Terminology that indicates no proof, but a strong belief. That's fine. But it hasn't been measured, has it?
Or when two enormously massive objects such as neutron stars or black holes collide.
A black hole collision has not been seen (as far as I know), so you are basing this statement upon models (I assume) which are inherently flawed since they are based on the developer's biases and data.
Tell me--how does a "graviton" particle that is traveling away from the source object actually attract another object towards the source object?
The most common approximation method that physicists use for scattering calculations can be interpreted as static forces arising from the interactions between two bodies mediated by virtual particles, particles that exist for only a short time determined by the uncertainty principle.[1]
The virtual particles, also known as force carriers, are bosons, with different bosons associated with each force.[2]
The virtual-particle description of static forces is capable of identifying the spatial form of the forces, such as the inverse-square behavior in Newton’s law of universal gravitation and in Coulomb’s law. It is also able to predict whether the forces are attractive or repulsive for like bodies.
The path integral formulation is the natural language for describing force carriers. This article uses the path integral formulation to describe the force carriers for spin 0, 1, and 2 fields.
Pions, photons, and gravitons fall into these respective categories.
There are limits to the validity of the virtual particle picture.
The virtual-particle formulation is derived from a method known as perturbation theory which is an approximation assuming interactions are not too strong, and was intended for scattering problems, not bound states such as atoms.
For the strong force binding quarks into nucleons at low energies, perturbation theory has never been shown to yield results in accord with experiments,[3] thus, the validity of the “force-mediating particle” picture is questionable.
Similarly, for bound states the method fails.[4]
In these cases the physical interpretation must be re-examined.
As an example, the calculations of atomic structure in atomic physics or of molecular structure in quantum chemistry could not easily be repeated, if at all, using the “force-mediating particle” picture.[citation needed]
The “force-mediating particle” picture (FMPP) is used because the classical two-body interaction (Coulomb’s law for example), depending on six spatial dimensions, is incompatible with the Lorentz invariance of Dirac’s equation.
The use of the FMPP is unnecessary in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, and Coulomb’s law is used as given in atomic physics and quantum chemistry to calculate both bound and scattering states.
A non-perturbative relativistic quantum theory, in which Lorentz invariance is preserved, is achievable by evaluating Coulomb’s law as a 4-space interaction using the 3-space position vector of a reference electron obeying Dirac’s equation and the quantum trajectory of a second electron which depends only on the scaled time.
The quantum trajectory of each electron in an ensemble is inferred from the Dirac current for each electron by setting it equal to a velocity field times a quantum density, calculating a position field from the time integral of the velocity field, and finally calculating a quantum trajectory from the expectation value of the position field.
The quantum trajectories are of course spin dependent, and the theory can be validated by checking that Pauli’s Exclusion Principle is obeyed for a collection of fermions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_forces_and_virtual-particle_exchange