&gt; We should see this as some inconsistency in how gravity scales with the mass of a black hole.<p>This inconsistency is a part of general relativity (even though gravitons themselves aren&#x27;t). A black hole does not follow the GM&#x2F;r^2 gravity law.<p>&gt; If they are massive, and therefore subject to slowing, shouldn&#x27;t gravity waves leaving a black hole be subject to some sort of doppler effect? Should we be looking for red&#x2F;blueshifts in these waves?<p>Yes, there is a doppler effect.<p>&gt; If gravitrons have mass and are subject to gravity, what brings that gravity? What sub-gravitron particle regulates gravity going in&#x2F;to&#x2F;out of the gravitron? This would require a new set of particles be created by non-gravitron massive objects (ie black holes) alongside the gravitrons. Like I said, too strange to exist.<p>Gravitons. Every now and then a pair of gravitons may exchange more gravitons (these are also virtual particles, so it&#x27;s fine). This is why Feynman diagrams exist, so that you can not only calculate the interaction between two particles through a graviton, but also calculate the contribution of the lower-probability situations where more gravitons magically appear to transmit gravity between gravitons.<p>This is nothing new. Gluons (the carrier for the color&#x2F;strong force) do basically the same thing. They are also bound by the force they carry, and thus gluons can interact with each other with more gluons.<p>Because these are virtual particles and only exist as a probability, this doesn&#x27;t lead to infinite recursion. The secondary gravitons are improbable, and the tertiary gravitons more so, and so on, and the final series converges.