I did that already. You didn't listen.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is not listening.
Laws are simple, usually expressed in a formula. Acceleration = Force / Mass.
This is correct. A law of science is a theory that has been formalized into a closed functional system, such as mathematics.
There's nothing here explaining the why and the how of that.
Yes there is. The theory behind Newton's law of motion (otherwise known as the Theory of Motion) states that all motion is nothing more than mass subjected to a force, which also causes an acceleration of that mass.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = G((m1*m2)/r^2)
This is the formalized version of that theory. It it is properly called a law.
But that doesn't explain why mass is attracted to other mass.
Neither does the theory this equation comes from. The Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all masses have a thing called 'gravity', which exerts a force on other masses. The distance between the masses matter, as well as the sizes of the masses. By coupling this theory with the Theory of Motion, that force will necessarily cause an acceleration.
A theory is a broader explanation of the why and the how.
I just gave it.
Both laws and theories are well-supported by testing and evidence.
WRONG. The laws stem from the theories themselves. Theories can come from anywhere at any time and for any reason. They may come from an observation, they may come from sleeping. They may come from watching an episode of Sponge Bob. They may come from an unrelated area of study. Newton's theory of motion came from generalizing the ramifications of Galileo's Law, and from Kepler's Laws, and by eliminating the effects of gravity as a force.
His theory of universal gravitation was inspired by that same generalization, but also including his own theory of motion.
And none of it is really ever final.
The falsification of a theory is final. A falsified theory is utterly destroyed. No theory is ever proven. No supporting evidence is used in any theory of science.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is actually... wrong, kinda.
WRONG. It is completely accurate.
His calculations worked perfectly for the entire known solar system... except Mercury.
It works for Mercury too, completely accurately. So does Kepler's laws. There is nothing special about the way Mercury moves as opposed to any other planet.
There was a tiny, tiny discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury.
WRONG. Mercury is right where it's supposed to be according to Newton's and Kepler's laws.
Super tiny. Arcseconds per century tiny.
ZERO.
But Newton was unable to resolve it. Einstein figured that one out. Relativity.
The theory of relativity does not address the Mercury 'problem'. The Theory of Special Relativity, however, does.
What Einstein showed was why there was an apparent deviation from Mercury's position from where it was supposed to be. Mercury is, in fact, right where it's supposed to be. The problem is we can't see where it's supposed to be. The problem is observation, not the location of the planet itself.
Mercury is quite close to the sun. Our view of it is distorted by the strong gravitational field of the Sun. Mercury itself hasn't moved, our view of it is wrong. Einstein showed why.
Newton's laws still apply, even to Mercury, entirely accurately. So do Kepler's laws...entirely accurately. What we see is different than what is, according to Einstein.
A null hypothesis is really just a statement that there is no relationship. "I hypothesize that eating tacos causes skin cancer."
WRONG. The null hypothesis of a theory is the question, "How can I show this theory to be wrong?". Your statement concerning tacos is a theory, not a hypothesis. A theory is an explanatory argument.
Surviving one test doesn't create a theory.
True. A theory exists before any tests of any kind are conducted upon it's null hypothesis.
Failing one test can disprove it, though.
A successful test upon the null hypothesis of a theory falsifies that theory. At that point the theory is utterly destroyed.
