No Mike, don't think it was a misquote, although JP may find a definition of a SpaceTime without 'gravity' as acceptable it will be very hard to prove. My definition will work too, in fact it was Einstein that once defined 'gravity' as the 'metric' of space. In the end it become a question of definitions, as 'gravity' is a very difficult subject to define to a source. I think you can use 'energy' for it, but then again. Nobody ever lifted forward a 'ounce of energy' for examination, to my knowledge?

Energy is all about interactions.

So?

=

Eh, btw, would that be the 'stainless steelrat'

Think I read something, sometime, somewhere?

==

Then again, if one instead define a theoretical one, or two, dimensional space it becomes different, but then we left SpaceTime in favor for a mathematical definition of what some other 'space' could be. And if so 'gravity' will be 'non existent' as I think of it. But inside SpaceTime 'gravity' is what defines space for us. As I see it. Although? I don't know there, maybe you can have a 'gravity' there too if we 'down changed' the three dimensional space we have into a two dimensional. Then it could only work in a plane though. And to be honest, I can't see 'gravity's' directions, they become so weird, thinking of down-grading the 3-D gravity we have to a 2-D gravity? But you could start with it instead, and then the 'planar gravity' should be there as I see it. So try to 'up grade' it to 3-D, if you can. That might be a simpler approach.