/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11123586
Sick and tired of hearing about how we "don't understand gravity." We know exactly how it functions, and exactly how to calculate gravity in any given system.

Yes, I am aware we don't know what causes gravity. Are we aware what causes the "strong and weak nuclear forces" which are very poorly modeled, and poorly understood? Do we /really/ know for sure why it is that a whole bunch of protons like sticking around together? Why is that?

Or is it just because scientists like to pretend that it's easy to understand things sticking together like peanut butter on bread, but they're too autistic to admit that they comprehend objects innately pulling themselves towards each other?

So the derivation and intuition behibd it feels good and makes sense. However, lets say we had an infinitely small particle sharing the same space as a particle that is emitting a field. What do? We know a point particle covers 0 area, no matter how close it is to the source. So should 1/(r^2) not apply to point particles? Or do perhaps a gravitational field produces a probability field for gravitons to appear, in which gravitons are assumed to be larger than an infinitesmally small point and they could perhaps nestle in planck wells or pocket? Or perhaps, the gravity source will change the properties of space surrounding it, so any other particles within that modified space are accelerated..... which wouldn't make sense to me. Should I treat a gravitational field like light, and assume it is both a particle and a wave?