Gravity is the absence of

This is a continuation of the time travel post. And this one is one I am probably very wrong it. Still it's a fun thought experiment so I'm putting it on here anyway.

So the question is: what is gravity? That's a hard question to answer due to the uncertainty of it and its strange behaviors. It seems to follow a certain set of rules: 1) It is very weak in small amounts but conversely it is strong enough to hold galaxies together; 2) It propogates outward at the speed of light; 3) Increases in speed also increases an object's gravitational mass; 4) Increases in gravity slows down time. There's probably more rules that it seems to follow but I certainly can't come up with them off the top of my head. These are the more important ones in this argument anyways.

Let's start with the idea, which makes things easier to explain. My though is that gravity, rather than being a form of energy, which some people theorize that it spans dimensions and time (like that movie Interstellar) to explain why it is so weak, is actually instead a vacuum or an absence of matter and energy, almost like the vacuum of space but different. How different you ask? We'll, for one thing, space isn't a complete vacuum. It might seem like to us because of how air and matter react to it but it actually has a lot of stuff in it just floating around. First being energy, e.g. the background radiation resulting from the big bang which permeates the entire known universe. Also now we are discovering the presence of dark matter. So no space is not a complete emptiness. But then the question remains then how is gravity a complete emptiness?

The answer is... it's not. Gravity is a force resulting from the absence of matter and energy in all its forms in a position in space. But again that doesn't seem to make much sense then does it? After all, planets have a gravitational force and they are definitely not devoid of matter and energy.

But that's easily explained. Rather than thinking of gravity as a result of the complete absence, it's better to think of it in degrees. As in the presence of matter causes a slight decrease in the concentration of existence, or matter/energy, in that particular position in space.

Perhaps it would be easier using Einstein's approach. He visualized gravity as a depression or dip in the fabric of space that pulls the surround matter and energy towards it. So my idea is that that dip in the fabric of space is caused by a decrease in the overall concentration of existence in the universe itself... If that makes any sense. A black hole would then be described as a complete absence of existence at that position. The best visualization would be like a whirlpool. A hole at the bottom of a body of water creates an absence of water which leads to water rushing around and around it to fill it up. And a large mass like a star or planet would simply be a dip in the lake that needs a greater concentration of everything in order to even it out. So this would explain why something with small gravitational mass makes a small dip and a large mass creates a massive gravitational well, and a black hole completely breaks it. This metaphor also kind of explains the presence of gravitational waves and how they can ripple through the universe. It's essentially the same as how the presence of a dip in the bottom of the lake and the resulting rush of water to fill it can cause a ripple in the water itself.

Of course that's the easy to explain part. The harder question is why is there a depression or dip in the fabric of the universe in the first place. The answer to this question starts with my time travel post.

If you'll remember my previous argument regarding the effects of the speed of an object and its correlation to the passage of time for that object. In essence, as an object moves faster through space, it requires more energy for the individual particles that comprise the object to move within the object. And because an object in the vacuum of space is pretty close to an enclosed system, it uses up its personal store of energy which causes those particles to slow down resulting in a slowing of its passage of time. And as a result, this creates what is a more absolute vacuum which is what gravity is. So as an object accelerates through space, it uses up more energy to maintain its consistent rate of change aka time. And in doing so, it generates a stronger gravitational field. This explains how an an accelerating object increases its gravitational mass and also slows down in time.

The other point of concern then is how objects in space have gravitational mass even when not moving. This is rather simple. They are always moving. Even when it seem be like they are standing still in space, everything is actually moving relative to the universe itself. Therefore they will always generates gravity by virtue of everything always being in motion.

Interesting side note: theoretically speaking, this means that if an object is not moving at all relative to the universe, it should have almost zero gravitational mass since the only cause of gravitational mass would be the movement of particles within the object. Which also presents another thought: if we can measure the rate of passage of time of celestial bodies compared to its physical mass in some way or possibly the correlation between an object's physical mass with its gravitational mass, we could then compare the differences between celestial bodies and presumably find the center of the universe since, hypothetically, only an object at the center of the universe where the big bang happened would have zero speed.

So that explains rules 3 and 4 but what about 1 and 2. Well that's simple enough too.

A single small object moving through space only has a small amount of particles in it to generate gravity. But as it moves through space, it will collect other objects which will increase the object's overall size and number of particles resulting in a stronger gravitational field.

As for rule 2... the speed at which a gravitational field propogates is limited by the maximum rate of change matter and energy can have which happens to be the speed of light. There you go. That takes care of all the rules.

Of course, this also begs the question of how the hell black holes work. Well, according to my theory, black holes are simply absolute vacuum in the fabric of the universe. Like if a large dip in space got compressed into a very small space. Coincidentally this is exactly how a black hole forms: when a large gravitational mass is compressed beyond its event horizon. Interestingly enough, if black holes are absolute vacuums in reality, this also explains why smaller black holes are not self-sustaining. In fact, we are actually able to create miniature black holes using particles accelerators but they very quickly dissipate. It's almost as if the black holes were quickly filled. Hmm. Yes. But of course, celestial black holes are simply too big to be filled by the influx of reality.

As for how a black hole forms and what Hawking radiation and quantum mechanics has to do with all of this? Well it'll take a greater mind than mine to figure that out.

So in conclusion, my idea is that gravity is not a form of energy and is merely a result of a absence or a vacuum of matter/energy/existence in its most absolute sense. If taken a little further, you can also use this idea to explain why the universe is expanding at an unreasonable rate. It's entirely possible that there is simply an absolute nothingness outside of the universe, which makes it like the vacuum of a black hole. Which means that the gravitational pull of that nothingness is what's causing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. It's not that there's no gravity to pull the universe back together, it's simply that the gravity outside of the universe is much much stronger. The best way to visualize this would be if the universe was like a balloon filled with the air of reality. Since the outside of the universe balloon has no air of reality, the vacuum/gravity causes the universe balloon to expand, just like a real balloon would if taken to the vacuum of space. I just hope the universe balloon doesn't just pop like a real balloon would. Could you imagine what a mess that would make?