Since compiling this website, I have become aware that others have previously postulated similar ideas regarding gravity. It is not of surprise to me as one of my beliefs is not to over indulge in the process of reading historic material. This can have its drawbacks at times in that you can needlessly replicate something that someone has previously slogged over but on the other hand, it allows the process of pure thought to be less affected by previous opinion. So having become aware of such previous gravity theories, I have briefly considered these ideas as presented originally by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 but more poularly known as 'Le Sages theory of gravity' due to apparent additions by George-Louis Le Sage in 1748 and latterly, others. I remain of the opinion that the basics of the hypothesis are still valid and that my version offers additional ideas to further validate it.

I reading the historic assessment of these theories, it is interesting to note that Fatio was in close communication with Newton from 1690 to 1693 and at some point Newton did seem to accept that Fatio's theory might present an understandable solution to the gravity effects that he himself had documented. It appears that many scientists and thinkers of the day and since, including Huygens, Descartes, Bernoulli, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lorentz and Thomson to name but a few, have all given the ideas much consideration in the past, presumably because there is much apparent and intuitive logic to them. However, it would seem that they have been ultimately rejected because of inconsistencies regarding percieved thermodynamic effects, prevarication regarding the size, density and velocity of the elementary particles (Gravitrons), and the onset of Einstein's theory of relativity.

It is probable that Daniel Bernoulli was influenced by Fatio as it would appear that he was supportive of Fatio's theories and found them to be in agreement with his work on the behaviour of fluids. This is interesting because the gravity and motion ideas initially came to me by the association of knowledge and experiments that I had acquired in the area of fluid mechanics, which I have mentioned previously in my hypothesis. In fact, nearly all the phenomena regarding gravity and motion, which I believe have not yet been explained effectively by science, can be produced within fluid mechanics. In fact, even many of the fundamental aspects of electricity are taught with analogies to hydraulics and fluid flow.

I believe that such mechanisms will prove to be at the heart of gravity and motion as I have described in my hypothesis and I further believe that there will prove to be fundamental errors in the assumptions of those that have previously studied the Le Sage type theories, particularly in the area of thermodynamics, where there is the assumption that a Gravitron (to use my terminology) will react upon collision with a mass in such a way as to demonstrate a classic elastic or inelastic scenario whereby energy is retained or lost as heat in some form. It is this unaccountability of heat that has condemned the theory for many.

Einstein predicted that E=mc² so that a reduction in mass released an according amount of energy. It therefore follows that at the fundamental level of mass, the reverse should be true, so that energy can be converted into mass. When we consider the Gravitron in collision with an atomic mass structure, such that the Gravitron is 'absorbed', it therefore follows that it should be possible for the energy associated with the velocity of the Gravitron to be converted into mass without the subsequent release of heat. In fact, if we were to hypothesise further according to the formula E=mc², we could say that m=mass of gravitron and c²=velocity of Gravitration such that E is a fundamental unit of energy pertaining to a Gravitron travelling with a velocity of c² and we could call this basic unit of energy a 'Gravit'.

Whether or not this could be feasible would require further analysis of the hypothesis, but it is only to demonstrate that at a fundamental level a reversal of this should be possible. Furthermore, when we make an analysis in the macro world regarding collisions, we assume that the two bodies do not merge in the process and certainly do not account for subsequent re-emergence other than association with the evaporation and condensing of a liquid in accordance with vapour pressure. This again is, however, a valid fluid comparison because it demonstrates that relatively hot and energetic molecules do escape out of a liquid thereby cooling it, such that they can distribute energy to the vapour, thereby increasing the pressure of the system until an equilibrium is reached, whereby the absorption and emission of molecules to and from the liquid is the same. This is known as the vapour pressure of the liquid which changes with its temperature.  .............continued on next page