[wayn3]

gravity and inertia are 2 different properties of mass.

inertia is conveyed by the higgs field.

gravity is conveyed by the gravitational field.

we know that those fields exist, because we can observe them.

if the fields exist, the exchange particles (higgs boson and graviton) have to exist, too - or our theory is wrong.

thats kind of circular reasoning, but we cant derive physics from first principles anyway.

[AstralStorm]

Can you explain then why no gravitons have been found yet? Otherwise it is a baseless untestable assumption that the particle even exists.

We probably could derive physics from first principles if we knew them.

[baq]

We've only measured gravitational waves directly last year. The theoretical graviton is still ways off - the energies required are incomprehensible to mere mortals.

[wayn3]

the graviton is too small to be observed directly by our machinery.

if you can provide a detector the size of the solar system, proving/disproving its existence will be simple.

we could derive anything from first principles if we knew them. theres nothing probable about that. thats the whole point of first principles. do you want me to call you captain obvious?

[AstralStorm]

What about indirect observations then? Something that cannot be otherwise explained?