I see two aspects to your question&#x2F;comment: at-rest, and two-objects.<p>The whole point of that comment was to apply only to at-rest things (he goes on to contrast it with objects with velocity), though I think maybe you got that.<p>If you have a marble and two other objects, the other objects make two funnels, and there is a saddle (itself curved) where the two objects&#x27;s funnels are equipotent.  That&#x27;s the three-body case.  If it were possible to balance perfectly on this line of equipotence, you&#x27;d just slide to the lowest point on that line, and stay there, out of the funnels.  This, IIUC, is one of the Lagrange points...  L1, I think.  In theory it&#x27;s possibly-stable, but its stability exhibits negative feedback, so in practice it&#x27;s impossible (although with station-keeping rockets, it&#x27;s cheaper to hover there than most places).<p>As you add more funnels, you just get more of these saddle lines intersecting.  There are many infinitely-fussy places in the universe where you could in-theory-but-not-in-practice hover without falling into a funnel (if it weren&#x27;t for brownian motion and maybe some other quantum effects that disturb your infinitely-difficult equilibrium).<p>Of course, this whole analogy doesn&#x27;t account for the fact that all of the bodies are acting on each other, not just the funnels acting on the marble.