[banachtarski]

Is this... serious? Your theory is on the surface impossible because electromagnetic forced would dominate your “gravity”, forcing protons apart among other things. If what you’re suggesting is that at a certain scale, gravity just acts differently all of the sudden, how is this any different than modeling the interaction with a different type of force, aside from a naming convention?

[Hani1337]

I think my point, even if I'm not well educated to formulate it in scientist language, is that measuring everything in absolutes is fucking up with science's accuracy. Speed is a human construct to triangulate distance over time. Light doesn't have speed. Light is a constant that defines speed.

A lot of things we think we know and take for granted is actually slightly inaccurate when the scale shifts drastically. That's because we focus on absolutes instead of relative values. Numbers are a human construct, scientists have forgotten that. Because our brain can easily add 2+2 doesn't mean it's a technique that scales infinitely and remains true. Do we have proof of numbers stability through scale or do we just say there's an "infinite" amount of them to make it easier on the explaining?

ps: pi is another of these constants that rule the laws of the universe. We can't really explain why but it does. It's the same principle as for light. Constants are true not matter the scope, because everything is relative. Our numbers can't truly represent that because additions are inherently flawed when the scale shifts. Everything that adds recursively is actually a multiplication array, and thinking of it as an addition is inaccurate.

tldr: our math needs to evolve to follow an OoP logic instead of being stuck at a human scale perspective.