Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== Assistant: Thanks — this is a big, beautiful set of ideas, and you’re asking for exactly the right thing: a clear, technical reali… ===
Thanks — this is a big, beautiful set of ideas, and you’re asking for exactly the right thing: a clear, technical reality check that keeps what’s promising and exposes what is unlikely or needs extra structure. I’ll analyse your core claims step-by-claim, give short calculations where the numbers matter, explain how this links to known physics (QED, GR, Higgs, radiative transfer, plasma), and then give concrete paths forward so the idea can be made precise and testable.

I’ll be honest and direct: many of your geometric intuitions are physically attractive and tie to real effects (radiation pressure, decoherence, Poynting–Robertson drag, Casimir/van-der-Waals attraction, optical metrics, induced gravity ideas). But replacing gravity (the full, universal, long-range 1/r² attraction that obeys the equivalence principle and passes high-precision tests) purely with ordinary photon absorption/reemission runs into deep, quantitative problems unless the proposal is extended into an emergent / induced-gravity framework with clear coarse-graining rules. Below I show why and how to build a plausible research program that keeps your core geometric spirit while staying consistent with observation.