaps he skipped over the part that I quoted, he should have recognized it since it is the first thing that you see and went on to only read the start of the article. You would be amazed at the number of people that only read titles of articles.

It is an excellent piece of satire. It hits so many creationist arguments or modes of argumentation. Without the disclaimer at the start I am fairly sure that quite a few creationists would be lapping it up.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Perhaps he skipped over the part that I quoted, he should have recognized it since it is the first thing that you see and went on to only read the start of the article. You would be amazed at the number of people that only read titles of articles.

It is an excellent piece of satire. It hits so many creationist arguments or modes of argumentation. Without the disclaimer at the start I am fairly sure that quite a few creationists would be lapping it up.

Well... y'know... we've all been "Onion'd" before haven't we?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well... y'know... we've all been "Onion'd" before haven't we?

Never!!

 

[SomeRandom]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

Well the earth being round is a Theory. But not the layman use of the term.
I remember this being a common way to push back against the claim of evolution being “only a theory” back in the days of debate bro atheists. Like of course it’s a theory, a scientific theory which when used in science may as well be taken as shorthand for fact.

As I understand gravity is both a theory and law. I’m not sure of the specifics as to why that is the case because I’m not a scientist lol

 

[exchemist]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

Yes, a rather heavy-handed satire on the kind of stupid logic put forward by the dimmer type of creationist. In fact, part of the satire is that the term “universal theory of gravity” does not describe any particular theory.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The force of Gravity is a fact of life.
However the theory of how it works is still an open question, and is not fully understood by anyone.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is Universal Gravity a theory or fact? Another thread gave birth this thread.

From the National Center for Science Education

"The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal".

Read more here

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | National Center for Science Education

Would you like this moved to the Jokes forum?

 

[Stevicus]

Well the earth being round is a Theory. But not the layman use of the term.
I remember this being a common way to push back against the claim of evolution being “only a theory” back in the days of debate bro atheists. Like of course it’s a theory, a scientific theory which when used in science may as well be taken as shorthand for fact.

As I understand gravity is both a theory and law. I’m not sure of the specifics as to why that is the case because I’m not a scientist lol

I've been told that, in scientific parlance, there really is no such thing as a "fact." The word "fact" implies a sense of certainty which, I've been told, would be unscientific. So, one might wonder why anyone uses the word "fact" at all in this context.

When I was growing up, one would always hear the phrases "law of gravity" and "theory of evolution." In the eyes of the public, a clear distinction was being presented between the terms "law" and "theory." At some point when I reached my 30s, suddenly everyone started saying "theory of gravity," not "law of gravity." I don't know if I missed the announcement of when it was officially changed from "law of gravity" to "theory of gravity," but if anyone can cite when that happened or why it was changed, it might clear up some misconceptions.