yeah the scientific definitions is "A hypothesis we have very high confidence in"

no it isnt

Yes it is

No

the bar for very high is: Peer review, Fits with background data, predicts other phenomena, ect

we proved our facts with equations

This is a 'theory'

It has to have observational and mathematical proof in order to be a true theory

You don't prove anything with your equations, they are substantiated about other presumed axioms

equations that you plug variables into and solve

But theory is just our best approximation

not for all theories

Presumed axioms we only have high degrees of empirical confidence in because we can't be certain about their truths

but for some

like acceleration

some parts of science aren't completely proved

It’d be hard pressed to get any real scientific community agree with your theory if it has no mathematical proof

BUT we don't base our ideas off of that unless it's just pure speculation

you need the empirical evidence after the equations that can predict your guess, it should be very precise

what we're talking about now isnt speculation

For example, we know the mass in F=ma and the mass in F = Gm1m2/r^2 are the same to something like 1 in 10^20 parts

this is insufficient to call them the same thing

River you don’t even believe in science lol

it's the part of science that is proven

you can say we have high confidence they are the same thing

but you can't say they are 100%

@SpiderLedgic (Cancer) you have no idea what science is

we have high confidence and actual evidence

what do you have

Oh okay

coming from the one that hates science

@SpiderLedgic (Cancer) you think an effect is a cause

how

''prove gravity'' response: drop something

we speculated on gravity when we did that

then proved that through mathematics

as I said

evidence

lol

Newton also proved why the Moon doesn’t fall towards the Earth using calculus

out of all the evidence for gravity, you gave an effect. you should research your model more before debating someone else