This analogy could be applied to a Gravitration to demonstrate a heat control process pertaining to the emission and absorption of matter where the liquid relates to mass and the vapour relates to Gravitration. As it is presently considered that hot bodies such as stars released net energy, it is not inconceivable that all or the majority of this energy release could be in the form of Gravitration, in which case, if kinetic losses were incurred due to Gravitrational collision, these could be re-energised by such hot body emissions in a similar way to the vapour pressure model. Regarding the collision of Gravitrons, I would expect there to be no heat effect as such, but would not regard the motion of thse particles to be random either. By this I mean that because of the directional emission of Gravitration predominantly from massive bodies such as stars and planets, which controls their motion, the collision paths of emitted Gravitrons are going to follow pre-determined trajectories. I believe that it is the resultant formation and paths of these Gravitrational collisions that formulate and deliver the forms of 'energy' that we currently distinguish. Because of this, I further believe that there is no inherent mechanism that causes communication between the Gravitrons, which is another factor that caused denial of the Le Sage theory.

Also, the issue of where the initial energy comes from, in any theory of the universe or multiverse is not particularly going to be answered in my hypothesis or any other one at present as far as I am aware. It therefore seems pointless to consider this other than to acknowledge the belief that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and so to that extent it must br recycled in some process.

Another apparent discrepancy in the Fatio model is that of mass proportionality in respect of 'gravitational shielding' Gravitational shielding is not a phrase I have coined but is a good description and features as part of the explanation I give in my hovercraft analogy on page 3. It is caused by the shielding effect from background Gravitration created increasingly between two masses with a decreasing proximity. The effect has also been referred to as 'shadowing' which is also a good representation of the effect, as each mass casts a Gravitrational shadow upon the other in respect of the 'illuminating' background Gravitration. If the masses are of higher density, it is argued that they will represent a smaller surface area in respect of their gravitational effect and therefore the extent of the 'shadow' will not be great enough to account for the increased attraction caused by the increased mass. In my account of the 'Gravitrational vortex effect' and described in analogy with the hovercraft diagram, this secondary effect reduces the inter-mass impact forces such that Gravitrons with greater emitted intensity proportional to the increased mass will interact, so that a greater thrust will be produced opposite to the vortex area, thereby increasing the apparent 'attraction' of the craft. The relationship between surface area and mass I consider to be analogous to that of a thermal radiator and black body radiation where the the absorbed and emitted radiation is proportional to the mass. I believe that the issue of mass proportionality is thereby countered by this Gravitrational vortex effect.

There is also opposition to the Le Sage theory for reasons of 'drag', whereby it is stated that when a body is moving through a 'gravity flux' or 'gravispere' (to use my terminology) because of the relative velocities of the Gravitrons and body, the impact forces would be greater on the surface of the body in the direction of motion than on the opposite surface. It is considered that this drag would slow the body down in a way that is not conducive with the observable universe. In my hypothesis, by extending the concept of Gravitration as the mechanism driving all moving objects in a manner derived by the non-uniform emission of Gravitration from the surface of a body, it can be appreciated that the internal atomic and sub-atomic structure of the body has been 'pre-conditioned' by initial accelerating forces to travel in that direction and will thereby transfer the extra energy absorbed by the approaching surface and redistribute it as part of the Gravitrational propulsion through the trailing surface, thus eliminating this drag effect. It should be noted that although the concept of Gravitrational propulsion is simple and well recognised as a feature of rockets, jet planes etc because of the added rotational and complicated interactive Gravitrational forces that exist in totality of this multiversal hypothesis, an exercise to model these forces will require substantial computing capability. This sort of modelling feat is of a scale currently being applied to that of Earth's climate system, although I would like to think that a more basic model could be constructed to determine the merit or otherwise of this hypothesis.

I would like to encourage science and maths to re-examine the mechanical concept of gravity based on my ideas and others before me, as I believe it is worthy of a fresh approach especially considering the current lack of progress in any other direction.