You can't actually believe any of this.
It isn't even self consistent, for example:
"It is exactly this 'reduction in space" is not consistent with your idea that the entire universe is expanding at the same rate.
If we are talking about the expansion of the entire universe then the fact that there is something like a planet in there somewhere means nothing. The entire universe, and all points within it, are expanding at the same rate (according to your theory) so there can be no "reduction in space".
The better examples of gravitational lensing are galaxies which lay behind other galaxies. If there were no gravity and the illusion of gravity were simply the acceleration of the expansion of an object, then the expansion of empty space would be equal to the expansion of an object and offset it. This then would not be possible.

There shouldn't be any way for those arrows to converge on the Earth. The expansion you are advocating would exist in the space where they turn back toward us and it would push those arrows flat/straight. The light would miss the Earth and there would be no lensing effect.
You also don't seem to address how/why denser materials/objects have more weight/mass/gravity than less dense materials/objects.
If I hold up a balloon and a bowling ball (assuming they are exactly the same size) and gravity is simply the expansion of the objects then they should weigh the same. They don't. It can't be because they are expanding at different rates because they continue to be exactly the same size. It can't be because the planet is expanding at a different rate relative to each one. If so then the space below my hands would distort due to the different rates of expansion, it doesn't. It can't be because my hands are expanding at different rates because they continue to be the same size too.
I really do hope that this is just some silly mind game you are playing with. It makes no sense at all.