Gravity redux

What if gravity isn't so much a very weak attractive force, but is, instead a strong negatively attractive force mixed with an even stronger attractive force, such that the net is that it appears weak?I truly don't care whether cosmologists are right or wrong about things that transpire in distant galaxies.  It's terrific stuff for late-night NatGeo shows.  I don't have any customers in any galaxy outside this one, and I can't zip over to another planet to fly fish.  I do care about things right here -- and how to better understand my environment (so that I can exploit that to make more money, which I can convert to fly fishing).  I should add in that I enjoy helping people who cannot possibly repay me, so I would use some of the residual funds for that.  Anyway . . . cosmologists telling me mythology about what happens on the other side of the cosmos is only remotely interesting to me -- except that a fellow named Hubble thought that the universe expansion was accelerating.  That leaves two obvious possibilities, and a bunch of non-obvious ones.Obvious possibility number one is that there is "dark matter/dark energy" in the universe, akin to the theory of aether, which has a repulsive force pushing everything apart.  Obvious possibility number two is that there is something with an attractive force beyond what we can directly observe (because the light from it has not yet gotten to us) which contains our universe and is pulling everything outward.  Either way, if we make the assumption that gravity operates throughout the universe in the same manner that we observe it operating here, then it *seems* to be a mix of attraction and repulsion, which net out to an observable weak attractive force.If we could detect gravity waves on earth without employing a super-nova, and if they are everywhere at once (i.e. travel faster than light), then that could be turned into a communications medium.  So, how could one mask or attenuate half of the pair of gravity forces, such that the remaining strong one emerged enough to measure?  Let's consider another kind of attractive force: sex.  If I was stranded on an island with a beautiful woman, and it was apparent that we were both never going to get off that island, her attraction to me should increase.  Something along the lines of: if sexual attraction is universally strong (otherwise, how do you explain the success of our species); but I observe it as a *very* weak force toward me; and if it's a zero-sum sort of thing; then by removing competing things for a woman to be attracted to, I should observe an increase in attraction toward me.  Extending this a bit, if I could *vary* the amount of competing things for the woman to be attracted to, I should observe a corresponding increase or decrease in attractive force which could be thought of as a wave-form.  Think of Ted in a bar full of women -- all ignoring Ted (shouldn't be too big a mental leap).  As svelte men enter or leave the bar, the attraction of all the women in the bar should correspondingly increase or decrease toward Ted.  Ted would observe this as a wave-form -- and I have actually tried tracking it, it seems to fit.This leads me to monads.  What if Leibniz was right, and at the atomic level, matter is actually a monad rather than simply vibrating energy?  Assume that monads "know" the state of all other monads in the universe at all times.  Further, assume that monads behave as if they have directed forces (as Leibniz proposed), rather than are merely acted upon (as Newton believed).  I'm not proposing that matter has something akin to free will, and can decide based on taste what to do next.  I'm suggesting that matter might have a bunch of options, and might make very predictable "choices" about what to attract and what not to attract, based on a universal "knowledge" of all other monads (matter) at a given space-time.  What if, when a monad exerted gravitational attraction toward a nearby monad, it was important to look at who else was in the bar at that time?  There is something not quite right in my reasoning here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.  Seems like if you could communicate to all women in a bar that various men were completely unavailable, the attraction toward Ted should increase ever so slightly -- in other words, you wouldn't have to actually remove the other men from the bar, but just convince the women they were unavailable for attraction.  My thoughts are not entirely clear here.  I'm hoping folks reading this might be able to transport me from the ditch to the rails again.Mark Fetherolf offered this helpful observation:"I have often reflected on the gravitational forces that govern the behavior of men and women in bars. Most significantly, one sees here the actual power of faith and leaps thereof. Bars are vortices wherein gravity is disturbed by perceived curvature of the universe. Ted, you are not less attractive than others, but rather, the fabric of barspacetime is convex in your presence, bending away from you, making you less accessible. This is similar to the effect I observed in Colorado, where moguls at ABasin moved every so slightly to get out of your way. I don’t know if you can diminish this force.  I suspect not, but perhaps you can increase it. If you can figure out how to pass through the singularity at the very bottom (under the turtles) you will come out the other side and the forces will be inverted, and you will be the most interesting man in the universe, except for the inevitable narcissim and paranoia, which is unattractive to some of us, but generally unnoticed by women in bars (you may have noticed this)."