Is my tactics, uscf, and bullet low compared to my rapid?

My rapid is 1515, my tactics is 1794, my uscf is 1242, and my bullet is extremely low at 1012.

it is perfectly normal. 

Well USCF rating is different than Chess.com rating. It's more difficult to grow in USCF than in Chess.com, so I'd say they reflect each other nicely.

A low bullet is expected until others reach around 2000

I disagree. You can have bullet ratings that equal or exceed your rating even when your ratings are average. So it's quite possible that someone with 1500 in rapid and blitz could have 1500+ in bullet. It just depends on your playing style.

Sure

i think that its all pretty equal but maybe ur bullet can be a bit bigger

Based on my own stats, I'd also say it's perfectly normal. Though, of course, my tactics rating is just above 2000 (tactics are my favourite). As for bullet chess, it really depends on your approach: if you choose to play it the way you would regular chess then it will take a while (I like this approach), but then there is bullet-specific prep to help you win those games.

No need to fret. My tactics rating is additionally in the low 1700s, and if I continue to pursue mastery of tactical gameplay, gradually it shall become twice as high as my bullet, blitz and rapid ratings. (My bullet, blitz and rapid ratings are ~850, 925 and 900). I suspect that a multitude of people of different ages have had such a situation befall them. It is not enviable (borrowed slightly from the first few sentences of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens), albeit a resilient mind would be able to abide with these conditions.  Perhaps I could work to improve such ratings, but I believe that chess is more so a game to intellectually stimulate the mind. Thus, I have resolutely decided that I am not to obsess over my exceedingly low ratings, and that over time, with increased emphasis of strategic and tactical thinking, my chess will improve. Anyhow, I sincerely apologise for rambling on; it tends to become a habit particularly considering the fact that I referred to Oliver Twist, which gives you all the rambling you want. Needless to say, it is quite a good book. THEORETICAL PHYSICS IS ADDITIONALLY FUN. UNIFY LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND PALATIAL TWISTOR THEORY, TO DEVELOP THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING IN CHESS WILL BOIL DOWN TO Nash equilibria, AND A VAST APPLICATION OF BURNSIDE'S LEMMA.

Palatial Twistor Theory? What is that... left leg red, tomorrow Mars? You know, technically, once the goal is set and promulgated, the great equation, which is, for simplicity's sake, the logic of this world, accepts the variable and attempts to settle the equation. Given the absence of the time argument, or better yet an argument of infinite value, the function will eventually reach a true state, more so if the propagators, which is in this case the advocates of the idea, still maintain the capacity to reproduce.

Alas, we have the gravitational googly problem, in which there is an issue encountered upon utilising twistor functions in a non linear fashion to essentially get a right handed graviton. 

Interesting . I do wonder, though, will we ever see the graviton as fact. I mean, on a bigger scale, to which I'm sure you recognise the allusion, gravity is a matter of motion and(or) mass; why then, in the quantum field, do we assume the existence of a graviton in the sense that we do? Why not assume the presence of motion of some particle(sub particle) that we've not yet discovered; even a quantum black hole inherent in all of matter is a reasonable speculation.

If I ever have trouble falling asleep maybe I'll read the second half of this thread.

Honestly though lol

As we already know, the graviton is a purely hypothetical particle concerning the gravitational force, theoretically being reputable. It is not universally accepted that account for the gravitational force; in addition, we know that Kaluza Klein theory hypothesis that gravity seems only weak from the place in which exist, as spatial dimensions are accounted for. Alas, I must attend school now, so I shall be seeing you in approximately 8 hours, in which I will attempt to answer your question.

As a matter of fact, we know that the four fundamental forces are mediated by bosons; for the strong force, it is the 8 gluons, for the weak force, it is W+,W- and Z sub 0 bosons, for the electromagnetic force, the photon, and obviously the option for the gravitational force lies in the graviton. Of course, we could readily speculate that all of matter is made up of some particle of arbitrary letter X, but blatantly, we would need scientific reasoning and logic behind it.

Just be yourself!

Of what do you intend to express with such a comment?

lol i thought you said your bullet rating was 200 lol