Trying to De-Gibberish

Rereading some of these, I get the impression they will make no sense to anyone who isn't me.

So, to iterate my two major assumptions:

All fields are relativistic, by which I mean that they are curvature in space-time.

Measurements of these fields are complicated by this, because the frames of reference differ.  In particular distance, from the perspective of the particle giving rise to a given field, is a lot different than it looks to us.

Curvature can be negative or positive, where negative curvature correlates to attraction, and positive curvature correlates to repulsion.

Negative curvature is an increase in distances, positive curvature is a decrease in distances, from a given reference frame.

Curvature is also relative, but I tend to convey the ideas without conveying relativity.

Negative curvature corresponds to a metric that is "bigger on the inside"; that is, an observer looking at a ruler that is sitting in relatively flat space will see it as longer than a ruler that is sitting in relatively negatively curved space.

So the negative curvature portion of the nuclear force can be seen as covering a distance of 2.5m "on the inside", and 10^-15m "on the outside", by which I mean a 1.5m ruler could "fit" in the span of the attractive phase of the nuclear force.  (Except a ruler made out of atoms wouldn't.  It would strictly be an imaginary ruler.)

Repulsive phases are quite the opposite; they have less "internal" space, and the distances they cover are less than an outside observer would perceive them as covering.

Which distance is "real", for the purposes of asking how distance affects a field?

I think the answer depends.  I think the sum of these fields for a particle is it's own reference frame.  So gravity doesn't "consider" how it curves space; it curves space as if it wasn't curving space.  The outside distance is the correct one.  When considering a single particle.

However, this is only true for a given instance, for lack of a better term, of the set of fields.  Put two particles - two sets of fields - together, and the behavior changes, so gravity from particle A affects the distance for gravity from particle B, and likewise the reverse.

Composite particles, therefore, have different field behavior than singular particles.  They behave as if part or all of their field curvature is self-interfering.

Considering something the size of a planet, we can basically treat it as entirely self-interfering.  Which means the effective distance for gravity should include how gravity changes the distance involved.

Which is what I mean when I say we can potentially recover orders of magnitude of the period of our force; if the inside-frame-of-reference distance to the surface of the sun is, on average, 10^18 meters, the paltry 10^12 meter range of planets is easier to fit in the portion of sin(ln(x))/x that approximates an inverse square law; the distances are all basically 10^18, plus a rounding error.

This also potentially accounts for the hierarchy problem; the problem exists entirely in how we are measuring distance (in both space and time).