@97 Eleven Nathan says hi

Salutations to nathan

But, gravity is still non-renormalizable as an approach via perturbation theory fails.

The lights in the sky don't count as evidence, they're just holograms even though I have no evidence to back up that claim.

Therefore gravity as described by GR is inadequate.

*You've probably had more conversations with Nathan about this than I have, so using his arguments against me will make me auto-fail*

Trust what you see, but only when it applies to my theory, not yours.

Naw these aren't Nathan's arguments

We usually don't talk about QFT or QM in relation to my gravity dispute

I'd love to see you do that, then.

There currently is no QFT or QM for gravity

I think Nathan would be a lore adequate conversation partner compared to me.

Why converse on accepted physics?

"But, gravity is still non-renormalizable as an approach via perturbation theory fails."

Is basically established fact ^

So to you that means "gravity doesn't exist"?

If curved spacetime fails then yes gravity does not exist

I'm quite sure Nathan would disagree with that, hence why the aforementioned need for a conversation.

Are you not a physicist?

I was under the impression that you were.

Show me a single model that shows that to be true for all cases?

You realise that GR is a predictive model? It describes what we see. The problem with GR is that it can't be quantized, *because* we haven't observed a force exchanging particle. Whether or not that particle exists, doesn't change the fact that gravity exists. Your misunderstanding of that changes nothing either.

I've had a formal education in physics but I was unable to complete it due to mental health reasons

So I'm assuming you've got a bachelor's right?

Plus even if I was, there's other physicists who have a much deeper understanding than I

Me? No, unfortunately not.

Oh, sorry to hear.

@Etzie gravitons not being observed is not the only reason we don't have a quantised model

As I said, I quit before I could get my BSc. I was failing more exams that I was passing at some point.

Then I suppose you wouldn't reach that level of QFT.

@97 Eleven Then do extrapolate.

The metric tensor cannot be quantised meaning the einstein-hilbert field equations can't be quantised. And any attempt at peturbative theory coupled with gravity fails and results in a non-renormalizable situation.

I'm sorry, that's applicable to general relativity, not gravity. Because guess what, general relativity is a predictive model for macroscopic systems.

You ask for evidence, what's the point in providing any of the mountains of evidence when your argument against it is "don't trust your senses or anybody of a reputable source, trust me though."

🤔

Your conclusion was derived from what exactly?

Every flat earthers argument against celestial bodies in motion, ever.

Except that this isn't exactly a standard FE argument

It always boils down to the same stuff though

So how does "spacetime curvature" have physical effects between masses? As in something tangible beyond the imaginations of theoretical physicists?
I'd like to know

i jsut dont think its smart to judge the shape of earth by the shape of other celestial bodies or their movements