Without inventing an "i-graviton" the idea has been put forward by a late collegue of mine Dr. Istvan Vas of Hungary, in the early 1950s. He spoke about a "push" without identifying its nature - as a force, because a general pull is 'counterproductive' an difficult to explain, as Newton's concerns showed. Dr. Vas identified the imbalance in the shadows caused by mass resulting in vectors identified as gravity.

## Advertising

At that time the commi authorities barred communication of ideas to the West, so he could not get international discussion on his quite well developed theory. Domestic discussion was not visionary enough under those political conditions then. I communicated Dr. Vas's theory on the internet several times and to diverse lists since the early 90s. I find it a reasonable (naive) solution to the "naive" problem of gravitation. I could not check his math, others found it in order. It would be hard to unearth his 50year old publication in some local Hungarian paper. Cheers John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:46 AM Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > 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. > > 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. > > 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). > > 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.) > > 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. > > 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. > > 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? > > Cheers, > Eric >