Universal Gravity: theory or fact?

[Brickjectivity]

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

It does a good job of explaining the motions of the planets and many, many other things. But.

Currently there are some challenges to the accepted formula of gravity. These arise from the rotational speed of galaxies and other questions. The outer rims of galaxies rotate too quickly to match the accepted gravitational formula, and is there a limit to how strong gravity can become? Gravity is also not yet reconciled with quantum field theory, because there is not a quantum gravity theory.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Suitably corroborated observations of nature can be taken as facts. But in principle, not the theories constructed to account for them. Though some theories are by now so well attested that have virtually become facts.

What is loosely referred to as "evolution" is both. We observe evolution taking place - that's a fact (Exhibit A right now being covid). But the explanatory mechanisms, e.g. Darwin's concept of variation and natural selection, are theories.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Honestly, I wonder....

Did you post this as the satirical joke that it is, or did you think it was a serious article and did you pose a serious question?

Poe seems to be at work here.

 

[exchemist]

Honestly, I wonder....

Did you post this as the satirical joke that it is, or did you think it was a serious article and did you pose a serious question?

Poe seems to be at work here.

That's what I wondered.

 

[Stevicus]

Suitably corroborated observations of nature can be taken as facts. But in principle, not the theories constructed to account for them. Though some theories are by now so well attested that have virtually become facts.

What is loosely referred to as "evolution" is both. We observe evolution taking place - that's a fact (Exhibit A right now being covid). But the explanatory mechanisms, e.g. Darwin's concept of variation and natural selection, are theories.

Yes, this makes sense. I think the OP commentary about the phrase "just a theory" illustrates a kind of disconnect between how terms are used on an esoteric level in specific situations, as opposed to how the general public might perceive them.

It makes me wonder if all the argument and fuss over evolution (or other scientific-related topics, such as COVID, masks, vaccines, gravity) is all due to a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication.

 

[Heyo]

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.

It never did change. There is a law of gravity: F = Gm1m2/r² and there are theories which explain why that is.

 

[Viker]

Ooo! Ooo! I like this part.

"Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators", it has to be balanced with alternative,more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas."

 

[JIMMY12345]

I am confused some say gravity does not really exist it is spacetime being warped.However I am not going to jump over any cliffs.

 

[exchemist]

I am confused some say gravity does not really exist it is spacetime being warped.However I am not going to jump over any cliffs.

Spacetime being curved by mass is one of the theories of gravity. But however it happens, we observe that masses are attracted to one another. We observe that throughout the observable universe.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think the OP raises important questions about the distinction between fact and theory. In our everyday speech, we do not differentiate between the two, often citing well founded scientific theory as "scientific fact."

Even more confusing is that (in everyday speech) we DO differentiate the two. "I have a theory..." refers to something which you don't have all the necessary information, and amounts to something of an educated guess.

Of course our theories about what gravity is has been painstakingly worked on by science for some 200 years now. It is not an educated guess. It's highly tested and developed. It is closer to what we might call (in everyday speech) a "fact." But we can't really call it a fact either, because we know that something about our understanding of gravity must be wrong or incomplete.

Our best models are at a loss to describe what goes on inside black holes for instance.

 

[Windwalker]

If gravity were really true, why do balls bounce up? What keeps the sun from falling into the ocean and sinking to the bottom and being put out by all the water?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 something is keeping planets , stars ,and galaxies in place.

It's not like they are tethered to anything out there givin there is nothing really to be tethered to.

If not gravity , there's probably a form of energy of some kind that is associated with gravity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"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".

When I looked at the article, I assumed that it was written by creationists, so I investigated the NSCE and was surprised to see that it was a legitimate science education site respected by Shermer and Dawkins. So, it must be satire of creationist sites.

The statement I cited above is typical of the demeanor of such sites. Serious writers don't use the word religious that way. That's going to be somebody more interested in persuading than convincing. Phrases like, "not even a good theory" are a tip-off, and run if you read, "what they don't want you to know."

Here's a ridiculous comment from the article - the one that misleadingly convinced me that it was creationist apologetics:

"Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."

This sounds like somebody who knows no science. Consider it in the light of this diagram. The moon is orbiting both the earth and the sun, as well as galactic center (the sun's path is also curved as it orbits the galaxy), and also helical (as opposed to elliptical or circular), as the galaxy is in motion relative to surrounding galaxies:

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Ahh that’s true.
I was using fact in a more “layman” way I guess. Science is hyper aware of potential new discoveries that will change the way we see certain theories. Like as we gain more and more understanding we have to adapt our thinking and accept them as they come out.
I’m reminded of a debate I saw online ages ago. Some creationist I guess was arguing against all the updates made about the theory of evolution, saying that scientists clearly couldn’t make up their minds or something and the person responded with something to the effect of
“it’s not Theory that evolution. We don’t question that evolution is the process which occurs in reality. Merely the specific nuances of how it works in the first place. Our conclusions are to the best of our knowledge based on the current available data. Which are subject to change with more study in the future.”
And I guess that sort of helped me understand things a bit better. I mean I’m still no scientist, but still lol

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.

I’m afraid I can’t help you there. I was taught that it’s actually both at the same time.
My high school science teachers (both in physics and biology, funnily enough) explained it to me like this, more or less
Gravity is a theory in the sense that it is a scientific theory on how a process functions in our world. Meaning that it is as close to fact as humanly possible
That it is also a Law speaks to how thoroughly robust it is, not allowing for the same amount of changes due to future inquiry (basically that unlike say evolution where there are still nuances to figure out in the long run. There’s not a lot left to discuss about how gravity works as a whole.)
Basically law is just the next stage in terms of science
It goes hypothesis, theory then law is like the highest achievement lol
Now mind you, this is high school we’re talking about, so I assume this was oversimplified for our benefit.

 

[We Never Know]

Would you like this moved to the Jokes forum?

I have been noticing people will go all in with comments without reading the links, only going by excerpted parts in the OP.
I thought I would see how many would actually read the link.

 

[We Never Know]

When I looked at the article, I assumed that it was written by creationists, so I investigated the NSCE and was surprised to see that it was a legitimate science education site respected by Shermer and Dawkins. So, it must be satire of creationist sites.

The statement I cited above is typical of the demeanor of such sites. Serious writers don't use the word religious that way. That's going to be somebody more interested in persuading than convincing. Phrases like, "not even a good theory" are a tip-off, and run if you read, "what they don't want you to know."

Here's a ridiculous comment from the article - the one that misleadingly convinced me that it was creationist apologetics:

"Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."

This sounds like somebody who knows no science. Consider it in the light of this diagram. The moon is orbiting both the earth and the sun, as well as galactic center (the sun's path is also curved as it orbits the galaxy), and also helical (as opposed to elliptical or circular), as the galaxy is in motion relative to surrounding galaxies:

View attachment 70446

It actually states that in the first paragraph in the link.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, this makes sense. I think the OP commentary about the phrase "just a theory" illustrates a kind of disconnect between how terms are used on an esoteric level in specific situations, as opposed to how the general public might perceive them.

It makes me wonder if all the argument and fuss over evolution (or other scientific-related topics, such as COVID, masks, vaccines, gravity) is all due to a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication.

More likely lack of education in these matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been noticing people will go all in with comments without reading the links, only going by excerpted parts in the OP.
I thought I would see how many would actually read the link.

Did you read the whole link? Your initial responses indicated that at that time you had not.

 

[exchemist]

I have been noticing people will go all in with comments without reading the links, only going by excerpted parts in the OP.
I thought I would see how many would actually read the link.

This is inconsistent with your response in post 3, in which you replied rudely to somebody pointing out it was satirical.

Now, you are claiming you knew that all along and that you were just testing people to see who bothered to read the link. But if that had been so, why would you have dismissed @Subduction Zone 's reply with a facepalm, when it is clear he had passed your test by reading the link before responding?

I call Schrödinger: the technique of posting ambiguously and then deciding later, depending on the responses, whether you meant it seriously or as a joke. Intellectual honesty: nul points.