Since when is gravity a theory?
This guy, for instance:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
He acts as if he is incredibly educated in this field, and yet he calls gravity a theory. Has he not heard of "Newton's Law of Gravity"? Not to mention the condescending nature of this question, as if anyone who doesn't agree with him is an idiot. I would go on but you can just read my response to this question.
Answer:
You're right.
Gravity is NOT a theory, although there are multiple theories that attempt to explain it. Semantics? I don't think so. We often use Laws to explain the presence of observable natural phenomena when we don't fully understand the underlying mechanism.
What I found interesting was the manner in which that question was worded in an attempt to elevate Global Warming to the same status as something like gravity, when GW is not even a theory.
People will argue everything and anything and deny everything and anything until the end of time...Take vitamins for example...some say they're good for you- others argue that too much is bad for you. Who the hells right doesn't matter because it will always be a debate. There is never a solid answer...the world is ignorant.
Well, the truth is that we still really don't know how gravity works. We know it exists, but any explanation as to how it does what it does would still be a theory. I can understand how you feel though, many people don't seem to care how they come across on Y!. Just bear in mind that literally anyone can get on here and post whatever they like, even if the rest of us cringe/cry/run away when we read it.
This is a very common misconception amongst non-scientists that a theory is not yet factual. In science, however, the terminology is a bit shuffled up and the layman's theory is called a hypothesis, and the layman's fact is called a theory. A scientific "theory" is not necessarily 100% factual, however, just the best fit example to fit the empirical evidence. In the case of gravity, however, there are no competing hypothesis and the empirical evidence has proven it as factually as it can. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the distinction:
“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and General relativity.”
_______________________
I just looked at your link and he is using the term correctly, in that gravity is a scientific "theory" Global warming is also a scientific "theory" to me, although some may prefer to define it as a hypothesis meaning that it is not as factual as I see it. You are also correct in your response that a theory is not always 100% correct and that it can be turned over given the accumulation of enough emirical evidence to oppose it. This was seen when pre 3mya hominid sites predated the savanna period of African history, thus turning over the previously coined "savanna theory" of hominid evolution. Anyways, even if it appears to be a "law" science uses the term "Theory" which basically means, were sticking with this unless you can show us some very convincing evidence!
______________________________
In response to your details.
In this case Wiki is an adequate source as this is simply a definition and not liable to be tainted by any opinion or bias. It is corroborated by the three dictionaries in my home and as a definition it is not actually a contentious point, so for this WIki works quite fine thank you.
Is it both a "Law" and a Theory ? We can look at Sir Isaac Newton's math on gravitational effects and see how the word 'LAW' applies. The results of identical tests are the same and predictable for the EFFECTS of gravity. What gravity is, what it is made of, all of those interesting things that we don't yet know about gravity are THEORY, maybe not even theory, maybe just HYPOTHESIS.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/...
Before the 19th century, scientists and mathematicians were caught up in the Enlightenment fever of figuring out nature's "laws" as Newton did in Principia and since much of what high school education teaches in science class was discovered in this time, students grow up with the idea that there are inviolable "laws" in science.
What happened in the 19thC was the discovery of several paradoxes in mathematics which made mathematicians realize that their "theorems" (which is basically what "laws" are called in mathematics) must be rigorously proved. Before this, many discoveries in mathematics were done in the same way as science, i.e, by observation. As any decently educated math major can tell you now, no matter how many billions of cases in which an idea may hold, that does not prove it. To prove a theorem requires a rigorous proof which eliminates the possibility of that theorem being wrong.
This is why that although Newton and Leibniz are credited with discovering Calculus, the calculus that is taught today is the work of Riemann et. al. during the 19th C who rigorously proved the relationship between derivatives and integration (a modernday educated mathematician reading Principia would find Newton's work to be nonsense, as one of my professors told me).
This brings us back to science: science is done through observation, and scientists (physicists in particular) will formulate some equation that explains observed phenomena (think Newton's laws). As time progresses, scientists will collect thousands and millions of observations that may or may not support this equation. If in some scenario, a billion observations support this equation, that does not by any means rule out the possiblity that this equation might be shown to be wrong by some observation in the future. Therefore, this equation or idea or principle can never be proven.
As scientists and rational people, we can approach very high degrees of certainty but can never have absolute certainty as we do in mathematics. That is why science deals with theory and mathematics deals in theorems. ( I like to use the analogy of the asymptote, the "law" is the asymptotic limit, while every observation brings us closer and closer to the asymptotic limit but only at infinity is that limit reached).
I strongly suspect had the idea of rigorous proofs emerged before the discoveries of the 16th and 17th centuries, we would today have "Newton's Theory of Motion" and "Newton's Theory of Gravity". We have "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" despite relativity's ability to describe the movement of celestial bodies to a much much MUCH MUCH higher degree than Newton's "laws". Likewise, had the idea of rigorous proofs emerged after Darwin formulated evolution in "Species" we would today call it "the law of evolution" rather than the "theory of evolution".
In short, what scientists call a "theory" is identical to what scientists called a "law" before the 19th C, i.e. a set of explanations based on observation that explains nature. The difference is that in the 19th century, we attained a deeper understanding of logic and what it takes to "prove" an idea.
Taking the creationists' argument that evolution is just a theory and clearly we should teach "alternatives" to its logical end, this would mean teaching Aristotle's idea of motion and "impetus" because Newton's "laws" of motion is simply a "theory" (and a theory that has been shown to be wrong in extreme cases mind you).
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedb...
You say, "By the way, wikipedia is not a credible source."
I have to agree in general, but what's the relevance ? It may be more or less correct on various subjects. Declaring a source non-credible just because you don't agree with the answers it provides isn't ethical. Not everyone can do the research for themselves and ultimately we all wind up just taking someone's word for it about something.
Iturba tec zenerp.
Gravity isn't a theory, it's one of the facts of life on earth. I, too, cannot believe how many people show proof positive that clintonism's "dumbing down of America" is working. It seems that way too many people can't think things out for themselves and make right decisions instead of dumb mistakes. Black holes and worm holes are just theories. "Global warming" is a BIG LIE just like "guns are evil".
Gravity is both a fact and a theory. Things fall: fact. Why and how they fall? Theory.
Newton's Law of gravity is also a theory. In fact, Newton's Law of gravity may not hold in all cases; for example, both Pioneer spacecraft experienced small sunward accelerations in the outer solar system that are non-Newtonian. Some scientists have proposed non-Newtonian gravity to explain this.
Science is a self-correcting process. That means that there are no absolutes, even in scientific "laws".
"Gravity" is a "measurable phenomena".
"Newton's Law of Gravity" is a "theory" regarding that phenomena. In science, Every "Law" is just a theory that has yet to be disproven. I hope one of your future sociology classes will be the subject of epistemology.
As I remember, one of Newtons formula is wrong. It's still used, because the number comes close, but the basis was incorrect or something.
Gravitation is a Law. Its cause, gravitons(?), is a hypothesis. All attempts at identifying or detecting gravitons or gravitational waves have failed miserably. So we have a law and a few hypotheses. No theories.
My wife went to U.C. Berkeley. Very cool school.
Since when it WAS a theory.. I dont see the big issue of gravity at all anyways. Put a brain on gravity and it becomes someone who will hold you down to the ground and not let you up to explore the vast possibilities of LIFE itself. Shave your head and get a tattoo Smile and you receive a smile
This is by far the best Yahoo discussion i have ever seen. Although a hypothesis is nothing unless you happen to mention weather it was accepted or rejected. A hypothesis is also only as good as the way in which it is tested because i know from experience it is very hard to accept or reject a hypothesis if the tests are inconclusive or if the hypothesis tests more than one variable at a time. You can have a theory without a hypothesis but to make a theory robust you must test it using a hypothesis (IE accept the null reject the alternative or vice verse). Anyway this medium is not conducive to robust discussion just because most of the peer reviewed articles can only be read as abstracts on-line without password access therefore users rely on anything they read as scientific fact when any old fool can put his opinion on line and call it a fact, theory, hypothesis.
The questioner in your link was correct in his definition of a 'theory'.
Science never proves anything 100% - there is ALWAYS an alternative explanation, no matter how bizarre (eg hallucination, conspiracies etc).
However, once a certain level of proof is reached it becomes foolish to not accept it as a scientific 'law'.
It is, however, arbitrary when the distinction is made between a 'theory' and a 'law'. Generally when the vast majority of scientists agree on something it is accepted as a law.
You mentioned Newton's Laws. I'm not a physicist but I understand that many of Newton's 'Laws' are now considered approximations for the more accurate Quantum mechanics.
I'm also not a climate change specialist but from what I've heard we may be approaching that arbitrary stage where consensus changes a theory into a law.
Quantum Mechanics is not a law. It is not even a theory. It is simply a working hypothesis. Ask any physicist. Relativity is a theory.
Gravity is a law.
The existence of the earth is a fact.
Many people need to learn the following:
What is a hypothesis.
What is a good hypothesis.
What is a theory.
What is a good theory.
What is a Law of Nature.
How is a Law of Nature different from a Theory of Nature?
What is a Fact.
What is the Scientific Method?
What is Reason?
What is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?
How does one approach the truth?
The reason why we have a Global warming Hoax is probably because most young people have never been taught how to think!
Like you say many here think that they are certified genius...
I guess peoples that know that they are stupids are less stupids than the ones that don`t know about it!
So I guess I am too stupid to really answer your question appropriately... Sorry!! ;)
This of course only means that life don`t derserved to be taken so much seriously... I did not even try to make a point here...
It is in fact a theory under the scientific definition of a theory "a generally accepted principle that explains observable facts." Newton's Law of Gravity is actually an equation that describes how attraction between bodies works, it is good as far as it goes, but has largely been replaced by more advanced theories grounded in Einstein's theory of relativity.
I believed in gravity before i went to kiddie school
like the first time i fell out of my crib
It is a law, but could be considered less when you get into the oddity that is quantum physics. However the guy in the link is a douchebag with no time on his hands, and hadn't thought very much before he began typing.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: