Jonesy

I guess... for the gravity objects we create, we would want to keep packing in the particles, creating a slightly different gravity-model. The farther out gravity stretches, the more particles are required. For our purposes, we want to get max-gravity with (potentially) the smallest possible size.

There also might be something you need to put inside the inanimate object to make gravity stretch beyond its 'touchable' borders. If we look at the planets are stars... do they all have something similar in their cores?

You could also potentially use something other than a sphere. Depending on what you were using the gravity for, a sphere might be a wasteful shape. Like, for the energy-machine... you wouldn't need gravity to go in every direction. I'm assuming particles (atoms, molecules, whatever), are what comprise gravity. Since we can move these particles around, we should be able to direct gravity.

Jonesy

So the planets orbit in ellipses because the sun is moving? If so, a math person should measure it... let the world know how fast the galaxy is moving.

Jonesy

Let's try a particle-based theory.

What if the difference in gravity comes purely from over-lapping particles? The particles from the sun must be here, in-and-around Earth, mixed with the particles from Earth. This would explain why the moon gets caught in Earth's orbit, instead of the Sun's. This results in heavier gravity, because it is like adding 1+1. This means, there is no stretching, or greater decline based on distance alone.

The reason the moon doesn't get sucked into the earth is because the moon, the sun, and the earth are all moving. When the moon is full, it is because part of the moon's particles are adding to the sun + earth? Maybe when on one side of the half-moon, the moon gets close enough to add particles because the moon is arcing while the earth is moving straight towards it?

If this is the case, to control gravity, we might have to 're-arrange' the particles of the Earth and Sun, condensing them where we want controlled-gravity; or figure out how to add a third-layer. Although, this could make it even easier... once we figure out how to make it work.

Jonesy

The reason gravity is less for us when we are on the moon is because there are different kinds of particles. Some particles only effect the inanimate, while others only effect the animate.

Or maybe it is part particle-theory, part-slope theory. The particles do combine (making the air heavier - like increasing humidity), but they also get denser towards their base.

In order for us to control the particles of the inanimate, we have to create and use something inanimate. Although, we can control our own particles merely using the power of our minds.

Jonesy

Is it possible the particles themselves are moving the planets and moons and stuff? As the sun moves, and rotates, its particles move and rotate.

Could the Earth's rotation be caused by the moon? Is it possible most things sit docile in space until a star sweeps them up? In other words, movement is created by the pulling of particles; orbits are created by a rotating central object; rotations are created by smaller orbiting objects.

Jonesy

Based on 'Jonseyan' gravity, how does the 'water on saturns moon' theory hold up? There wouldn't be any stretching or squeezing... it would be more like rocking and possibly turning.

Jonesy

Minor adjustment... let's say the satellite's spin simply because of the spinning of the sun. Each additional satellite (in our case, mainly the moon), increases the rate of spinning.

Jonesy

A good way to think about 'Jonesyan' gravity is to picture a lake. The sun sits in the middle of the lake... the other objects rest in this motionless lake. When the sun starts spinning and moving, it creates a whirlpool of sorts.