A provable mathematical theorem (in the sense of Euclid) and a scientific theory (in the sense of explaining a hypothesis) are two very different things.
Einstein has a theory of relativity, not a theorem. Granted, he used mathematical theorems as tools to help construct it. However, the overall result is a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical obervations. It is not a mathematical theorem (a proof deduced step by step logically from basic mathematical axioms without reference to the outside world).
Einstein:s theory is simply a more useful physical approximation of reality than what Newton came up with. It is better because it covers a wider range of physical situations, for example objects moving near the speed of light. Newton’s theory is still useful (and much easier to work with) when dealing with our everyday experiences with baseballs and such but it breaks down under extrene conditions.
It is possible that one day Einstein’s theory will be replaced by an even better approximation of physical reality, one that unifies gravity with quantim mechanics to give us even more predictive value, such as what happens around a black hole where Einstein’s theory breaks down near the singularity as the factors take on infinite values and no longer work.
It is easy to mix up ‘theory’ with ‘theorem’. You see it sometimes in the lay press. After all they sound similar, and math theorems are useful tools used in constructing an experimentally testable scientific theory to explain a hypothesis, but they are not the same thing.
huh?
But a hypothesis is nothing more than a glorified conjecture, which everyone knows can be the equivalent of an educated guess.
Theory and Theorem are exactly related in a theorEM is a theorY about something specific.