This may be thrown into new theories and I anticipate that.

Why? You're not proposing a new theory. You're asking a question about current theory. In this case you're asking about what would happen if gravity was stronger. That's too vague to answer properly because I'm not sure what it is that you want to know.

To overcome inertia we required an input of energy proportional to the mass we wish to move.

For those of you who don't know why this is true, its true because the amount of work required to change a particle's velocity from rest to v is W = mv^2/2 which shows that the work is linearly proportional to m and work is the energy needed to accelerate a body from v_initial to v_final.

Gravity appears to distribute its force throughout a mass.

People use the term "mass" when they really mean "body." It's an unfortunate use of the term since mass is a property of a body and does not refer to the body itself. I suggest avoiding using the term "mass" in this way.

Should this action make it easier for gravity?

No. In what you described you're referring to inertial mass. However the force of gravity relates to gravitational mass, the strength of which is determined solely by the gravitational constant,

*G*, which does not appear in the expression for work and therefore work is independent of the strength of gravity.