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

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.