`Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced physics education.`

`But here goes anyway.`

`Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be`

particles which:

1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up to C in any direction).

2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in the direction that the "iGraviton"

was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum comes at the cost that the

"iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least reduces its velocity relative

to the mass's velocity.

particles which:

1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up to C in any direction).

2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in the direction that the "iGraviton"

was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum comes at the cost that the

"iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least reduces its velocity relative

to the mass's velocity.

`So note that:`

1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net momentum by collisions from iGravitons

because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it from all sides with equal probability,

no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same for each mass no matter how

it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also the same from the perspective of each

mass regardless of its velocity.

1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net momentum by collisions from iGravitons

because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it from all sides with equal probability,

no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same for each mass no matter how

it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also the same from the perspective of each

mass regardless of its velocity.

`2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the flux of iGravitons which`

would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. This shadowing would

be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the masses, and would be proportional

to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) iGravitons, and this probability would

be proportional to the amount of each mass. (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a gravitational field).

would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. This shadowing would

be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the masses, and would be proportional

to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) iGravitons, and this probability would

be proportional to the amount of each mass. (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a gravitational field).

`3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions means that net momentum`

would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than the usual collisions

with iGravitons from all other directions.)

would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than the usual collisions

with iGravitons from all other directions.)

`4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between absorbtive masses`

could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount or velocity distribution

of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the dimensionality of space in that region.

could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount or velocity distribution

of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the dimensionality of space in that region.

`I find this theory appealing because`

1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density

flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.)

2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region corresponding to inward-curving space

is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as "puffing up" space and a lack of them

causing space there to sag in on itself.

1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density

flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.)

2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region corresponding to inward-curving space

is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as "puffing up" space and a lack of them

causing space there to sag in on itself.

`I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and that it's been proven that`

the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like this? Is it proven silly already?

the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like this? Is it proven silly already?

Cheers, Eric