Hypothesis: gravity exists, and we can show it interacting on objects by dropping an apple
experiment: we have 3 tests.
Mostly so far so good. What gravity is (that is hypothesized to exist) needs to be both rigorously defined and real to be part of a valid hypothesis (currently it is neither).
Nope, gravity
has been defined: gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, is the universal force of
attraction acting between all matter. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling
objects. At the earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 metres/second/second. Thus, for every
second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by 9.8 metres/second.
Can you tell me what your definition of the gravitational force is please.
That is a simple observation, not in any way an experiment.
Another simple observation.
The basis of
all scientific hypotheses and subsequent theories is, and always has
been, simple observations.
There is good reason to doubt the existence of gravitational lensing. Perhaps the most obvious is its absolute lack of any experimental support of any kind.
What are some of those "good" reasons? I note too that plenty of experiments have been
carried out confirming the phenomena of gravitational lensing. EG: The Einstein 'cross' and Einstein 'ring'.
Unfortunately the vast majority of us never learn the correct definitions of scientific vernacular, and to make matters worse - the colloquial definitions that we learn and use are incorrect.
Thousands of scientists throughout the world
do learn the technical intricacies of scientific
vernacular (as you term it). That's why we listen to them, and rely on their expertise in their
fields; astrophysics, astronomy, cosmochemistry, mechanics, planetology, astrobiology etc.
Can you expand on what you mean exactly by "colloquial definitions" please.