Is any scientific knowledge concrete?

In science, we assume that all theories are inadequate or over-complicated explanations of the underlying system. Scientific knowledge is concrete, however, it becomes more specific and detailed over time.

In the case of gravitation, when Newton experienced his historic epiphany and hypothesized that "the same force that pulls us to the Earth is what attracts objects in space" the law of gravitation was conceived. This law is concrete as the hypothesis is correct, though; has undergone several changes. We now see gravity as a bending of time-space and will eventually see it as something far simpler when the unified field theory is conceived.

Geocentrism was a symptom of confusion and the limitations of our observation. It began in the early stages of the formation of religion wherein men attributed natural phenomena to Gods. At this stage, men begin to believe that the Gods care for humanity in general and believe that humanity (or the higher associated Gods) are the center of nature. Subsequently, as the concept of the cosmos spread, the Earth was placed at the centre. This example does not do justice to the majority of scientific inquiry.

What we conclude is that scientific knowledge becomes more concrete over time. In the instance of nuclear models, modern science has identified 16 elementary particles and expects two more. The only theories that can explain the existence of said elementary particles are a stretching of mass in multiple dimensions of time, or the string theory. The lack of simpler explanation is much more concrete than the atomic model before the 20th century. Scientific innovation occurs exponentially; we become increasingly sure of our scientific theories as time progresses.

Is any scientific knowledge concrete?

~~~ 'Knowledge' is that which is perceived.

All inclusive! Reality!

Scientific 'understandings' are about theories that are held tentatively. If new experiments/data refute the theory, it is altered or becomes obsolete.

'Concrete' is a matter of 'belief', religion.

Nothing is "concrete" when you come down to it. The best knowledge we have of anything is through the scientific method.

- Any knowledge that is "concrete" is not a science, but a religion. Science is meant to progress in the face of challenge, proof, and trial. Religion relies on information and knowledge to be static, unchanging, and valid in the face of any argument.

the earth is the center of the universe theory was a religious theory. scientists back then didn't have the necessary tools and mathematics to test and prove that.

concrete does have cracks in the expansion and contraction by way of the weathers control by conditions of elements is knowledge by feats of cracks with no solutions by nature

Gravity is pretty concrete.

in theory nothing exists so i geuss that everything is a theory?

Truth is not a knowledge.