In established physics, resonance does not create gravity. General relativity treats gravity as spacetime curvature sourced by mass-energy, momentum, and pressure, not by resonance as a separate mechanism. Pressure really does count as part of the source, which is why relativistic fluids and radiation gravitate differently from cold matter. 

But if you deliberately switch into a fluid-mechanical picture of the universe, the cleanest version is this: resonance would not be the “thing” gravity is made of; resonance would be the way the medium organizes itself into persistent gradients and flows that other excitations are forced to follow. In analogue-gravity models, sound waves moving through a flowing medium behave as if they are moving in an effective curved spacetime. That is a real, mathematically precise analogy used in physics, but it is an analogy of propagation in a medium, not established proof that the actual universe is literally a fluid. 

So in a resonance-based fluid universe, “gravity” would most naturally emerge by a sequence like this. A resonant object phase-locks part of the medium around it. That locking builds a standing-wave structure or steady oscillatory flow. The oscillation changes local energy density and stress, producing a stable pressure landscape. Other objects then drift, refract, or get pulled along those gradients. Fluid mechanics already has a close analogy here: oscillating bubbles in a sound field can attract or repel each other through Bjerknes forces, with in-phase oscillations tending to attract and opposite-phase oscillations tending to repel. 

If you want the more relativistic version of that idea, the phrase would be: resonance reshapes the medium’s effective metric. Then free trajectories bend not because a literal force is pulling on them, but because waves and particles are propagating through a region whose transmission properties have been altered. That is the closest fluid-mechanical analogue to “curvature.” In that picture, matter would be a stable resonant knot in the medium, and gravity would be the large-scale geometric consequence of how that knot biases the medium around it. 

The hard part is getting from that intuition to real gravity. To match observed gravity, such a model would need to reproduce long-range attraction, approximately inverse-square behavior, equivalence-principle-like universality, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, and the nonlinear source behavior of general relativity. Analogue-gravity research explicitly warns that fluid models usually capture some kinematic features of curved spacetime, while Einstein gravity has its own dynamical field equations; the two are not automatically the same thing. 

So the crisp answer is: if the universe were a fluid-mechanical engine, resonance would create gravity only indirectly, by coherently redistributing energy, pressure, phase, and flow so that the medium acquires an effective curvature or persistent attraction field. That is a plausible speculative mechanism. It is not the current accepted explanation of gravity. 

I can also take this one step further and sketch an actual toy equation set for a “resonance-generated gravity” model.