No, but it is the same thing as "Don't bother talking about it until you've got some evidence."
How do you think you gain evidence, when you have none before? Yeah in theoretical physics they do a lot of postulating about things we have no proof of. But one thing about mathematical modeling is it yields a lot of predictions that you can test against the real world. As our technology increases, the question of gravitons will eventually be answered to a much higher degree of confidence. I honestly don't care one way or the other, and I'm not sure why it's a sticking point for you.
Gravity seems to be subject to the light speed limit. There's no problem here, I'm not sure what makes you think there is one. There are other factors at work which affect an orbit other than the speed of light limit.
Let me put it to you that you are demanding precision from me which you are not supplying your self. These mysterious "other factors", do you know what they are? I assure that limiting the propogation of gravity to a finite speed does cause a problem, and I worry that your vague reference to other factors indicates a reliance on blind faith which you have come to this forum to castigate others for.
I noticed in high school that the propagation of gravity at a finite speed caused problems -- the force comes from the wrong direction if the source is moving. This is obvious. There is a reason that Newtonian mechanics still work more or less, but it's not at all obvious.
Here's a good basic description
hereIf you want a more technical one, look up the references there. You can't just take newtonian intuitions and apply them to GR-described orbits and proclaim there's a problem when there isn't one. Go win your Nobel Prize if you can back up your assertion.
Once again, just because something isn't 100% known doesn't mean that current theory is wrong.
But it does mean that proposing these theories as a cure-all is intellectually dishonest.
What "cure all"? You posed one simple problem. Gravity answers your question. If you want to assert that we SHOULD fly off the earth, what reason is there to think that we should? You want to bring up centrifugal force with no problems with the physics, but you want to dismiss forces that work in opposition to it? Physics accounts for both, and explains perfectly well why we don't fly off the earth. If you want to challenge that - be my guest, but make your argument a little better than "We should fly off the earth!" If you want some reasons why we should believe in gravity, try
here for some tests which have confirmed GR. That's a hell of a lot more evidence than you have, or can, produce to believe in a flat earth.
In fact, there ARE theories which incorporate gravity with the other forces. Superstring theory is a promising one.
Flat earth: bad. Eleven-dimensional universal (with seven dimensions too small to notice) containing interacting "branes" and unbelieveably long vibrating strings: good.
Yep. Flat earth "theory" is soundly disproven, beyond any and all reasonable doubt. String theory may or not end up being "right" but it certainly has some promising reasons to consider it. The fact that additional dimensions seem unintuitive to *us* doesn't impact their reality in any way. Mathematically, they are not particularly difficult to describe.
Not only does it unify gravity with the other forces, but it specifically predicts the existence of gravitons as well.
No, it is a mathematical creation that is consistent with the existence of gravitons. It makes no predictions that are testable in practice.
You are right at this point in time - string theory doesn't have a heck of a lot of testable predictions. That doesn't mean it won't in the future, and that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of reason to think it might make some very useful predictions in the future.
Your basic point seems to be "We don't know everything about gravity, therefore it doesn't exist." Not sure I follow that logic, probably because it's just so bad.
No, what I'm saying is that you brought up gravity to explain everything, but you don't know what it is (which is fine, nobody really does). Proof in the natural world is a slippery thing; it's very hard to disprove "v = u + at"; something which is "obviously true", but turns out not to be "actually true."
So what if it isn't "actually true"? That doesn't mean it still isn't extremely useful as an approximation. You seem to at least have a decent grasp of some basic concepts of physics and science (which indications to me that you are just trolling, like a lot of newcomers here - but we can save that speculation for later) so I'm sure you know that Newtonian physics are in fact still used in abundance - despite being "wrong".
None of this has much of anything to do with the earth being flat. Why don't we focus on something that you can't deny exists? So how about explaining time zones and seasons for me, and see if you can avoid throwing out entire branches of well-established science in the process.