<p>This bugs me, is there an official answer for a common man like me?</p>
<p>tantamount</p>
<p>EDIT: should add that “law” is essentially an archaic word for technical purposes. “Law” carries the connotation of immutability, which is incorrect, so they’re now referred to as theories</p>
<p>Gravity is an observation.</p>
<p>General relativity and the graviton theory are theories.</p>
<p>What’s the graviton theory?</p>
<p>[Let</a> me google that for you](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/36lhsju]Let”>http://■■■■■■■.com/36lhsju)</p>
<p>Technically, gravity is a law. Laws in physics are considered to be readily observable, “obvious” statements about the world. However, I don’t think you can ever consider anything to be “obvious,” and so I turn to the theories for more scientific descriptions of these laws.</p>
<p>So both. Gravity is described best through the general theory of relativity and can be calculated using either Newton’s inverse square law of gravity or general relativity.</p>
<p>A “theory” in physics merely indicates a mathematical framework derived from basic postulates that is capable of making experimental predictions. “Laws” are just theories (technically, theories don’t evolve into laws - laws are immutable, obvious observations, see above) which have become so fundamental to our understanding of physics due to the fact that they have been experimentally confirmed repeatedly over many years. However, because some theories have been revised or explained with another approach, the term “law” no longer holds the same connotation it used to, case-in-point Newton’s “law” of gravity which, for all macroscopic intents and purposes, works well enough but does not take into account certain aspects that general relativity does.</p>
<p>We have observed repeatedly that gravity exists as a fundamental force, and so we might call it a law. If we want to describe gravity, we would resort to a theory (or theories).</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t really care for the distinction between laws and strong theories. The laws of thermodynamics are no less real to me than the theories of relativity.</p>
<p>
[I’ll</a> steal deposition’s gag](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/2vv9das]I’ll”>http://■■■■■■■.com/2vv9das)</p>
<p>its a theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Graviton theory?</p>
<p>I’ve heard it as a quip against creationism.</p>
<p>A: “Evolution is only a theory.”
B: “Gravity is only a theory.”</p>
<p>Gravity is a force
Physics B: “What is the force of gravity on a 'x’kg” object…</p>
<p>
“Graviton theory” meaning the theory that gravitons are responsible for gravitation. I informally coined the term “graviton theory.”
Which evolution?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As opposed to the theory that gravity exists…?</p>
<p>I wonder if there’s a theory out there which opposed the theory of gravity. Like creationism does against evolution, what does against gravity?</p>
<p>It’s a fundemental force</p>
<p>momentum is more fundamental</p>
<p>
As opposed to general relativity.
Depends on which theory of gravity you’re talking about. Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity contradicted each other, so you could say that Einstein opposed a theory of gravity. There’s no “THE” theory of gravity, just as there is no “THE” theory of evolution.</p>
<p>^Fair enough (yeah, I don’t pay enough attention in Physics)…</p>
<p>Is there any theory out there which states that gravity doesn’t exist?</p>
<p>^^You misunderstand. I was mocking your idea that the existence of gravitons is a theory but the existence of gravity is not.</p>
<p>The “existence of gravity”? You mean the existence of attraction between objects based on their mass? It’s as much of a theory as my theory that a computer exists on my desk in front of me.</p>