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

its all a theory astral

what do u wanna see an experiment of spacetime curvature ? havent u seen the one with the blue sheet and they rolld the balls around on it. what more do u need

i hear u though im not buying that crazy theory either

u cant tell me spacetime curves then roll balls on a sheet and say there it is

we should brainstorm on an experiment to prove or disprove the curve though. doesnt everyone wanna know the truth and end this debate lol

Space-time is a construct, yet it can supposedly warp and have physical effects on masses.
This is quite an extraordinary claim that would need some defined tangible aspect, and not just existing in the imagination of people who work on these theories. Science is what we need, establishing cause and effect relation

i hear u astral

its a bold claim

that is gravity for ya though

when the roll the balls on the sheet thats 2d wouldnt the fabric of space time have to be bending in all directions

Freefall is an observable fact, and it follows an observable relationship, like acceleration, terminal velocity, buoyancy, etc. No theory need for it.
But if you are to propose a hypothesis like this, it needs to be quantified, tangible, and able to be manipulated, so it can be tested and also be falsifiable

dude

why do u sound like a flat earther today

Lol

yesterday i debated u for 3 hours on if the water at the ocean appears to be above ur feet lol