Gravitational fields are similar to electric fields in that any gravitationally charged object will exert a force on another gravitationally charged object...
It looks to me like your ideas are tied to a particle view of nature... specially gravity. Quantum gravity was always a house of cards because those behind the theory were attempting to make gravity a force and assumed universal time.
These particle physicist often point to how weak gravity is as one of it's unique features (and that it is always attractive)... but that is a totally 16th century view of the subject (and they have admitted to the fact that they are attempting to model a Newtonian gravity rather than what we know of as gravity).
To see just how off these ideas are, one need only run this analogy game in reverse... rather than thinking of gravity as a super weak force, why not attempt to apply aspects of gravity proportionally to the rest of the model. What if electromagnetism had time dilation (proportional to it's strength) like that of gravity? Think about how much time would be effected by a simple magnet in such a model.
All the other forces in nature are like actors on a stage, and gravity is the stage
. Throwing in another actor and labeling him the stage manager
doesn't negate the stage or the fact that it's role is still different than the actors.
The point of bringing all this up is that if you have tied Star Trek to pop science then you are dooming it to be dated. TOS Star Trek was vague on these ideas and it helped keep the show's ideas open for future interpretation. But if you start reaching by grabbing trendy science you risk problems like fan produced tech of the late 1980's that used cold fusion
in Trek starships.
If you need to use science I would suggest staying with the solid foundations... General Relativity and the Standard Model (or Gauge Theories). They will apply equally well in the future as today as whatever is to come will be a refinement of their ideas. Better yet, leave some of that science as vague as possible.