Oh, convenient that

Science constructs predictions based on calculations, observations and experiments

To give you a concrete example, according to radioactive decay theory, this Sr-90 probe has a β- decay. This means that after a certain amount of time, a neutron will decay into a proton by emitting an Electron, conserving electrical share, and an election anti-neutrino, conserving the lepton number. *In theory* if you put Sr-90 into a magnetic field, the electrons emitted should follow the magnetic lines into the desired direction. Depending on the strength of the magnetic field you can also determine the energy of the electrons.

Now the point of all this is because this is *literally* how we detect beta decay using certain Geiger counters. So clearly, the theory works both on paper and in experiments

@Bannebie you're able to defend gravity?

Yes, it would seem so

Pfft, let's see

Gravity is unproven and self-contradicting

You can't defend something rooted in nonsense

How so

Elaborate, please

Can you give me one concrete proof of gravity?

Of mass attracting mass

No, because there is none

Gravity is unproven

Gravity is the accepted scientific norm, therefore it is up to you to provide the burden of proof that it is not correct

You claim that mass attracts mass

It's your burden to prove that

Appeal to authority fallacy doesn't work here

Cavendish experiment set the framework for mass-mass attraction, ever since then countless more experiments have been done. And as I said before, any particle that has a nonzero Mass-momentum-stress tensor is affected by gravity. You can show the existence of gravitational wells using the bending of light, for example.

Besides, I'll need to find the video but there was an experiment done on the so called vomit comet, the aircraft that is used to simulate very low gravity environments easily where they take a transparent box with some dirt in it up into the aircraft, then when the gravity weakens it floats upwards and goes from a loose collection of dirt to distinct clumps

Mass-momentum-stress tensor? @Bannebie

Yes.

That's not it's name.

It's the stress-energy tensor

Also referred to as the stress-energy-momentum tensor.

And no, they're not effected by gravity.

@Bannebie do you even know the field equations

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/369287342802075660/575067293713825815/einstein-eq.jpeg

A nonzero value of the stress-energy tensor results in a certain curvature of spacetime shown by the metric tensor.

@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