I had an idea for how to generate gravity. If it is the case that accelerating a particle increases its mass. then if we advanced the technology of acceleration we could accelerate a mass within a small area to extream speeds such as to induce increased gravity can we not?
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?
Pinky: I think so, Brain, but how will we get the Spice Girls into the paella?
I thought we were concocting a plan to take over the world…
Already got the plan I’m in the implementation phase…
Oh ok, well if you’re trying to get something that has a lot of gravity, I suggest doing away with this acceleration idea and just picking up some fat chicks on the corner of Broadway and 23rd.
7 minutes. I win the bet.
Emmm… no.
How you acquire more gravity should depend on how you expect to use that gravity.
Abstract,
Build a room with a large disc under the floor. Spin that disc at close to the speed of light. That disc will become high in mass and exert more gravitation. Your room now has gravity.
It would take exorbitant amounts of energy to maintain but you could do it.
You could use the room as like part of a demonstration on the dangers of poor diet. As like a fat-person simulation room. “Walk around in that room for 10 minutes and you will know the horror of obesity.” All the school children end up plastered to the floor, their shirts drenched in sweat.
This is a really great project you’ve got going on Abstract. I support it.
What you want to do is convert energy - mass into gravity, this can be in any form and energy comes in all sorts of already traveling at or close to c forms. You don’t need to accelerate anything, just use one force to create another, since they are all the same force at different energy levels, it should be possible to increase gravity by the production of the mediators of gravity from electrons at least in a very tenuous theory. 
You should be able to take an extremely high energy field of electrons and convert them to an extremely high energy field of Higgs Bosons with a bit of energy input. That way you don’t need particle accelerators to create gravity, just energy.
If you merely want to create a room that has a higher gravity than other rooms, it is pretty simple. But the amount of extra gravity that you could add would be minimal.
A gravity field is merely a “mass field” or in RM, an “Affectance field”.
To increase any mass field merely requires more mass. The obvious and simple thing to do is to make the floor out of much heavier material such as a huge block of plutonium. Immediately above that floor, the mass field would be higher than other rooms.
If you want to be able to adjust that field, merely shift blocks of the material out from under the floor.
Now if you want to get a greater mass field than that, things get seriously dangerous. Increasing the floor mass from that point upward would most probably create a fusion reactor out of the floor… not a good solution.
If you want to adjust the mass of the floor without mechanically adding material, the additions would be very small but could be electronically controlled by using a resonant mass wave generator, which functions somewhat like a laser for mass waves. Merely aim the output at the floor and the mass of the floor material will increase to a higher average. Because the increase in mass is not anentropic, the generator would have to keep supplying energy into the floor as it dissipates into the surrounding region. By merely turning up or down the generator, the gravity field in the room will increase or decrease.
Of course if you turn it up too high, then you’re back to the fusion reactor scenario.
If you merely want other things in the room to be heavier, merely aim the generator at those objects and let them be “attracted” to the floor due to their own increased mass. But again, if you want to make much difference at all, you would probably ignite everything in the room into a fusion reactor.
To prevent the fusion reactor scenario, a stable material must be formed. That would require the assembly of neutrons which would require a very controlled increase of the affectance field to allow for stability of the particles as well as their union. If you accomplish that, you are basically generating “neutron star” material - extremely heavy.
The danger in doing that is two fold. First one must make certain that the flooring isn’t going to sink into the Earth by dispersing the weight. But far more importantly is that one must be certain that he doesn’t inadvertently trigger a black-hole particle, “red mass”. If that even accidentally occurs (and it would be very close), the game is over for the entire Solar System and everything within it for billions of years to come… “oops”.
The spinning one. I’ve done it before on carnie rides as a kid.
I need to point out a denser base down below, no matter how fancy the Science Fiction beam is, doesn’t increase the relative mass of the body to the earth- which has the larger attraction by default. We’re talking about balancing the weak and strong nuclear forces here in a way the body would act in a heavier or weaker gravity world.
A simple proof for this is- beaming stuff that decreased the effective gravity of the stuff below you won’t make you noticably lighter, because there is going to be much, much more earth beneath you than that beam every can increase or decrease the effect of. You’ll still be effected by other sources of gravity as well, such as the lunar forces.
I totally figured this shit out when I was a paratrooper in the army. Now matter how fucked up a guy was, he always found his way to thr ground. Not always the case with women… some were too light and hit a heat current and ballooned the parachute up and drifted up higher than they jumped out of, floating away despite us yelling at them to come down… women are horrible with directions and can’t even find their way down with a parachute… but guys… no matter how fucked up we were, always went down. Air is thin. We maintained out weight approximately relative to the earth. You can do Galieo’s experiments when descending in a parachute too, the stuff works… except of course for women, who just go on and on and on, ever higher, defying the laws of physics.
The spinning solution, it works though. You can make stuff float with magnets, simulating weightlessness, but it doesn’t decrease the gravitational pull, just the magnetic force over rides it.
Take this video of the lunar blastoff from the moon:
youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
Does anyone here think that if a plate was inserted under all that, beamed with whatever magical beam you cared to shoot at it, that the lunar modual wouldn’t just blast off just as it did and float away? It’s gravity is reacting to the moon. It might have a effect, but I doubt we would notice it, how infinitely miniscule it would be.
Hey james i got to think last night… lets say you had a donut shapped thingy and hat it rotating… would it face friction resistance?
Eh you are just using indispensible terms for the same thing? What is RM anyway?
This seems like a colossal waste of time and heavy items. I think Heim theory first suggested just converting energy into gravity, although the idea is somewhat speculative, it’s not new I admit that but it is far better than trying to increase gravity from high mass materials that are hard to then shift using gravity.
You have a space craft that needs gravity to keep it’s crew more healthy, you made it out of lead, how then do you overcome that mass in your propulsion system, isn’t it just an unnecessary use of materials when e=mc^2 will do?
I don’t believe this is going to work for the following reasons:
The mass increase as a result of acceleration is not “real” mass. It’s what’s known as “relativistic mass”.
Relativistic mass is requires a reference frame to be calculated.
As a fixed, outside observer, the net change in position of a rotating disc is … zero.
From the internal reference frame from within the disc, you may have acceleration, but the reference frame uses classical models… which does not increase mass.
In other words, if you go really fast (near speed of light), you don’t feel heavier (well, besides apparent g-forces). You do not have more “matter”. As you pass by someone, they will go “holy crap, the energy of a large star just flew by!”. This has a “special” type of gravity… not the classical kind I think you’re talking about. But from your frame of reference, you still have the same matter.
If you accelerate the disc, you’re just putting energy into the disc. It’s more likely a good bomb (as it stops, that energy you just dumped into it goes everywhere), but not a source of gravity.
If it is any larger than an atom it will unless you can manage a truly total vacuum of particles. Why do you ask? 
well it seems it would face less friction since it does not have a surface techniclly facing directly the direction of movement…