Sakharov's Induced Gravity, 1966

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.

The clear delineation between Sakharov's approach to the subject of gravitational induction and my own contemplations, is that Sakharov presents the issue in pure theory, whereas my work is at the material end, offering a means by which gravitational induction can be brought about physically, through high energy plasma configurations, a means to directly observe the phenomenon.
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.

Furthermore, in my thesis of gravitational induction it is not necessary to delve any deeper than the atomic level, rather than the more complex behavior of subatomic matter. Although higher atomic elements surely play a part which I am hitherto unable to discern, most of my reasoning is based

on the fact that the Sun - and the Universe - is for the most part hydrogen; one proton, one electron. The Absolute Vacuum, or non-space part of my hypothesis suggests that the plasmas capacity to create magnetic repulsion of like particles is capable of 'sweeping' space away, creating the conditions for non-space.
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.

Ultimately, I suppose the difference of our approach to gravitational induction is that his concept may be proved or disproved by strokes on a blackboard, whereas my conjectures will stand or fall by observational evidence.

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.