Motion Theory (*unintended plug/push my theory) - Gravity consists of:
1. Ambient Energy gradient
2. Coherent Push Field
3. Decoherent/elemental Field Stream
NewtonG avg-curve fitted (2. + 3.) gravity points for eyeball size system. MOND - impromptu curve fitting.
GR warped space + NewtonG via mathematic conveniences. Warped Space was revolutionary thought 100 years ago, which barely describe the affect/behavior of 1. Not even attempted to describe - what it is - we end up with magical spatial warping. *philosophically - I feel sad for human generations(includes a bit of me) wasted brain on SpaceTime.
DEG - Covers 2 quite well in spite using 'Attract' force. It compute #s for gravity influence almost matched reality, especially for a system involves high coherent fields. Discrepancies readily apparent in situations: photon/EM refract/bend, gravity between 2 charge-neutral (neutrino?) masses, responding force vector direction lag behind, ..
We need to understand (or come up with reality-based congruent guesses): What is energy. What energy does. Mechanism of energy motion. Structures of energy. Mechanism of object(energy structure with detectable volume surface) motion. Then derive a gravity model that make reality sense and not full of holes.
Energy is physical, few order of magnitude smaller than our ability to observe. *please avoid extra mythical dimensions.
Finding and measuring the inner workings of gravity has been a challenge in physics till this day, whether it is hypothetical warped space, gravitons or other proposals. It is mostly the effect of gravity that can be measured, and even that isn't settled science. It is a reason anti-gravity is a (speculative) field of science and engineering, and a reason why anti-gravity devices aren't around yet. It's not easy to do an autopcy on an effect that is omnipresent and always additive, and figure out how to shield or counter it. Of course, further work and attempts must be done to achieve this.
The main criteria for a scientific model is that it is internally consistent and that one can empirically verify mechanisms from observation, extrapolation and interpolation. Dipole electrogravity, and its variants, is in my view scoring high in this regard.
A neat contribution to electrogravity theory has been done by the Norwegian physician Nils Rognerud. In his paper «Free fall of Elementary Particles» (1989/1994) he summarizes: