[Sithdarth]

I'm referring to a "theory of gravity" as the general explanations that have been postulated from relativity and/or quantum mechanics.

Then you're talking about quantum gravity which isn't even near the theory stage yet. Its not even together enough to be a hypothesis. Its pretty much straight conjecture. Once again there is now "theory of gravity".

Even if we don't know the fine details we still postulate that gravity is instrinsic property of matter and curving of space time and then you got all the other stuff like postulated gravitons and things.

We don't postulate that gravity is an intrinsic property of matter. Currently, we postulate that spontaneous symmetry breaking from the Mexican hat potential of the Higg's field gives everything mass. From that we take it as fiat that this mass curves a field we call spacetime in a predictable way. Those two bits give you gravity there is no intrinsic gravity. Gravitons are once again just conjecture at this point stemming from the fact that gravity seems to work well as a field and every other field has force carriers so gravity should too.

This is not really my field but it doesn't matter because even the fact that matter attracts other matter is a theory and not a law.

Ah not true at all. The fact that a force (not attraction nowhere does gravity explicitly state attraction only that comes out of the math and the math does allow for repulsive gravity) exists between any two massive objects is a straight up observation as long as you stay clear of explaining the force. So the just saying I have observed this force between things and this math tells me its strength is a law. It goes into grayish territory when you start saying its Universal then you're postulating it applies to things you haven't observed. But for everything Newton could observe his law was indeed a law.

Most of the maths of say general relativity could be classed as laws but they are often interpreted in a framework of explaining gravity (through space time curving or whatever else they decide) which is a theory.

That's because all theories in physics are either built from old laws or built to explain old laws. Since you are into the history of science I assume you are aware of the general steps physics has taken. For the less informed we started with straight observation and mathematical description in the form of laws. Then we built complex theories on top of those laws to explain them.

The point was people were talking about whether gravity was a theory or a law and the problem is the word "gravity" can be both.

Once again the basic existence of gravity is an observed fact. Further, generally speaking you can pick out what aspect of gravity people mean from context. That and just gravity itself is neither theory nor law but a concept. You can't say gravity is a theory or gravity is a law those statements make no sense. You can say the existence of gravity is a law or the gravity is caused by curved spacetime is a theory. Those make sense but concepts are neither theory nor law. Its like saying mitochondria is a law or DNA is a theory. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

There is the law of "gravitation" which is a law but when we talk about gravity we generally talk about the attraction of objects together which is a theory.

The existence of the attraction and the size of the attraction is a law. The reason for the attraction and the reason for the size of the attraction is a theory. The theory happens to contain the law which is a good thing because physics should be consistent. Its like how the Matrix formulation of Quantum Mechanics is nothing but a set of mathematical laws that work but Schrodinger's wave equation is theory.

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity as something that brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

That emphasized phrase is important. For example, look what happens when I remove it:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

BAM law. Its a very subtle distinction and of course the new sentence is in error because a law is stated not a theory. It makes not predictions it just states something exists.

This statement:

...we generally talk about the attraction of objects together which is a theory.

Is nearly identical to this sentence:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

Both of which are completely different from this one:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity as something that brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

But if you want, I'll pick one. "Theory of gravity" is now the fact that a property of matter is the ability to instrinsically attract other objects according to the laws of gravitation, which was a theory that was held for considerably periods of time. There we go.

That as stated is still a law because its nothing but observation. If you want it to be a theory you need this wording:

But if you want, I'll pick one. "Theory of gravity" is now the fact that a property of matter is the ability to instrinsically generate a field that attracts other objects according to the laws of gravitation, which was a theory that was held for considerably periods of time. There we go.

But it still has no relevance at all to what I'm talking about. The very concept of "gravity" is a theoretical construct.

To rehash my points gravity is a concept and is neither a theory nor a law. The existence of gravity and the equations that describes its magnitude and direction is a law. Otherwise its stupid to have equations without the force. The existence of gravity as a field is a theory. The existence of spacetime as a field and gravity as a warping of that field is a better theory. You don't have to theorize that gravity is there you can see it is there. You do have to theorize its a field or that its warped spacetime because you can't directly observe those things.

All the law of gravitations (and later equations) describe is how two objects move towards each other. If you have anything beyond that you are looking at a theory, a concept of gravity.

Exactly and an intrinsic part of two things moving together is the existence of a force. Those things are inseparable. Its only when you start postulating about a source for that force that you get into theory. Oh and that last bit seems to equate concepts and theories which are nowhere near the same thing.

This is not really my field

This is almost exactly my field and I wish to inform you that somewhere along the lines you got some very strange notions about Physics.

Edit: Forgot to mention quantum gravity is the more general theory of gravity making both Relativity and QM the subordinate theories.

This edit was totally typed on my new BlackBerry Storm 2 using Wifi.