[alex]

I have another great idea.

I would like to know, from people believing the earth is not round, what laws of physics you assume are correct, and which you assume are wrong, incorrect or made up from conspiracies.

The list of physic laws I have in mind are:

- classical mechanics
- quantum mechanics
- general relativity
- special relativity
- gravitation
- electricity
- model of the atom
- model of the atomic nuclei
- elementery physics
- model of the forces (gravitational force, weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force)
- optics
- ...

(With 'laws of physics' I mean the plethora of generally-accepted rules describing how the world works (according to Wikipedia). Thus my list includes terms like 'model', 'theory', 'law' etc. on the same level, meaning 'mathematical rule to describe something').

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Is plentora a word?

[alex]

I meant 'plenthora', I corrected it in the original post...

[Ghost of V]

Plenthora's not a word.

You're looking for "plethora".

... Google. It exist.

[alex]

I corrected it (again).

So can you begin to actually answer my question? Or do you want to continue nitpicking on my question?

[Thork]

Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.

[Rama Set]

Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.

The LHC is not capable of reaching the energies necessary to generate gravitons; it was originally designed to discover the Higgs Boson and to narrow in on lower limits for sparticles. I am not sure why you are ignoring the facts that make up the theory of gravity but I could probably guess.

[Thork]

There is no evidence gravitons exist at all, but thanks for the assumption just more energy is needed to find them.

[Rama Set]

There is no evidence gravitons exist at all, but thanks for the assumption just more energy is needed to find them.

It is predicted by QM but thanks for the assumption that I was assuming.

Anyway, I have really only seen gravity be rejected by FEers

[Thork]

It is not predicted. May I draw your attention to the right of the page in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Status: Theoretical
Discovery: Hypothetical

Theoretically I could win the lottery this Saturday. Then I could hypothetically share some of my winnings with you. What chance do you think you have of getting some money from me very soon? Going to leave your job?

[Rama Set]

It is not predicted. May I draw your attention to the right of the page in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Status: Theoretical
Discovery: Hypothetical

Theoretically I could win the lottery this Saturday. Then I could hypothetically share some of my winnings with you. What chance do you think you have of getting some money from me very soon? Going to leave your job?

Ummm... Ok. I don't understand. You don't think an incorrect prediction can't be made? 

[markjo]

Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there.

If you had actually read your own link, then you would have known that physicists already admit that, for all practical purposes, building a graviton detector on earth with modern technology is impossible.

For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.

Something smells a bit fishy to me.

Maybe it's just time to wash your swim shorts.

[Thork]

So gravity is in every object, all mass, every atom but I'm supposed to believe some cockamamie story about needing a detector the size of Jupiter? I can observe anything falling, but CERN needs something the size of a gas giant? Come on Markjo. "They are there, but we can't detect them, and we are right, but we can't prove it and you have to believe us that it is, just we need a machine the size of a mega planet to detect these incredibly common subatomic particles, which we know we will never have so that's that and take our word for it."

Like I say, I have my doubts over gravity. I don't think it is unreasonable. I need a machine the size of the Sun to prove God exists, but he does and he loves you Markjo, despite you being a pain in the backside. 

[Rama Set]

So gravity is in every object, all mass, every atom but I'm supposed to believe some cockamamie story about needing a detector the size of Jupiter? I can observe anything falling, but CERN needs something the size of a gas giant? Come on Markjo. "They are there, but we can't detect them, and we are right, but we can't prove it and you have to believe us that it is, just we need a machine the size of a mega planet to detect these incredibly common subatomic particles, which we know we will never have so that's that and take our word for it."

Like I say, I have my doubts over gravity. I don't think it is unreasonable. I need a machine the size of the Sun to prove God exists, but he does and he loves you Markjo, despite you being a pain in the backside. 

No one has ever said they are certain they will some day detect the graviton. If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.

[Thork]

If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.

How much do you know about flat earth theory?

[Rama Set]

If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.

How much do you know about flat earth theory?

Nice deflection.

Which FE theory?

[alex]

So, people believing in a flat earth accept every physical fact except gravity? Is this a correct conclusion on my side?

[Thork]

So, people believing in a flat earth accept every physical fact except gravity? Is this a correct conclusion on my side?

Gravity is not a fact. Hence 'the theory of gravity'.

[alex]

Well, fact is you do not understand what the word 'theory' means in a scientific meaning.

Can you then provide a law or anything that describes gravity?

[Dog]

Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.

Since when does a force need a particle?

Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons....

Gravity is not a fact. Hence 'the theory of gravity'.

True. Nothing is fact. We can never say we know something for sure 100%, but we can say that we're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally sure about something. Gravity is one of those things. Its effects have been tested and verified for centuries.

The beauty of the scientific method is that since we're never 100% certain about anything, there is always the possibility to disprove something. So why don't you disprove gravity as we know it?

I'm sure there's a lot of money up for grabs if you can back up your talk with some walk...