I've never been quite sure - is gravity a byproduct of matter or motion?

I have no idea. I've always assumed matter, but who knows. One thing I enjoy is reading things in the media like, "Scientists have found the smallest particle," or, "Scientist have discovered the boundary of the universe." And of course then they find a smaller one and a new boundary. I think it's the same with these forces. Whatever model they have is not completely right because it's bound by the limitations of current knowledge and models.

My understanding of what you wrote is that the non-accelerating right-angle movements were indicative of the object zoning in on/finding a sweet-spot for acceleration - or the movements were themselves integral to final acceleration?

That's a fascination idea! I'm referring to the thought that the movements could be integral to final acceleration. I always thought they were part of a fine tuning of the sweet spot for harnessing forces, but your idea makes absolute sense. Perhaps the movements themselves were not a calibration as much as they were an actual amplification of sorts. That's a much more intriguing idea and it demonstrates perfectly how I was perceiving what I saw according to my own models and expectations, and how there may be something happening with those movements that we simply can't explain.