Having spent thirty plus years contemplating gravitational induction, it was perhaps only a matter of time before I was to come across Sakharov's "Induced Gravity", which he wrote in 1966.
I doff my cap to his realization that gravity may have a means of being induced.
Reading his paper makes me feel a little like a bull in a china shop, in that it is only with great difficulty that I can grasp the abstract, let alone the equations. This is not Sakharov's shortcoming, but mine.
Sakharov paper mentions Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations once in the footnotes, but no applicable imposition exists throughout the actual paper, whereas Absolute Vacuums are the cornerstone of my work. Sakharov sees a vacuum in the conventional sense as 'a space with nothing in it', whereas my definition of a vacuum is 'a volume with no space in it'. The difference is significant.
Sakharov never mentions high energy plasmas in his paper, the means with which I believe Absolute Vacuums may come about.
Finally, perhaps because of my less eloquent and more pedantic approach to what after all is a fantastic notion that requires extraordinary proofs, I offer a prediction of an as-yet unobserved natural phenomenon on the nature of solar neutrinos and a repeatable laboratory experiment.
Sakharov who is a respected theorist and physicist, expresses his ideas in mathematical formulae, whereas my background can be traced to the mud of visual natural history, in the case of gravitational induction I am inspired by Hans Christian Ørsted. Both approaches are an attempt to tease out secrets from the natural world; I believe mine to be a little more of a 'show me' nature.
I am glad to find there are others - and in this case a great scientist - who holds the belief that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass.