The number of authors and opinions of related subjects and theories are many. It is important to say though - that when introduced to new authors and thier theories, in the case that you dont agree with the first article you read by them, not to ignore subsequent articles by them.

Here is a very interesting article related to a current thinking of gravity as previously described by me. It's always interesting and surprising to find people whom previously or in some cases at the same time came up with the same idea. That often is the case - a general rule of thumb is - if you can concieve of it, chances are someone else has too.

But to the article, or book rather. (Found by way of metaresearch.org) -- "Pushing Gravity"
New perspectives on Le Sage’s theory of gravitation

(paperback, 316 p.; ISBN 0-9683689-7-2 )
Publisher: Apeiron; (April 2002)

Matthew R. Edwards (ed.)

Rather than use this space I have copied it to "PushingGravityCopy.txt" or view it online at http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm

In that is the preface, statements made in that is all I want to point out (I didnt read the book by the way). I want to here quote paragraphs that specifically strikes me as important.

"In his paper, Kierein suggests that the Le Sage medium is in the form of very long wavelength radiation, as had earlier been proposed by Charles Brush. Such radiation penetrates matter easily and, in Kierein’s model, a portion of the radiation traversing bodies is converted to mass through a Compton effect mechanism. The absorption of radiation leads to gravitation, while the mass increase is linked to earth expansion."

/Immediatly thereafter

"The paper by Edwards proposes that the absorption of gravitons by bodies in a Le Sage mechanism is proportional to the bodies’ velocities as measured in the preferred reference frame defined by the gravitons (essentially the same frame as the cosmic background radiation). Graviton absorption increases the mass and rest energy of the bodies, which therefore lose velocity in the preferred frame. Overall there is conservation of energy (and thus no heating effect) since the rest energy gained by the bodies equals the kinetic energy lost."

A few things here, gravity is assumed in the form of a very long wavelength (consequently why gravity is so weak). 2nd, the absortion of that radiation. However that doesnt explain orbit or motion. All that would be is the Earth being pulled into the Sun. Actually it doesn't mean that either because you would have to absorb it at faster than c. And - absorption of radiation is proportional to the bodies’ velocities (makes sense) Radiation is everywhere you just need to travel through it to feel it's effects.

Finally, the idea that radiation is converted to mass...Overall there is a conservation of energy. I don't quite follow that, Maybe, but that is not exactly crucial to the mechanism of G. - Prove to me that the Earth is getting bigger.

And with every increase there must also be a decrease, because whatever recieves G must also give G. So in saying that G is converted to mass, you must also say at the same time mass is converted into G. Ok that may not turn out to be entirly true, it may be that only substantially massive objects give off gravity, everything feels it for all practical purposes after that..

Why would a body have to absorb G radiation from one source if it in turn simultaniously gives off G radiation itself? /Read below

Also on this idea that radiation is absorbed (logical), it is interesting to note that Light another form of radiation is in fact absorbed. So in that sense at least it's not so hard to believe that G radiation works the same. That is what is so appealing here and the model(most relevent parts of it) may set itself up to be agreeable by logical comparison.

Also, how does the lack of radiation due to the absorption of most of it of a body in front of it affect a body?
eg. Solar alinement

Another with regards to lack of radiation due to previous absortion - Say the Earth was at X coordinate T (time) ago, now the Earth passes on beyond it to say Jupiter less gravity info which in turn Jupiter's orbit (radius) should briefly extend with regards to the Sun. During that brief time, it acts on info of the mass of the Earth, not of the Sun. The Earth is closer, but that doesnt make up for the greater force of the Sun.

The question is also, of what percentage of G radiation is absorbed and what if any passes through?

In the atomic world an exchange is neccessary to create a superficial or energetic bond, without exchange you have no bond theoretically. I could propose that G is the exact same thing, an exchange between 2 bodies creating an energentic bond.

Now I recall previously I had mentioned a second underling (hidden even) cause of G, that is magnetic energy. Rather than go back and rewrite it here I'll just mention that. I suspect I'll have something more to say about that and this later.

My appologies for the order of this text, several things occured to me during this and paragraphs were switched around and reworded.

Upon further thought I believe I have more insite into the matter. I predict some time in the future Gravitons will be detected or redefined. These are the carriers of gravity. Much like Photons are the carrier of light radiation. An absorption, rather exchange, occurs. To describe it beyond that we have to go to the atomic scale. For the sake of simplicity and understanding, its not necessary. Light is both particle and wavelike, that is exactly similar to gravity.

Orbit and motion can be explained by another means - classical mechanics. Although, the greater your motion in space - velocity, the greater your radiation exposure thus the greater force of G you absorb.

Dark Matter or Dark Energy is actually undetected Gravitons or radiation. Expansion, perhaps gravitational potential being realized slowly but surely. With that said, its both mass and an attraction force. DM = gravitons DE = radiation. The mass is just the mouth for the words, it has no direct cause to expansion, the radiation does.

With all that said, it is quite possible that we have detected it, we just dont know it.

You ask, if gravity is an exchange, then what is out there exchanging with the galaxies causing expansion? Note the ether or medium of space is atoms, the gravitons use atoms to exchange. Gravitons exchange billions of time over the course of seemingly emtpy space, it's not empty it's atoms. Thats where you get the confusion of mass equals gravity! Because in a sense that is what it is. Atoms Have Mass/EM. Its Matter. A densely collection of atoms are what we call Planets and Suns! Hence More available locally EM or G exchange carriers.

Let me restate that, Dark Matter is actually atoms (matter or anti-matter). It cant get any simpilar then that. There are atoms well beyond our visual range (farthest galaxy known) I suspect, even if we could "light them all up" they would appear infinity and you almost certainly will never come to the conclusion a void of atomless space. No atoms = Nothing = non existence for all the physical world is concerned. At best you might say there is condensed matter beyond our scope causing accelerated expansion, and I would say, that is just the same as saying infinite atoms or space. Unless you prove without a shadow of a doubt radiation is distance limited. I'll buy the time limited theory if you want to argue moment of creation by "God" was "recent" although, Why not.. But I do know this much logic, G radiation probably travels up to the distance we see light. What is this limit or border then if it exists? No, I think radiation is free to travel infinite time and space. Now our detection of it, may not live up to that. The stronger it starts out is the key - Naturally the farther it goes the weaker it gets, at what point does it die out completely is the question -it's existence of or rate of decay. Light may very well be our twin brother for comparison.

Oh but now you ask, if the distance of radiation travel or the length at which it still exists depends on the strength of the initial source, If the expansion is due to just atoms otherwise known as empty space, given the fact thier EM is extremely weak, how does EMR from distant single atoms affect us here on Earth? Very good point, and you may have Just proved there is without a doubt something massive out there. On the other hand, suppose the strength of the source has nothing to do with how far it travels because gravitons and photons don't decay period.

More -

Are magnetic fields related to G or maybe a byproduct of a G exchange? Given the fact that magnetics can be linked to electrostatic behavior you must also conlcuded that G is electrostatic in nature eg. a (-) repels (-) and (-) attracts (+). So far I havent linked gravity to a charge so no, but it is a question I keep in mind.

Does anti-gravitational quanta exists? anti-gravitons - anti-matter. If so a slight imbalance such as 1 part in 10^23 might account for the expansion of the Universe says some.

I'm surprise to see how little information exists about the acutal term. Not even one page worth of results, the very mentioning of the term anti-gravitons or varients of it would put me on the first page of google.

But here is something I've never heard of before. A new force claimed to have been discovered (1987)

"THE NEW FORCE. This force, currently unnamed, is a repulsive
force exerted between two objects. This force is unique in a
couple of ways. First, it is a medium range force, with a range
of about 1000 meters. All the other forces are extremely long
ranged, or extremely short ranged. Secondly, it is dependent on
the chemical composition of the objects involved. Some believe
that the strength is governed by the hypercharge of an atom (the
number of protons plus the number of neutrons), others think that
it is based on the isospin (the number of neutrons minus the
number of protons).
One particular experiment to test this forces goes like this:
Make a ring, with one half made out of aluminum, and the other
half out of beryllimum. Hang this ring horizontally next to a
cliff on a wire long enough to have a negligible resistance to
twisting. With only gravity, the entire ring would swing slightly
towards the cliff. But in fact, the aluminum half rotates toward
the cliff."

Also of note in the article describes a conventional catagorization of known forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Weak nuclear force, Strong nuclear force, and lastly a blurb of a unified field theory possibly linking them together. In a way that is what I have been attempting to do is theoretically suppose that gravity is not separate but a part of Electromagnetic.

As you may know, the Photon is the sole carrier of EMR, thus if gravity is to be EMR then it would be symbionic with the photon. Along the lines of electromagnetics, electrostatic. In other words there would either be no graviton or the graviton itself is in part the inner mechanics of the photon.

Upon further investigaton I fail to see where on the electromagnetic spectrum gravity waves would be. I had originally thought they would be long waves similar or beyond radio waves only due to the fact that it's so weak but Im not so sure. On the other hand of the spectrum is gamma rays which has it's property arguments for gravity being similar. Atomic oscillation and radiation is very high frequency - on the individual scale at least. Whether a dense group or mass of atoms can in radiation emittence, combined can simulate a longer wavelength I'm not certain but sounds familiar to something I previously thought of "Quantum combined thereom".

Cosmic rays on the other hand do not fit into the spectrum at all, rather are described as high energy particles. "Whatever" (but if they were to be classified as EMR and on the EMS I bet they would somewhere around gamma) - Perhaps a similar explaination occurs for gravity or gravitons.

Note, the carrier of light otherwise known as photons is also described as high energy particles, but also waves hence the inclusion of them on the EMS. So don't discount the inclusion of cosmic rays on the EMS spectrum out maybe in the future.

Im really just not seeing the placement or frequency of gravitons at this moment and I suppose I will continue to seek the answer. It's especially relevent when you try to explain the absorption or exchange of gravitons on the atomic scale let alone the actual discharge (individual or combined) of presumed particles.

In electronics and radio waves, you need to tune to the exact frequency to listen. The transmitter sends it out at 101.5MHZ the reciever needs to tune into 101.5MHZ for an syncronization or "exchange" to take place. My point being, in much the same way that works, you need to tune into the right frequency to detect gravity waves. So far that hasn't happened. And ultimatly you start to wonder if gravity is in fact EMR or not.

Yes it is true, I've long since abandoned an Einstein fabric of space model as a means to explain G, between the 2 I'm left with nothing more than what I started out with. And no I have not seen any better theory, I've seen Plenty of them...

Now you see with renewed interest why the Speed of Gravity is so important. If we are to say that gravity is EMR that must put it on the EMS somewhere. Radio, micro, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma rays all travel at the speed governed by c via the Photon. You can therefore assume should G be classified as EMR it would travel at the speed of light.

However, what is the speed of cosmic rays (muon particles) ? Something ommited from the EMS. Should it turn out that independent of the EMS and EMR particle waves are actual, again what is there speed? I find several reports stating that they are indeed very high speed particles, at or Exceeding the speed of c.

{added Oct29 \\ Surpassing the speed of c is questionable, given the fact that cosmic rays are basically matter ("typically the bare nuclei of atoms"). Understand now that to classify or include cosmic rays on the EMS you need to consider them as a group eg. a wave of particles. Simple enough, individual cosmic ray particles on the other hand can't or shouldn't be described within the context of a wave eg. EMS. Exactly in the same manner, a group of gravitons should be able to be classified as a wave and within that frame of mind be able to be classified and put on the EMS. Of course unless there is another particle spectrum in which I'm not aware as to include gravity in it.
Herein lies the problem, we havent detected gravitons, therefore no wave frequency or spectrum can be associated with it (yet)

Additionally I am reading cosmic rays are classified into 3. Solar Cosmic Rays with thier particles being less than 1MeV and partially ionized, Anomalous Cosmic Rays are in the range of 10 MeV at the edge of the solar system and are singly ionized, and Galatic Cosmic Rays with typical energies of 1 GeV and up to 10^21 eV mostly likely particles accelerated in remnates of supernova and totally ionized.

So you can conclude from that cosmic rays are not EMR in origin, rather what they are is normal atomic matter ionized and accelerated by either being in the vicinity of, or a part of a cosmic explosion itself such as a supernova. Any relation to gravity is not to be found with cosmic rays.
}

Now I don't really want to argue this again (its nice to come to at least one conclusion), as I've come to agree with the fact that the speed of G was c. In light of this new info, I'm not so sure and yet again I have to question the speed of G.

I've have with some skepticism read theories of gravity propagating much faster than c. I recall I convincingly disproved them some time back, in my mind. Makes you wonder. I'll admittedly have to study more on cosmic rays.

There again may be hope as I believe I also recall my theory that c is governed by the ether of any particular space. So in other words just because something travels this fast here doesnt mean it will travel this fast there I think is my ultimate point of the speed of things. Although size does matter, the bigger you are the more likely you or something else will run into you.

Something related -

When you look at the EMS, you see that visible light comes after Microwave and Infrared, those 2 are known for the generation of substantial heat. To get Microwaves, we simply turn up the frequency of radio waves. (eg. microwave ovens) Infrared coming later can be used in lasers to cut through metal. Visible light coming after that. If photons are massless objects, how and why do they affect thier environment so? The more excited the photons, the more "heat" generated, and it is heat by way of the photon that acts on matter. But it's more than that, it's not just heat. The photon must be a physical object capable of physical disturbances by way of classical mechanics, quantumly speaking.

Oct 25, 2003

Whomever designed or explained the photon had efficiency in mind. It's kind of like a one size fits all analagy with regards to what we see. Instead of infinite unique particles all responsible for this and that, it's this one particle responsible for many things we see, the difference being it's the action (energy level flux/or frequency) that dictates the reaction (absorption or discharge of e particle) is what we see and measure. To think of an absense of a method or pattern by which to catagorically charaterize, measure and explain different phenomenon would be pretty depressing considering the hyperfine structure, scale of numbers and properties and conditions we are dealing with in matter. That's where the physicist's, mathematician's and physical chemist's come in to spot patterns and explain in the 'language of math' quantum mechanic behaviors and proofs. Be thankful that there is order and numerical logic in nature.

A puzzle begins to get easier when you piece it together, in science each correct piece makes the next process exponentially more difficult. One should be careful not to forcefully fit any one piece, the picture can only be wrong in the end.

Nov 9 2003

P vs. NP thought to have been solved. Author Craig Alan Feinstein preprint document http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0310/0310060.pdf

Conclusion P != NP

A complete description of the problem in question is here

http://www.claymath.org/Millennium_Prize_Problems/P_vs_NP/_objects/Official_Problem_Description.pdf

Quite beyond me, although these unsolved mathmatical questions are always intriguing.

I can't help but to be reminded me of the story of Fermat's Last Thereom proved by Andrew Wiles
http://www.mbay.net/~cgd/flt/fltmain.htm

"If you have ever read about number theory you probably know that (the so-called) Fermat's Last Theorem has been one of the great unsolved problems of the field for three hundred and fifty years. You may also know that a solution of the problem was claimed very recently - in 1993. And, after a few tense months of trying to overcome a difficulty that was noticed in the original proof, experts in the field now believe that the problem really is solved. "

Here is the story as covered by an author of a book and documentary about it
http://www.simonsingh.com/Fermat_Corner.html

Here is something pretty amazing "Closest Known Galaxy Just Discovered"

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/closest_galaxy_031104.html

This Canis Major dwarf galaxy is actually right On Top of the Milky Way in a vast ring

"A small galaxy has just been detected as it is being ripped apart and swallowed by the much larger Milky Way."

Nov 12 2003

I've been reading much about String Theory and a so called M-Theory, and lastly a Matrix Theory. I recall I previously dismissed string theory, largely I believe now due the poor nature of my introduction of it. It's understandable how rediculous it could sound if not described proper, as if it werent complicated enough, a non-expert description of it would not do it justice. Fortunatly I have found better sources, one of them follows.

I would not even attempt to explain my opinion on ST, the technical details and ideas of ST without first providing a link to an article that describes the history and where ST is today since it's conception some 40 years ago.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/16/11/8

Let me quote some specific paragraphs.

"Today the other three forces are described by the gauge theories of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and quantum electrodynamics (QED), which together make up the Standard Model of particle physics. These quantum field theories describe the fundamental forces between particles as being due to the exchange of field quanta: the photon for the electromagnetic force, the W and Z bosons for the weak force, and the gluon for the strong force."

"Why quantum gravity?
Elementary particles have far too many properties - such as spin, charge, colour, parity and hypercharge - to be truly elementary. Particles obviously have some kind of internal machinery at some scale. Protons and mesons reveal their "parts" at the modestly small distance of about 10-15 m, but quarks, leptons and photons hide their structure much more effectively. Indeed, no experiment has ever seen direct evidence of size or structure for any of these particles."

"The answer to the problem of dimensions in string theory is obvious: six of the 10 dimensions should be wrapped up into some very small compact space, and the corresponding quantized components of momenta become part of the internal machinery of elementary particles that determines their quantum numbers."

"Much of the development of string theory is therefore concerned with 6D spaces."

"I wish it was possible to draw a Calabi-Yau space but they are tremendously complicated. They are six-dimensional, which is three more than I can visualize, and they have very complicated topologies, including holes, tunnels and handles. Furthermore, there are thousands of them, each with a different topology. And even when their topology is fixed there are hundreds of parameters called moduli that determine the shape and size of the various dimensions. Indeed, it is the complexity of Calabi-Yau geometry that makes string theory so intimidating to an outsider."

"D-branes come in various dimensions; 2D branes, for example, can also be called membranes (figure 3). They have an energy or mass per unit surface area and are localized physical objects in their own right. In a sense they seem to be no less fundamental than the strings themselves. To an outsider, D-branes may seem to be arbitrary additions to the theory. They are not. Their existence is absolutely essential to the mathematical consistency of the theory. In addition to allowing T-duality to act on an open string in Type I string theory, they are necessary for implementing the deep dualities that link the five different kinds of string theory together."

"...but it turns out that 10D string theory is itself a Kaluza-Klein compactification of an 11D theory that became known as "M-theory"."

"M-theory appears to underlie all string theories (figure 2). The five different versions of string theory are just different ways of compactifying its 11 dimensions. But M-theory is not itself a string theory. It has membranes but no strings, and the strings only appear when the 11th dimension is compactified. Furthermore, the momentum in the compact 11th direction (the Kaluza-Klein momentum) is identified as the number of D0-branes - i.e. zero-dimensional branes, or points - in a particular type of string theory.

This connection between Kaluza-Klein momentum and D0-branes led to another breakthrough. In 1996 myself, Tom Banks and Steve Shenker (at Rutgers University), and Willy Fischler (at the University of Texas) realized that M-theory could be cast in a form no more complicated than the quantum mechanics of a system of non-relativistic particles, i.e. D0-branes. The resulting theory, which is called Matrix theory, is an exact and complete quantum theory that describes the microscopic degrees of freedom of M-theory. As such it is the first precise formulation of a quantum theory of gravity."

"Maldacena realized that in an appropriate limit the theory of D3-branes should be a complete description of string theory - not just on the branes, but in the entire geometry in which the branes are embedded. A gauge theory would therefore also be a description of quantum gravity in a particular background space-time. This space-time is called anti-de Sitter space, which, roughly speaking, is a universe inside a cavity. The walls of the cavity behave like reflecting surfaces so that nothing escapes it."

"According to the holographic principle, everything that ever falls into a black hole can be described by degrees of freedom that reside in a thin layer just above the horizon. In other words, the full 3D world inside the horizon can be described by the 2D degrees of freedom on its surface. Even more generally, it should be possible to describe the physics of any region of space in terms of holographic degrees of freedom that reside on the boundary of that region. This leads to a drastic reduction of the number of degrees of freedom in a field theory, and most theorists found it very hard to swallow until Maldacena's work came along. Maldacena's duality replaces a gravitational theory in anti-de Sitter space by a field theory that lives on its boundary in a very precise way. In other words, the 3 + 1-dimensional boundary field theory is a holographic description of the interior of 4 + 1-dimensional anti-de Sitter space." (Leonard Susskind physicsweb.org)

The article leaves little questions to be asked afterwards as it covers most general aspects of the theory, all that is left is a model and or diagrams to follow, perhaps it's better to skip the extremely complicated mathmatics of it all together. I know it is a very math driven theory and a detailed one at that, albeit somewhat biased or engineered.

These things that strike me as oddities: the math only works out in 10D. The idea of matter as strings themselves. Alternate dimensions themselves. Membranes, and the inclusion of them to make it work. Anti-de Sitter space Universe is questionable.

There are many pros to the theory itself I might add, some of it makes sense the other parts leave big questions. There is alot to be learned within and around the context of the study of ST. Gravity is one of the main concepts being investigated by the theory which is of interest to me especially. As well as having some of the most brilliant minds in the world associated with it.

As far as Matrix theory goes, I find the holographic description as being a representation of the info implanted onto a 2D plane space quite thought provoking as well as Maldacena's field theory addition. It almost sounds digital rather than natural. My mind wanders to a recent invention of a holographic device in which you can manipulate the image by physical touch. Whether that has any foundation to nature remains to be seen.

Any futher exploration into Matrix theory returns a bewildering puzzle of number theory algorithms. I will easily ignore them for the sake of my own ignorance. Although I can probably guess it has alot to do with topology and surfaces since "Matrix math" deals with rectangular arrays of numbers written within brackets. That explains also the 2D to holographic connection.

You may have realized a problem with ST and it' this, there is no theoretical physical experimentation to be made with regards to it. All experimentation regarding ST is mathmatical or in theory. We will never in my lifetime see an experiment to detect so called strings of matter, not by a long shot, maybe not ever; the planck scale is rediculously small, surely the smallest it can get you would think. I always imagine though the degree of the scale of the Universe in a macro sense can be inversely compared to the Universe in the micro scale; we are close to middle. The planck scale pushes this idea to it's limit's, on the border of suggesting the Universe is much smaller than it is bigger if we are middle.

However, nature can be described as a physical representation of a binary reality. Nature knows 1's and 0's. Math is the language of 1's and 0's. Experimentation is the witness of physical phenomenon; A simplified result or description of a unique binary organization. It is therefore beyond my mathmatical knowledge to dismiss ST all together as I do make the connection between math and nature. It would be unfortunate if nature hid it's secrets so well as to only be explained by means of math. eg. beyond human capabilities to devise physical experimentation.

In the meantime we can only speculate and try to prove it with what we know.

I always have and remain to believe that the micro components of nature are in relation to the geometry of macro components eg. Spherical or rounded like the stars -- nucleus. Planets -- electrons. Strings have no rhyme or reason to me. The only relation I have to strings is bateria.

I believe the origin of strings my be related to the Feyman diagram as well as a product of multiple dimensions, I'm not sure, but in which case I don't understand it anymore. I relate the Feyman diagram to the momentum and path traveled of spherical elementals as I understand the standard model of the atom.

A Photon's individual properties can be deduced by the combined quanta of "unknown A-Z particles" that resolve to the formation of the Photon. The quanta of X particles are dictated by the action or energy level. -TDuncan

aka cause and effect; Frequency XHz will create/emmit a Photon with quanta B of particle D and quanta V of particle B and so on to however many fundemental components required by the Photon. Whereas, Frequency YHz will create/emmit a Photon with different quanta of particles D and B.

This definition of the Photon no doubt is quite interesting, what if we could assume that within the Photon itself lies the mysterious quanta of gravitons.

Your thought is then "Everything that is light or radiation has a gravitational component?" Not true, you could have a Photon with very little or no quanta of gravitons. Let us speculate a Photon at wavelength at near Radio Waves has more gravity quanta then a Photon at or near the gamma wavelength; perhaps none, yet a wavelength below that of Radio Waves has quanta of gravity.

Except now this problem

"..just as the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field, the graviton is the quantum of the gravitational field. But the gravitational field is a symmetric tensor rather than a vector, and this means the graviton is spin-two, rather than spin-one like the photon. This difference in spin is the principal reason why early attempts to quantize gravity based on QED did not work." (Leonard Susskind physicsweb.org)

I'm not sure what a symmetric tensor is so I'll leave that for now, but to describe a gravitational field you would have to know for sure what it is; where my idea of it may differ, although, if they can prove this or it turns out to be the case then maybe the Photon is not such a likely candidate for gravity quanta afterall.

Nov 13 2003

Sound, what is it? Quantum sound that is. Sound is an electromagnetic wave thus, quantum sound = Photon.

You know I've been thinking, no it's not the Photon it's the Electron that if anything carries the gravity quanta.
Heck quanta aside, gravity is so simliar to electrostatic behavior it might just be the Electron. If it's not the Electron and it's not the Photon, we are running out of candidates.

It's not the neutrino, it's not protons, nucleus, or muons, gluons, pions, hadrons, quarks, leptons, baryons, fermions, bosons, mesons...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say right now, to me, the most likely candidate is the Electron. That is if it's not the Photon ;) Actually, the anti-electron because it would have a + charge. Let me research.

Did you know that if there is an excess charge on the Proton, the balance of charges to that of the Electron would make an unneutral atom? Of course you did ;) but did you know, the net repulsion of such atoms would cause a noticeable expansion effect to the Universe?

"Because the electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, the charge on the proton must be equal to the charge on the electron, otherwise the net repulsion of having an excess of positive or negative charge (depending on which charge was numerically greater - atoms would not be electrically neutral) would cause a noticeable expansion effect on the universe, and indeed any gravitationally aggregated matter (planets, stars, etc.). It is taken that the positron (antielectron) has the same magnitude charge as the electron but opposite in sign; the same applies for the antiproton and proton." (Wikipedia 2003)

This is clearly what expansion is, if anything, an imbalance of charge on the atomic or subatomic scale. Whether it's the Proton and Electron or not I couldn't say (there is many charged particles - anti-particles), they are top candidates though. That doesnt mean that every atom around us is unneutral, no instead it would only take a fraction of them to be. How much excess charge per unneutral atom is the question in order to calculate how many atoms per unity to create the effect. Unless there is a slight imbalance to all atoms per volume then the magnitude of imbalance would be extremely small.

While expansion can be explained by the net repulsion of matter, I dont see why gravity cannot be the net attraction of matter.

All I have to figure out is which 6 primary particles are involved in both cases. 3 for each.

Lets start out with expansion. Suppose that the Proton and Electron mediated by the _________ is expansion.

Now I know for certain that if when we are to determine our 3 gravity particles that they will not be either of those 3 named in expansion.

You can have both attractive and repulsive matter in the Universe working independent of each other.

Gravity is the net attraction of matter due to an imbalance of charge involving the ________ and ________ mediated by the __________ . aka a flow of charge between atoms

Also, it is further postulated that the release of a mediator particle creates a void in host particle thus attracting a quanta of like quanta from a neighboring atom.

The particle that absorbs the mediator, converts the mediator particle to _________ and releases, thus a continued absorption of mediator particles is realized creating the continued effect of attraction between atoms.

0>0>0 -

Example for gravity in the case of it being P and E mediated by G. Case in thought, to be explained.

Whenever an Electron loses energy or jumps quantum states from high to low it sends out a Photon. Whenever an Electron jumps back to the higher energy level it must absorb some quanta of energy. This quanta of energy can also be known as mediator particles within the Photon.

A question is does that Photon contain within it said quanta in full or part and what is the rate of decay.

A question is what is the process by which an Electron gets back it's lost quanta.

A question is what is the exact order of events of exchange between neighboring atoms.

"Photoelectric absorption,

also known as photoelectric effect, the process in which a photon (e.g. X ray photon) impinging on an atom transfers its entire energy to an inner (e.g. K or L) shell electron of the atom. The electron (named photoelectron) is ejected from the atom. The kinetic energy of the ejected photoelectron is equal to the incident X-ray photon energy minus the binding energy of the electron. The vacancy resulting from the electron ejection is filled by an electron from an outer orbit (with lower binding energy), leaving a vacancy in this outer orbit, which in turn is filled by another electron from an orbit even further away from the nucleus (Fig.1). The surplus energy liberated when an electron drops from its outer shell to a shell closer to the nucleus results in emission of characteristic radiation and/or Auger electrons. The energy of the characteristic radiation is equal to the difference in binding energies between the shells.
The binding energy of a K-electron increases with increasing atomic number. It is only a few tens of eV in the lightest elements (14 eV in hydrogen), but increases to nearly 100 keV in heavy elements (88 keV in lead). The probability of photoelectric absorption per unit mass of a material is approximately proportional to Z3/E3, where Z is the atomic number of the material and E is the energy of the incident photon. Photoelectric absorption therefore increases with increasing atomic number and decreasing photon energy." (The Encyclopaedia of Medical Imaging Volume I)

Getting close.

The theory of gravity is not going to be difficult, it's going to be a chain of events that ultimatly leads to 2 primary candidates with a 3rd mediator I can almost bet. It might turn out to be a series of "chemical" reactions that alters and exchanges particles eg. It goes in one thing, it comes out something different by which major particles each absorb a particluar released product linking it all together. Conservation or difference of energy plays a major role in deciding what is absorbed and what is released along with the change in energy state levels for similar particles at the same time to further link it all together eg. Photon absorption, changes multiple Electrons energy states not just one.