Well the interface diffuses both ways. So, yes, you could look at is space diffusing into mass and this diffusion being proportional to the mass. So it seems a reciprocal viewpoint. Photons, which carry the actual force themselves don't have a direction and the force is bidirectional, though space/matter interfaces do. So I guess it depends on which perspective you take.
Looking at from space diffusing intot matter, the appearent expansion of the universe would be the reciprocal relationship of gravity compressing space near mass and making relative observations of size outside this appear to expand (basically looking out from a shrinking black hole, and as your ruler gets smaller, you see what appears to be over time large distant objects rushing away at even what appears to be faster than light speeds, not because of any real velocity at that speed but again, an illusion based upon what perspective you're using to make measurements ... then again, it's not an illusion if you're limited to statistically travelling at light speed)
I think keeping the perspective from the mass system of the equation is best though because then you aren't looking at an invisible complimentary force and you can actually "see" gravity, just like matter.
If you look at the gravitational potential inside the Earth, as you descend, the effective gravitational force is the same as peeling off layers of an "onion" above you - it's only the mass expanding outward from beneath you that you feel - if you're 100 feet from the center, the equivalent gravitational force toward the center (assuming a uniform distribution) is only due to the expansion of than inner 100 foot sphere of mass, not the expansion that's already passed you by (though truly the forces diffuse, but they of course cancel).
I haven't dug into this a lot but I've seen the Reciprocal System
www.rsystem.org/
and it uses 2 3-d spaces, one spacial and one based upon a reciprocal time space.
When you look at Brownian diffusion on a grid, you get a gaussian diffusion over time of t^0.5, when we perceive things in a Euclidean space, we use the squares of these distances instead (this mismatch creates the appearance on average of constant light speed motion though it's likely rather constant light acceleration instead), so we see growth proportional to t, or with constant velocity of c. But when we use relativity we're making observations from an expanding viewpoint that shrink distance observations by 1/t or equivalently 1/d (vanishing points etc.) and this 1/t view of space seemed to provide an extensive view of physics that he was able to use to predict characteristics of the elements. I admit I haven't delved deeply into his views but I found it quite interesting that I happened to stumble upon something very similar.
Anyway, I'm glad that you have this site. It's what initially perked by interests in digging to these subjects more. So thank you, Tom. I'll admit I don't everything fleshed yet but most the links seem lined up and if my views are right, the universe is not as large as it appears (the actual distances in "latticespace" are the square root of our Euclidean distances) and light speed is only a statistical limit that could potentially be exceeded if the "dice" aren't purely random.
You don't need to worry about causality if only one quantum "collapse" occurs at time. All the references for time we use rely on this underlying process, so we can only measure time and velocity in relative terms, not absolutes (the absolutes are mental, not physical). For example, even currently there's nothing theoretically stopping anyone from subjectively being able to travel around the galaxy within their life time, and during this time we assume they'd still see light moving at the same rate relative to themselves ... light has no speed really, it defines time, and we use these events to perceive distances, motion, speed, inertia, mass etc. So the view of constant light speed is made from a third person perspective that we can't actually access. Even the NIST gave up and simply defined light speed to be an exact value, because you can't use one quantity to simultaneously define time and velocities. The speed if light is simply 1 unit, like one 1 AU. You could scale the rate of time of the universe up 100 times and we'd have no way of knowing without an external reference and the same goes for size. The universe could be expanding (or shrinking if you prefer) and we only see the relative differences and not the local absolutes.
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit and I'm certain you guys already are familiar with these issues.
Well, have fun.
Just consider, if space appears to be expanding, then it obviously doesn't only expand everywhere we aren't .... it's all about diffusion and the fact there we're limited to making relative measurements. If you were inside a room with no windows and it was growing in size, including everything in it, you wouldn't notice this except for the areas where the expanding material pushed against each other and you sensed the mutual exchange of electromagnetic information and forces between them.
Why should we have a bunch of invisible radiation or gravitons flying through space if we can instead simply explain it as direct point to point interactions between particles (of either space or mass)? One way requires many things flying through space in a myriad number of ways and penetrating through things etc., whereas the other is all local interactions and diffusing of pressure, without any higher dimensions needed and you still avoid the paradox of black holes.
