[Kartazion]

The actual
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.

You don't know your subject well. Gravity is Potential Energy. Energy conservation degrades under the influence of gravity.
 

Scientists say that gravity is a force

Gravity is no longer a force.

[evan_au]

gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies is empty space.

It is true that gravity works through empty space.
- It is also true that gravity works through a solid body
- The ocean tides on Earth are due to the gravity of the Moon acting on every atom of the Earth. The strength of that attraction is given by Newton's formula F=GM₁M₂/r²
- So the ocean atoms closer to the Moon are attracted more strongly than the center of the solid Earth, which is in turn attracted more strongly than the ocean atoms on the far side of the Earth.
- As Einstein showed, gravity can also be viewed as a distortion in spacetime, and the distortion caused by the Moon adds to the distortion caused by the Earth, which adds to the distortion of the Sun (and the galaxy...).  All of these distortions cause an acceleration in different directions, so you have to do a vector sum.

So you can't "block" gravity with anything of which we know.
H.G.Wells science fiction "Cavorite" can't get your machine to work, any more than it could get his  characters to the Moon in the 1900 classic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon

[Colin2B]

Gravity is no longer a force.

Gravitational force has not gone away just because we understand the cause better.

[Kartazion]

Gravitational force has not gone away just because we understand the cause better.

Good evidence of ambiguity. But isn't what we better understand better? So why keep what is also less explicit? This is just to remember how man and through his theories did to get there at the level of understanding. Einstein clearly states that gravity is not a force, but rather the curvature of spacetime.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 When light comes from a distant star, it is on a plane. When it "bends" when it passes by the Sun, that is because of an attribute of gravity. If space was warped then its path would not be so determined. Gravity besides having acceleration such as 9.81m/s also has an orbital component. The Sun could be "twisting" space so the space closer to it is denser.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/uk7XyYSRqKobHs3e9

 When Einstein said warped, it is possible how to explain it to people? A bowl is warped. Yet if you drew a straight line from one edge to the other, the amount of material for each mm moving towards the center of the bowl would increase by volume. It might be a 45 degree bowl. But this is to get the idea. https://photos.app.goo.gl/XC2ARq4YFHLXQdWd7

[Kartazion]

When Einstein said warped, it is possible how to explain it to people?

By geodesics.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I find gravitons moving towards the Sun an easy enough explanation as to why light's movement when passing by the Sun changes. Gravitons are simply space/time particles that light interacts with.

[Kartazion]

I prefer to work with electromagnetic stress–energy tensor to express the density.

The density being proportional to the influence of gravity on the photon. Indeed gravity on earth is not strong enough to deflect the light accordingly.

[Colin2B]

So why keep what is also less explicit?

Because it is measurable and useful. Just in the same way as we can use and experience centrifugal force even though we know a deeper cause.

Einstein clearly states that gravity is not a force, but rather the curvature of spacetime.

He did not state that. Gravity has never been a force, but there is a measurable force due to gravitational attraction and Einstein offers an explanation for how that attraction occurs. He also linked it to the inertial force due to acceleration, another force that has a deeper cause, but we still experience it.

[Bored chemist]

Still waiting for the OP to show that this
 "Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops"
actually happens.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Is it possible that the planets are orbiting the Sun based on its magnetic field and phonovoltaic behavior? If so, then
that would separate how the planets orbit the Sun from the Sun's acceleration of gravity towards its surface. That would suggest that a "graviton" would have 2 different behaviors associated with it.

 With my build, I think my radial bearings are shot or just extremely dirty. I have roller bearing that I will use instead. It will be easier to keep them lubricated. I am making new mounts but should have that finished by tomorrow. The objective now is to repeat the cycle that allowed a weight to be lifted.
 I know, one step at a time while thinking 3 or 4 steps ahead but that is how to track progress. With the radial bearings, I think soaking them in mineral spirits is what caused them to become damaged. Once exposed to air again a chemical reaction was probably underway. There are dark rings around the outside of the races (what the bearings are in).

[Origin]

 Is it possible that the planets are orbiting the Sun based on its magnetic field and phonovoltaic behavior?

No.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Did light move closer to the Sun because it is also magnetic? It's well known that magnetic fields can control that which is electromagnetic in nature.
 And with space which basically has no resistance, how much force would it take to change something's motion?

[Deecart]

Gravity is no longer a force.

Gravity remain what we call a force.

Facts about the four fundamental forces that describe every interaction in nature.
GRAVITY
WEAK FORCE
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE

https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html

[Deecart]

Is it possible that the planets are orbiting the Sun based on its magnetic field and phonovoltaic behavior?

I dont see the point really, but you indeed pointed some interresting possibility : The phonovoltaic behavior.
I dont think there is any phonovoiltaic behavior, but you juste talked about a compression wave (phonons propagate in the matter by compression).
You could use this analogy with the waves doing compression of the space. These waves Lirgo have measured.
The question is : If you take some heavy strong bar (of steel or ceramic) and apply some fast and strong compression at one end, the compression wave propagate into to bar. So, do this compression product a gravitational effect around the bar ? (the bar attract matter ?) (the inverse effect we mesaure with lirgo : Gravitational wave => local compression. And the inverted phenomenon : local compression => gravitational wave. ).
Like electricity in some wire product some magnetic effect around the wire.
If you make spires of this bar, do you have some bigger gravitationnal effect ? (probably).

[Deecart]

He did not state that. Gravity has never been a force, but there is a measurable force due to gravitational attraction and Einstein offers an explanation for how that attraction occurs. He also linked it to the inertial force due to acceleration, another force that has a deeper cause, but we still experience it.

Gravity was a force, even with Newton.
The difference is that with Newton, the representation of this force was a scalar vector.
With Einstein, the difference is that the representation is not a scalar vector any more.

[alancalverd]

Vector or scalar?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Can a scalar value generate a vector? It is known that the Sun has very strong magnetic lines which tend to show that the space around the Sun is warped. When a planet formed, did it develop a relationship with the Sun? This is one reason why I mentioned an electric potential.
 Once a planet developed a magnetic potential then did that influence its orbit? It is like the Moon orbits the Earth and it has an iron core with no magnetic field.

[Deecart]

Vector or scalar?

Yes sorry, i should only say "a vector" in the common sense,  but i was thinking that we can create vectors using other mathematical entities then scalars.
So yes, a vector, instead of a "scalar vector" is what i intended to say.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 To clarify; Once a planet developed a magnetic potential then did that influence its orbit? This is going back billions of years when our solar system was just forming. Did the Sun and the planets form as a result of the density of gasses available and then form a relationship associated with their respective orbits?