You are using force, which is a Newtonian concept, instead of the appropriate four-vector from GR. You are using the E-field, instead of the appropriate F-tensor from GR. That's what I meant. Honestly, I hadn't even seen that type. I read it as "imperviousness". I was pointing out the apparent conflict between your statement that "Singularities are moot here" and that there is "an infinitely depressed metric" present here. No real comments here, as I still have to dive deeper into GR. Just a repeat of my positive criticism: you have to do the maths as well. GR can behave in unintuitive ways, and without the maths backing you up, all you have is a hand-wavy argument. Or at the very least, scientists won't take you very seriously when one has no math to support the claim. That's because quite often when presented with such claims, when the maths is checked, the arguments and conclusion of the thought experiments turn out to be wrong, and scientists (and people in general) don't like wasting their time.