I disagree. The law of gravity is what you describe, masses attract, and is falsifiable. The theory, that masses are distorting and curving space to cause that effect, is very hard to falsify.
As a small quibble, there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories". In common language a theory may imply less certainty than a law, but in science this is not the case.
[Yes i am aware that atoms don't necessarily conflict with waves]
Law: A simple relation of limited scope intended to describe a single phenomenon, for example Ohm's Law.
Theory: A description or narrative of how and why, which may include laws, data, observations, etc.
There is according to the academic circles I participated in, although it wouldn't surprise me if most physicists you meet wouldn't know that.
I don't think the principle has anything to do with the difficulty or hardness of falsification. If a theory excludes something from occurring in reality, it is falsifiable, if it does not, then it is not falsifiable.
So think about it like this, if a theory is "compatible" with everything that happens, it really does not make any predictions, as regardless of what happens, the theory holds. What the point of such a theory is is unclear.
General relativity precludes many things from happening, and many tests have been performed that would have detected things that general relativity precludes from occurring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Yes, I agree, but like I said it's much harder to find what these are and create experiments to show them. I'm also saying the theory part is more than the math formula, it's the explanation.