It would not be the first time! However, in this case I am not wrong; I am historically and scientifically correct (and failing that, by semantical arbitration).
Implies mass being attracted to mass. It's one and the same.
No. Scientific laws and theories are explicitly different and for explicitly different purposes. Scientific laws describe phenomena, merely the "what". Scientific theories describe the cause of phenomena, the "how/why". One of them must be the law, and one of them must be the theory. You can reverse them if you wish (though this is not consistent with history/etymology), but you must choose. Naming a scientific law and theory the same thing is an attack on science.
Gravity is millennia old. Mass (and gravitation) are merely a few hundred.
But the other guy is wrong saying there is no force acting upon you
Not exactly. He's saying there is no force pulling you down to the ground. He's correct, but I don't expect you to understand that nor agree with it without a lot more study/discussion into the subject! However, if you were properly trained in the "standard" view, you already know that gravitation is a psuedo-force and is not a real force of any kind - so you should agree in any case!
This is a fact. It is measurable.
It is a fact, but it is also wrong. Many facts we learn are wrong. Would you care to discuss the subject in more depth with someone who has differing perspectives to your own? If so, I cordially invite you to the community I created specifically for such discussion!
But this is not 'gravity'.
Correct, that is gravitation - but to your point it is often represented as "g" in equation and referred to (incorrectly) as gravity.
The word gravity implies an explanation as to why this vector exists.
Not historically, no. Laws (which are bore solely of observation/measurement) don't imply cause/explanation; They merely describe. Theories (which are bore of experiment) do!
It would not be the first time! However, in this case I am not wrong; I am historically and scientifically correct (and failing that, by semantical arbitration).
No. Scientific laws and theories are explicitly different and for explicitly different purposes. Scientific laws describe phenomena, merely the "what". Scientific theories describe the cause of phenomena, the "how/why". One of them must be the law, and one of them must be the theory. You can reverse them if you wish (though this is not consistent with history/etymology), but you must choose. Naming a scientific law and theory the same thing is an attack on science.
Gravity is millennia old. Mass (and gravitation) are merely a few hundred.
Not exactly. He's saying there is no force pulling you down to the ground. He's correct, but I don't expect you to understand that nor agree with it without a lot more study/discussion into the subject! However, if you were properly trained in the "standard" view, you already know that gravitation is a psuedo-force and is not a real force of any kind - so you should agree in any case!
It is a fact, but it is also wrong. Many facts we learn are wrong. Would you care to discuss the subject in more depth with someone who has differing perspectives to your own? If so, I cordially invite you to the community I created specifically for such discussion!
Correct, that is gravitation - but to your point it is often represented as "g" in equation and referred to (incorrectly) as gravity.
Not historically, no. Laws (which are bore solely of observation/measurement) don't imply cause/explanation; They merely describe. Theories (which are bore of experiment) do!