Well, two things, the easy one first:

Don't anyone tell me that the word Gravitron is mispelled. 
That is should be Graviton.  i know that.  But i like 
Gravitron better, or gravalump even better.

For the same reason, i always (mostly) use the lower case i.  
i don't think i should be capitalized.  At least, if you are 
a joseph_sixpack type.

The second item on the agenda is the fact that with all the 
blabber in the SNOT standard model about the gravitron, the 
particle (resonant waveform, superstring resonance,) choose 
one) remains always a hypothetical particle until we pin 
down the real cause of spacetime warpage.  We know mass is 
causitive, but not yet, how.  The cubic geometry discussed 
in SNOT is probably as close as a joe sixpack can get.

But, the real causitive factor may not be the "gravitron" at 
all but the field generation capacity of some other of the 
already known particles.  Worse, the field generation 
capacity of warped spacetime may be the collective 
properties of none, some, many, or all, of the already known 
particles acting alone, in unison, or in some sequence.  

Further, the theoretical cubic field generating structures 
may be created by any number of cubic geometric arrangements 
of responsible quarks.

i doubt if warped spacetime is going to get unraveled 
anytime soon from a joe sixpack.

Now, in joe's favor, there is a property of reality that 
loads the dice for joe.  It is the fact that nature, so far, 
has turned out to be basically simple, albeit chaos simple.  

Thus endeth the discussion about the status of joe's 
favorite particle, the gravalump.