Definition of law and theory.
The header for a subsection is labelled "law of gravity" but within the section it's stated that its just a theory and not fact. A) you can label something as a law and a theory. That's elementary school science that every 10 year old should know. B) just because its a theory (which you can't seem to make up your mind about what it is) does not mean it isn't factual. Newton's laws dealing with physics are quite factual whether you like it or not. They make correct predictions in a majority of everyday applications. Relativity is only used at speeds (which is a vectorless quantity) and masses that have noticeable relativistic effects such as traveling at 10% the speed of light.— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs 06:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That wording is a dig at the creationist claim that "evolution is a theory, not a fact". I'll leave to someone else deciding whether an non-obvious, inside joke that an outsider may not get should be left in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait... if the cause of gravity can be explained by the famous "trampoline analogy", then what's pulling the bowling ball and marble down? "Meta-gravity"?— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Gravity and evolution
For those who claim 'evolution is merely a theory' 'well, it is also the theory of gravity - go stand under that unsafe heavy load.' (Sometimes one pseudo-bad logic swamps an actual bad logic') 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rangutan's theory of gravitation
Regarding BoN 250's edits, that mirror the previously reverted edits by Rangutan the user, may I ask who is Rangutan the theoretical physicist and where does it say their theory is on par with the other two legitimate alternate theories? Hertzy (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Add a quote?
Normally I don't think I would mention it, but since you quoted Peter Griffin, how about:
|—Isaac Newton, the moment he discovered gravity|