@AstralSentient and what part of QM requires further advancement

So you appear to understand the sciences but think the globe model is wrong....?

Our understanding of how it connects to gravity

How bout that?

There is no connection to gravity, and there never will be

Show me how to quantise the metric tensor of the einstein-hilbert field equations

So because gravity breaks down at the quantum level, we can disregard all of the success of Newtonian and GR?
Seems legit

Or how to successfully apply renormalization after applying perturbation theory to gravity

You don't understand.

How about we ask experts in the field if I'm such an idiot?

Curving spacetime is the issue.

Do you even know GR?

I've already spoken to "experts in the field"

Majority of what I'm saying is physics established by scientist that believe your model.

And?

Define gravity in GR.

Not "my model", but continue

astral doesnt believe in the globe

🤔

Then why is he defending gravity?

You don't even know GR

Because it works well in terms of what was tested of it. A lot of it connects quite well to the equivalence principle

GR's gravity has no actual proof

As a mathematical model it can predict things that align with the *globe* model

But when it comes to FE it doesn't

And the math behind GR leads to contradictions within itself

97 eleven

You sure ur fe?

As sure as I am that GR is utter nonsense

smart people are starting to realize whats going on

It sorta can, like Universal Acceleration, and what that all implies

UA is wrong

If you believe in the FES nonsense then you're completely wrong

Even globe earthers can debunk UA

Equivalence principle demonstrates it as an adequate model of local gravity

Define the equivalence principle

What's the source of the acceleration

UA is made by a controlled opposition group

The effects of our observed local gravitational field cannot be experimentally distinguished from an accelerated frame of reference.

Thats off google fyi ^

Pretty much