GRAVITY SCIENCE
PAGE #1
Embedded Files
A PIVOTAL MISTAKE MADE IN THE THEORY OF GRAVITY
By Philip Scott Ashburn, 5/18/2025
Earlier versions 1/7/2006
and 2/1/2018
Abstract
This paper presents my counter-arguments to the proofs that have been used to try to dis-prove the alternative theory of gravity known as the Kinetic theory of gravity. These counter-arguments are important because if they can show that the Kinetic theory of gravity is correct it means there exists a vast ocean of intense electromagnetic waves all around us everywhere that could easily be harnessed as an immense energy and propulsion source. When these counter arguments are considered together they even point the way to show us exactly how to harness those forces with real-world easy to repeat results.
The orthodox curved-space-time model of gravity has served a good purpose, but over the last hundred years it has never been able to produce even a single ounce of artificial gravitational force, so there's good reason to examine a new direction. This paper will also show how the Kinetic model of gravity predicts all the same experimental findings expected from Einstein's formulas, such as time dilation, and the bending of starlight near a large body of mass. Findings matching the predictions of a theory do not prove that theory correct, they only keep that theory in the running as being one of the possibly correct theories, while other theories might also predict the same findings. The question is only which theory explains things more accurately, more simply, and with less unanswered problems. This paper will show that the Kinetic theory of gravity is the winner in this competition. This can leave Einstein's formulas all still correct, while leaving the "curved-rubber-space" visualization all wrong. The Kinetic (EM-wave-push) model of gravity is an alternate explanation of the mechanism of cause of gravity, a full replacement concept, not something that would act in addition to the idea of curved-space-time.
An earlier version of this paper has been reviewed and responded to by several Stanford, Yale and Oxford Ph.D. physicists, including Tom Van Flandern and Hal Puthoff, with some of their key responses provided in this paper.
Hal Puthoff Ph.D. from Stanford University, specializing in gravitational physics:
Tom Van Flandern, Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University
The Kinetic Theory of the cause of Gravity
Also sometimes called the "Mechanical", "Push", "LeSage", & "EM" theory of gravity, this alternative theory of the cause of gravity says that (instead of curved-space-time) the force we perceive as gravity is caused only by a certain type of commonly unrecognized unusually long wavelength of electromagnetic waves (EM waves) that push whatever they run into, and come in from all directions throughout the universe like an all encompassing background light, coming from behind the stars, much like the Cosmic Microwave Background, although with a far greater intensity.
All EM wave types produce a kinetic energy transfer of momentum into the things they strike, called "radiation pressure". The radiation pressure of this unrecognized EM wave type would push more in the more lighted directions compared to the push from the shadowed directions, causing a net imbalance of pushing forces, pushing the two objects towards each other. That's what we perceive as gravity.
Visible light, Micowaves, X-Rays, Radio waves, and Infrared waves are all electromagnetic waves that are composed of basically the exact same thing, an electromagnetic wave, with the prime thing that makes them act differently from each other being the length of their wave (called their "wavelength").
These named wave-length groupings, though, are only the most commonly known ones. But EM waves can be any length longer than the common spectrum ones, with no actual limit on their length. The EM wave type this Kinetic gravity theory is talking about would be of a wavelength far longer than normally recognized EM wave types, sharing many of the properties of neutrinos, including a neutrino's proven property of being able to penetrate planets like X-Rays pass through an apple.
Another property of these hypothesized super-long-wavelength gravity-causing EM waves would be that they would cast their "light" evenly on all inner subatomic particles of an object or planet, spreading their pushing force internally throughout mass with a sub-atomic distribution of force, and not just push on the outside surface of things.
For example, if a massive planet blocked .001% of these rays that would otherwise pass right through it, that would leave 99.999% of the rays to pass through the planet and push the smaller object upwards from below, countered by 100% of the ambient (unblocked) rays pushing the smaller object downwards from above towards the planet, leaving a net difference (excess/imbalance) of .001% of the ambient radiation pressure to push the small object towards the planet ("down").
More massive bodies just block a larger percent of the rays that would otherwise pass through those bodies, leaving a greater imbalance of radiation pressure near those bodies, which is what appears to us as stronger gravity.
From here forward, this paper calls these hypothetical gravity-causing EM waves "G-waves".
All EM waves are a form of light, including G-waves, and so would travel at the speed of light like all other EM wavelengths.
This pushing phenomena that all EM waves produce has been well proven in laboratory settings with physical objects in a complete vacuum being blown around and literally pushed by EM waves with the exact amount of force that is predicted by Maxwell's equations (accepted electrical formulas).
The amount of pushing force of EM waves is inversely proportional to its wavelength, so G-waves would produce an immensely small amount of momentum per wave, and so need to come in an immensely great concentration in order to produce enough force to produce gravity.
It is the kinetic energy transfer of G-waves into matter that pushes that matter, just like a ball striking another ball to push it forward, and so this kinetic aspect is why this theory is referred to as "the Kinetic theory of gravity".
1st DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
ORBITAL DRAG WOULD SLOW ORBITS DOWN
The most often quoted disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity claims that if the Kinetic theory was correct, it would predict that orbits would lose momentum, and so cause orbits to slow down, decay, and fall out of their orbits, making orbits unstable. Here's the reasoning for their expectation of momentum loss and orbit instability.
The background light of G-waves would be headed in all directions, coming in at an object from all sides. When an equal number of them strike an object from opposing sides, the opposing forces cancel out and so would not propel that item in either of those directions. However, in the directions where the opposing sides don't cancel out there would remain a net difference in radiation pressure, as explained for the following directions.
The G-waves headed counter to the orbital direction would experience a Doppler effect, and be blue-shifted. Likewise, the G-waves headed in the same direction as the orbital direction (coming up from behind) would be redshifted.
Both electromagnetic theory and proven test results show that blue-shifted waves push harder, and red-shifted waves push less.
Less push forward and more push back would cause a continual loss of momentum in the orbital direction called "orbital drag". Unless there was another force continually introduced to speed those orbits back up, this counter orbital pressure would gradually slow orbits down and cause them to drop out of their orbits, which is not what we see happening, and so this Kinetic theory of gravity is proven wrong.
This conclusion of why the Kinetic theory of gravity would predict orbits to slow down is well summed up in the words of one of history's great physicists (Feynman), who states in his famous series of lecture books; quote: "Since orbits don't consistently slow down and decay this theory must be wrong" (see The Feynman Lectures on physics, Vol. 1, pg 7-9).
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
This paper's counter argument to prove why the above "disproof" is incorrect will be presented after the 2nd main objection to this theory is explained, and you'll see why both of these objections are dealt with together when we get there.
2nd DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
Gravitational Aberration would speed up Orbits
The second most widely quoted reason that the Kinetic theory of gravity is considered to be disproven is that the Kinetic theory predicts that orbits would gain momentum, and so speed up and be flung out of their orbits, not allowing orbits to be stable. The following is the reasoning for the expected gain in momentum.
ABERRATION
When regular visible light comes from a spot on the Moon and heads towards the Earth, it does not transmit instantaneously, but rather travels at light-speed, which makes that light take 1.3 seconds to reach the Earth. During that travel time the Moon continues on in its orbit around the Earth traveling at 2288 miles per hour, causing the Moon to be located nearly a mile farther along in its orbit by the time its light reaches the Earth. That means if you were to look at a spot on the Moon through a high powered telescope you'd actually be looking at a spot that is nearly a mile behind that spot's true current location.
The phenomena of light coming from a direction that is shifted back along the previous path of an item (and not in the direction of it's true current location) is called "light aberration".
If gravity was caused by a force propagating at light-speed this would cause the direction of the force of gravity to be aberrated as well, just like light. This would be called "gravitational aberration".
The Earth and Moon are both traveling in opposite directions around their mutual orbital barycenter point, which is the point they mutually orbit around like the axel of a wheel (shown exaggerated in the next diagram).
If gravity was caused by an all encompassing background light of light-speed G-waves, gravitational aberration would cause that low-pressure shadow-zone cast by the Earth (of lesser intensity G-waves in its shadow) to approach the Moon from a direction shifted back along the Earth's previous orbital path, from where the Earth was the length of time ago that it takes light to travel that distance, 1.3 seconds ago (shown exaggerated in the next diagram as "ABERRATED DIRECTION").
This altered angle of lesser force (the approach of the shadow) is an angle shifted slightly towards the direction the Moon is already traveling in its orbit, which would continually add propulsion to the Moon's orbital velocity. Without a continual force added in a counter orbital direction, this would continually speed up the Moon's orbital velocity and so fairly quickly throw the Moon out of its orbit like a sling-shot effect. This is not just my statement, it is the published opinion of Einstein and the rest of the astrophysics community.
This disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity says "We don't see any "sling-shot" effect continual speeding-up the Moon's orbital velocity and throwing it out of its orbit, so this disproves the Kinetic theory of gravity."
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO BOTH DISPROOFS #1 AND #2:
ORBITAL DRAG COUNTERACTS ABERRATION
My counter argument to the mainstream disproofs #1 and #2 is that they are both correct that one would add momentum, and the other would lose momentum of orbital velocities. However, the loss of momentum from Orbital Drag would counteract the gain in momentum from gravitational aberration, and so cause neither a slowing down nor speeding up of orbits, allowing orbits to be stable.
Notice that the possibility that gravity propagates as a force at light-speed (causing gravitational aberration) was considered proven wrong by orthodox gravitational theory because orbits don’t continually speed up, and the Kinetic theory of the cause of gravity was considered proven wrong because orbits don’t continually slow down.
However, if both phenomena were real and occurring at the same time, they could both be counteracting each other, and so cause neither a slowing down nor a speeding up of orbits, keeping both of these discarded theories in the running as possibly being correct if they were both happening together.
What the lack of speeding up and slowing down actually means is that if gravitational aberration exists Orbital Drag must also exist in order to counteract it.
In my 2006 correspondence with Hal Puthoff, Ph.D. from Stanford University, specializing in gravitational physics, he replied to my earlier version of this paper:
"Phil, Now you have given me some food for thought, the requirement of blue-shifting to correct for aberration."
Since astrophysics across the world agree that one force would speed orbits up, and that the other force would slow orbits down, by applying these two already agreed upon and accepted scientific findings, this tells us that these two opposing forces could potentially push against each other and cancel out each other's contributed momentum, and so not throw orbits out of their relatively steady states, and so NOT disprove the Kinetic theory of gravity.
3rd DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity.
THERE WOULD BE NO OFFSET ABERRATION ANGLE BETWEEN MULTIPLE MOONS AND THEIR PLANET, AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO MOMENTUM ADDED TO COUNTERACT ORBITAL DRAG
Another reason that the Kinetic theory of gravity might be considered to be disproven is that in circumstances where the central body of mass has many orbiting bodies circling on all sides of it (like our solar system or like Jupiter and its moons), the orbital barrycenter point of that orbital system would be in the exact center of the central body of mass and so cause no "sling shot" effect (explained in disproof #1) to add the momentum necessary to counter-act Orbital Drag, and so the Orbital Drag would slow those orbits down, decaying those orbits and having them eventually fall into the central body of mass.
This is a way of saying that the central planet isn't orbiting a barrycenter point that would produce an abarration angle between the planet and any of its moons.
In other words, the "was here" position of the central planet in a many moon orbital system is the same position both before and after light has traversed the distance between the planet and a moon, resulting in no aberration angle difference between the planet and a moon.
That would leave only the Orbital Drag effect slowing the moons down, without the aberration angle of the planet to speed them back up. This disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity says that this lack of the an aberration angle between a central mass and the orbiting bodies around it would quickly decay the orbits of those moons through Orbital Drag, and since we don't see the moons of multiple-moon systems dropping out of their orbits, the Kinetic theory of gravity is shown to be disproven.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THIS "DISPROOF"
It is true that there would be no aberration angle between the planet and its moons when in a many moon system, for the exact reason claimed in the above disproof. The above statements in that disproof are all correct. However, the needed aberration angle sling-shot effect for each moon would instead come from the aberration angle created between the moon and the other moons, not between the moons and the planet. The other moons' aberrated (was here) positions do create the needed aberration angle sling-shot effect for a moon, not the "was here" position of the planet.
Relative to moon #1, the moon on the opposite side (moon #3) would have the needed aberration angle to add propulsion to moon #1. The other moons would also cause an increased gravitational force on moon #1 when considered in their "was here" positions relative to their current positions. For example, relative to the position of moon #1, moon #2's "was here" position is closer than its current position, and closer equals relatively stronger gravity in the direction moon #1 is already headed in its orbit. Relative to moon #1, moon #4's "was here" position is farther away than its current position, which equals relatively weaker gravity in moon #1's counter orbital direction. That means, for many things orbiting around a central mass, there is also a "distance aberration" that also adds momentum, besides the "angle aberration". All "was here" positions add propulsion to the other moons in the orbital direction, compared to real-time current positions.
This same propulsion-adding effect that occurs with many moons around a planet also occurs with the many planets going around a sun, and with all galactic arms going around a galactic center.
4th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
The Heat Caused by a Bombardment of So Many Rays Would Cook The Earth
Another main objection to the Kinetic theory of the cause of gravity is the thermodynamic (heating) problem of how the hypothesized gravity causing EM waves could possibly be striking things in such required intensity without heating matter up to any noticeable degree, let alone not heat matter up to the sun-like temperatures that would at first glance be expected.
MY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO THE HEATING PROBLEM
“Increasing heat” is just atoms increasing their speed in different directions relative to each other, like pool balls bouncing off each other in a pool break, and so increasing their rate of bouncing off each other (vibrating more vigorously). A large scale item accelerating by gravity (with no increase of heat) is just those same atoms all increasing their speed in the exact same direction as each other in unison, like a strong wind causing all pool balls to accelerate simultaneously in unison in the same direction (not increasing the rate of bouncing off each other).
The only difference between these propulsion types is the direction the atoms are being propelled) relative to each other. On an atomic scale, atoms propelled in different directions increase their rate of bouncing off each other (vibrating in random directions) is "heat". All atoms being propelled individually in the exact same direction, in unison, is the whole object accelerating/propelled in gravity or falling without any alteration of heat.
The regular familiar EM spectrum of wavelengths are far too short to spread their impact evenly over sub atomic particles and so would and do definitely transfer their momentum unevenly at a subatomic level (like a pool ball break) sending atoms in different directions, and so do "heat" matter, just like microwaves heat your coffee.
However, the gravity-causing G-waves would be of such a long wave-length that they would have a super-small amount of energy/push per wave, and would “blow” in such smooth evenness applied equally to all sub-atomic particles that they would act more like an even steady wind striking the "sail" of each individual sub-atomic particle equally, pushing all particles in an identical direction, with identical force, causing them all to be equally propelled in exact unison (like a flock of birds propelling in unison), so that there would be no increase of bouncing off each other, and so no alteration to heat. G-wave don't heat because they transfer all their kinetic energy into unidirectional motion, unlike the lower-shorter spectrum of EM waves.
5th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
There is a Direct Measure of Zero Gravitational Aberration
Another reason that is commonly quoted as a disproof of the Kinetic theory is that there is "a direct measure of zero gravitational aberration", meaning that they have measured that bodies of mass pull straight towards the real-time current directions of the centers of other bodies of mass, and that proves that gravitational aberration is not happening, and thus the Kinetic model of gravity is therefore necessarily proven wrong.
MY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO THE DIRECT MEASURE
It is true that this "direct measurement" has been made and repeately verified, and that only a force acting straight between the real-time positions of bodies of mass would account for the observed force direction measurements and orbital paths, which is what zero gravitational aberration would look like. The end resulting force direction of straight between bodies of mass is correct (with exceptions explained later), and is not in dispute. However, that does not mean there is no gravitational aberration happening. It instead means the force of the aberrated gravity vector is then adjusted by the second force of the Orbital Drag vector, only totaling the end resulting force vector of straight between the current centers of mass of orbital objects.
For example, an airplane traveling at a certain speed & direction over the ground does not mean the propellers are necessarily pushing only in that exact same direction and are the only possible cause of that exact ground speed.
It instead means the propellers could be pushing the plane in a slightly altered direction and speed, AND then the different force vector of the wind (pushing in a different direction) adds up to total the end resulting force direction of the airplane's speed over the ground. You would have to deduct the force vector of the wind to find the force & direction caused by only the propellers alone. In this analogy, the gravitational aberrated vector of force is like the propellers, the Orbital Drag vector is like the wind, and the straight-between bodies "direct measure" of end resulting force is like the resulting groundspeed and direction of the airplane over the ground.
Together, aberrated gravity, added to by this second adjusting force of orbital drag, combine to act in a direction equaling what the instantaneous straight-between-bodies direction would be, and so NOT destabilize orbits. This allows orbits to be calculated as though a single force was acting in the instantaneous straight-between-bodies direction and have it still work out. A direction of straight between the current instantaneous position of bodies is what instantaneous gravity would look like if it existed, which is why it can appear as though gravitational effects were instantaneous even though they are not.
There's also a different direct measurement that has been confirmed by science to measure gravity acting towards the aberrated direction. Gravity wave detectors across the world have on many occasions measured gravity waves coming from cosmic events hundreds of light-years away, with the directions of those waves coming from the confirmed aberrated direction, the same aberrated direction as the light coming from those cosmic events.
Conventional science has tried to excuse away this proof of gravitational aberration by claiming that a gravity wave "doesn't count" as an alteration or fluctuation of gravitational strength, even though that's exactly what a "gravity wave" is, just like a sound wave or a light-wave fluctuating. But more on this later.
6th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY'S RATE OF STRENGTH DECREASE PER DISTANCE MATCHES THE GEOMETRY OF CURVED SPACE, NOT AN EM WAVE EFFECT.
MY COUNTER-ARGUMENT
If the G-wave theory were correct, the relative change in the intensity of a G-wave shadow per distance would have to follow the same shadow-intensity-decrease-per-distance formula that applies to any other light shadow scenario (from a diffused background light source), which is the inverse square law. The known and proven shadow formula for any light states that the view blocking area covered by any object (and thus the intensity of its shadow of a diffused light-source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance away from the shadow-caster (which is the inverse square law). Thus a playing card held at two feet away from your eyeball covers one fourth as much of your field of view as the same playing card held at one foot away.
Isn't it interesting that this exact same rate of the decrease of the strength of a shadow over distance is observed for gravity? Yes, if the distance of a space ship away from Earth's center is doubled, the gravitational pull is quartered (2x2). This is the "shadow" formula for a diffused light source. Quite the coincidence.
7th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity:
GRAVITATIONAL LENSING
Another common reason that the kinetic theory of gravity is considered to be disproven is that it is believed that only "bent-space" can account for how the light of far off stars have their trajectories bent when passing by a large body of mass like our Sun (called gravitational lensing), and that would exclude "G-waves" (an EM wave) being able to account for this light-bending phenomena.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO GRAVITATIONAL LENSSING
The path of light Can be Bent by other light, Without Curved-Space-Time
My counter argument to the "lensing" problem is as follows. There's a Russian research paper talking about photon-photon interaction and even how to detect them : http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9308293 . This was given to me by Dr. Roberfroid from the Particle Physics Department of Oxford University back in 2006. This means that it has been shown to be possible for an electromagnetic wave to push a different electromagnetic wave, although only to a very small degree in that particular experiment. The normal range of known EM waves have only an extremely small effect on each other. However, each different EM wavelength has its own unique properties, and the exotic super-long waves in the EM push theory (G-waves) have the unique property that they can push other EM waves much more than the other more recognized EM wavelengths, in fact pushing other EM waves just as effectively as pushing regular matter. This means that the same push imbalance that causes gravity on physical objects causes G-waves to push photons of light towards a large mass like the sun, just like a strong wind can blow a bullet off course.
8th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
Time Dilation
It has been found that clocks run faster in low gravity, like in our satellites, and run slower in higher gravity. The concept of curved-space-time accounts for this time dilation while an EM based theory of gravity does not account for how EM waves could alter the rate of time passage.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
Suppose that "time passing" for an area (& particle of matter) is a function of the frequency of G-waves incoming from different directions. Loosely speaking, suppose it takes a full "back and forth" movement of a certain kind of vibration of matter (pendulum) to equal one unit of alteration to the wave area, and when there are less of G-waves coming from one direction, the vibration (back and forth) speed is limited to the lesser waves rate of the fewer waves side. Ten waves from one side and twenty waves from the opposing side can only cause ten back and forth vibrations, and thus time would function at half speed relative to an area that received twenty waves from both sides.
There are two naturally occurring reasons that would cause a reduced rate of G-waves to reach something from one side compared to its other side. One of the reasons is an object traveling extremely fast. When an object travels fast (relative to light-speed), any waves approaching from behind would be redshifted. Redshifted G-waves impact at a slower rate than non-shifted waves. This is why traveling extremely fast would cause time to slow down for an object. Time-dilation (the % that time slows down) from speed occurs in exact proportion to the occurrence of the frequency decrease (redshift) of light that approaches from behind a speeding object. Not close to within a few decimal places, ... it's an exact match to the farthest calculation decimal.
That's far to exact of an unlikely match to be only fluke coincidence!
This is saying that time dilation is caused by the simple Redshift (frequency decrease) of G-waves that impact the trailing side of a speeding object, which then impacts the speeding item at a slower rate from the trailing side. Time dilation is Redshift.
This means if a thing reached the full speed of light, the passage of time would stop entirely for that thing because the light-speed waves approaching from behind could never catch up and impact the speeding object from behind, causing zero G-waves to impact from behind, causing zero time to pass for that object.
The other reason for an imbalance of incoming G-waves from opposite sides is that a large object of mass would block some percent of the G-waves that would otherwise come from its direction, and so cause relatively fewer G-waves to impact a nearby object from the direction of the large object of mass (what causes gravity). Thus exceedingly large amounts of mass can also cause time distortion (time slowing) in its area, proportional to the amount of G-wave shading on at least one side of an object. It's basically a reduced rate of incoming G-waves on one side of an object from a shading effect of mass. This is why the lesser gravity exerted on our Earth satellites causes satellite clocks to run a micro bit faster compared to ground clocks which experience a slightly higher gravitational force. All satellite clocks must have their time adjusted to compensate for this.
This is also saying that gravity and the passage of time are both caused by the same thing, the rate of incoming G-waves from the lesser waves rate side. That's why they both increase and decrease in unison with each other.
9TH DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
THE KINETIC THEORY OF GRAVITY WOULD NOT PREDICT A GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT
Another disproof of the Kinetic theory says that the Kinetic theory of gravity would predict that there is not a "gravitational constant" throughout the universe, and a universe without a gravitational constant would be chaotic, and this is not what astronomers observe.
More specifically, the gravity-causing G-waves would have no reason to cause their ambient intensity (concentration) to be perfectly equal throughout the entire universe. On an trans-universal scale, the ambient G-wave concentrations could be more like a high or low pressure system in our Earth weather, with varying concentrations in different galaxies across the universe. Areas of a higher concentration of these G-waves in some other galaxy would cause the gravitational "pull" (actually push) to be stronger per amount of mass (more waves = more push per same amount of mass), causing there to be a greater observed gravitational pull per amount of matter. If the Kinetic theory of gravity was true and happening, this would predict that its possible for there to be a varying range of extra "pull" strength per same amount of matter in different galaxies, with likely greater differences in galaxies farther away. The "pull strength" is referring to the amount of force required per amount of mass in order to keep those galaxies from flying apart as they spin.
The curved-space-time model of gravity would predict a consistent single strength ratio of gravity force per amount of matter throughout the universe, they call a "gravitational constant". The "disproof" of the Kinetic theory of gravity says that observations of the universe show that there is a gravitational constant (non-varying range of pull-strength per same amount of matter) acting throughout the universe, showing the Kinetic theory of gravity to be wrong and the curved-space-time model to be correct.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THE CLAIM OF A GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT
A varying range of "pull" strength per same amount of observed matter in different galaxies is exactly what is observed by astronomers, ranging all the way up to ten times more "pull-strength" per same amount of matter in some other galaxies. This variable gravitational strength ratio per same amount of mass aspect is exactly what is predicted by the G-wave theory, and this is exactly what is observed by astronomers in reality.
But rather than orthodox science admitting they are wrong about there being a single fixed gravitational constant, they instead choose to conclude that since they can't be wrong about there being a fixed gravitational constant, there must instead be ten times more invisible matter out there than all the other detectable matter in the universe combined in order to correct for how far wrong their gravitational predictions have been shown to be.
That means, when the observable things in a far off galaxy would need to have ten times stronger gravity per observed mass amount in order to keep that galaxy from flying apart, rather than admitting the gravity there is ten times stronger per mass amount (as it clearly looks like), they instead conclude that there must instead be ten times more hidden mass in those galaxies that astronomers are just not seeing. This invented idea of "hidden" matter is what conventional science calls "dark matter" in reference to it being invisible to all wavelengths.
The hidden mass idea sounds reasonable at first glance, but there is a huge problem with the "hidden mass" idea, which is that a technique known as "spectral analysis" confirms that the hidden mass can not be composed of any atoms in the periodic table, and the hidden mass would have to be "invisible" to all wavelengths on top of that, or else they would be able to observe that mass and it wouldn't be "hidden".
Everything science knows about atomic structure tells us that non-periodic-table matter, that would also need to be invisible to all wavelength spectrums, is an extremely unlikely (nearing-impossible) far reaching contrivance. But science is faced with two options here to explain how the observable matter in far off galaxies does not fly apart when spinning at the rate that it spins. Either the gravity is stronger there per same amount of mass (meaning they're wrong about there being a gravitational constant), or there exists this hidden non-periodic-table invisible-to-all-wavelengths (virtually impossible to exist) "magic matter".
Conventional science chose the "invisible magic matter" option, rather than deal with all that would be entailed in admitting there's some major things they don't understand about gravity.
The idea of dark matter very conveniently excuses any possible degree of how far wrong their outcome predictions are, because they can always say the there is more or less of this invisible "magic matter" there to explain ANY gravitational strength findings, no matter how far off those findings are from their predictions.
It could be detrimental to a physics career to say "The magic-matter explanation doesn't make sense to me, & I don't understand what's causing these results/findings", so it's much easier and safer to instead go along with the magic matter option and retain credibility and better test scores (the "Emperor's Clothes" effect).
Science hasn't ever seen or found any of this theory-saving invisible "Dark matter". They only hope that it exists.
Bottom line: actual raw observations of the universe show that the observable matter in many far off galaxies would need to have a varying range of up to ten times greater pull-strength per same amount of matter in order to keep those galaxies from spinning apart, exactly as predicted by the Kinetic theory of gravity. No "magic matter" needed.
10th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity.
The Kinetic theory of gravity predicts that things traveling in deep space in a non orbital direction would lose momentum and slow down.
This disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity states that when objects are traveling in deep space in a direction that is not going along with an orbit, there would be no added momentum from gravitational aberration to be able to speed those objects back up and counter-act the slowing forces of Orbital Drag, and so would slow down the movement of objects in these special circumstances. Things traveling in these special non-orbital trajectories don't experience this unexplained loss of momentum, proving the Kinetic theory of gravity wrong.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
It is true that the Kinetic theory of gravity predicts that things traveling in the above described special non-orbital trajectories would loose momentum and, without an external propulsion source, slow down. However, I claim that raw observations DO show that things traveling in these special non-orbital circumstances DO experience this unexplained loss of momentum and slow down.
In most writings on this subject, they say the opposite, that Newton's law makes things in motion continue with that motion, and so things wouldn't slow down when traveling in non-orbital deep space circumstances. But those statements are based on an assumption and prediction of what they think should happen according to their theory, not a statement of actual raw observation. Actual raw observations show that things do slow down in the above described special conditions, contrary to orthodox expectations.
The raw observation of things slowing down in the above described circumstances is a well known conundrum in physics for those that are well versed on this mysterious "slowing down" subject. As evidence of this, take a look at a quote from "VERITASIUM", a very well researched and well thought out physics show.
Veritasium show quote:
"Imagine you are an astronaut drifting in deep space. When you throw a rock as hard as you can, what's going to happen to that rock? Well, you would think it would contine with constant velocity in a straight line, that's just Newton's first law. But what actually happens is it eventually slows down and stops. So why does this happen? Where did all the rock's energy go?" Unquote.
So, first, YES! Raw observations show that the rock does slow down in deep space when going in a non-orbital direction.
The Kinetic theory of gravity says the rock slows down because the rock runs head-on into the oncoming blue-shifted G-waves, causing increased radiation pressure against the direction of movement (orbital drag), without the added momentum from gravitational aberration to speed the rock back up. That's why the rock slows down. Simple.
The fact that the G-wave theory accounts perfectly for why the rock slows down is very revealing. That's a hard thing to try to explain in any other way. The "Curved-space" mode certainly doesn't account for the rock slowing down.
The show VARITASIUM gives an interesting historical explanation of how the general scientific community has tried to wrestle with this perplexing problem of the rock slowing down. At some point you should watch the above referenced episode and compare alternate theories for why the rock slows down. To see this episode, just click the link below.
11th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity.
NO HEAT SIGNATURE
EVEN IF THE LARGER HEATING PROBLEM IS SOLVED, THE OPPOSING FORCES PREDICTED BY THE KINETIC THEORY CAN'T BE SO PERFECTLY BALANCED AS TO LEAVE NO HEAT SIGNATURE AT ALL.
More specifically, this 11th disproof of the Kinetic theory says that even if the heating problem of the Kinetic theory of gravity is accepted as solved (as explained in the counter-argument to DISPROOF #4, THE HEATING PROBLEM), such a bombardment of this huge amount of energy would still have at least some occasional micro momentary imbalance from opposing sides, and so would still be expected to produce at least some very slight degree of added vibration to atoms, adding at least a very minute amount of heat to all atoms everywhere. There's no such mysteriously added heat emerging everywhere from all atoms, proving the Kinetic theory of gravity wrong.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
ZERO-POINT ENERGY
Guess what? When any atoms anywhere are attempted to be cooled down to absolute zero degrees (-273.15 degrees Celsius), regardless of matter type, there is always a mysterious added heat that emerges heating them back up, from a source little understood by conventional orthodox science. It's called "zero point energy" because it is most easily detected when we attempt to approach "absolute zero" degrees temperature. I say "attempt" because the mysteriously emerging heat always foils that attempt.
This mysteriously emerging energy is commonly thought to be "fluxing in and out of existence in the quantum field", but it is actually only the showing of the very slight micro momentary net imbalance amount of the huge opposing forces of G-waves coming from all directions, not the power of the force itself. It is only the balance or net difference in these huge opposing counteracting forces that is fluctuating just slightly off from being perfectly balanced, not that there is some super-tiny force that is fluxing between existing and not existing.
It's more like the air pressure around you is continually pushing at 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at sea level), but doesn't seem to be having any effect on you because it's balanced on all sides of you, counteracting its own push from opposing sides.
But even air pressure has a few more air molecules (above the average) hitting you from different opposing sides at each micro moment, and so does have a very slight imbalance of air pressure fluctuating in different directions, although too small of a fluctuation to be normally noticed or measured.
If all you could detect was the micro fluctuations of the imbalance of air pressure from opposing sides, it would be a mistake to interpret the fluctuation amount as the amount of air pressure itself, or think that the air pressure was "fluxing in and out of existence". Only the net imperfections of the balance of opposing G-waves is what is a tiny amount fluctuating, not the overall volume of G-waves striking things.
The naturally emerging tiny bit of energy from the micro fluctuating imbalance of zero point energy does not happen only at near absolute zero degrees. It instead happens all the time regardless of temperature, and is only more easily noticed by us when looking at things near absolute zero degrees temperature. When looked at on a massive planetary scale, that tiny bit of emerging energy adds up, and so we would expect to see the emergence of unaccounted for excess heat when looking at larger more massive planets.
It just so happens that this is exactly what we find when we look at big planets like Jupiter, as the heat it radiates, even after all these billions of years of "cooling down", is mysteriously still far in excess of the heat it absorbs from the Sun.
12th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity
Gravitational Shielding
This 12th disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity states that with a limited number of G-waves passing through any given area of space to start with, as these G-wave (EM waves) are absorbed by matter and converted into momentum (push), this would cause a decreasing gravitational effect per amount of mass as that mass amount approached enough to block all 100% of the G-waves.
The above statement is describing the same type of effect as would happen if you increased the number of lampshades in front of a light source. As each lampshade in a row removes some more of the remaining light, each additional lampshade after that is hit with less remaining light to be able to block, and so blocks a lesser number of "photons" per lamp shade. The first lamp shade is hit with 100% of the light from the light source, then some lamp shade farther back is hit with 50% of the remaining light, then lamp shades farther back are hit with 20%, then 10%, then 0% when there's no light left to get through. Once there's enough lamp shades to block all of a light source, adding more lamp shades beyond that does not make there be any less than the same zero light coming through. This would cause a diminishing returns effect of the amount of light blocking caused per additional lampshade in a row.
Now think of photons of G-waves instead of photons of visible light, and apply this same shielding effect idea. This shielding effect would cause a diminishing returns effect for the amount of gravitational strength caused per amount of mass added "in a row".
That means, if the Kinetic theory of gravity were correct, there would not be a one to one ratio of added mass to added gravity strength, due to "gravitational shielding". That would also mean the strength of gravity from two aligned bodies of mass on a third body would be less than the totals added together of the from two bodies if not aligned.
This disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity says that observations do not show the effect of this "diminishing returns" strength of gravity per amount of added aligned mass.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THE GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING OBJECTION
All of the above objection is perfectly correct, except for the very last statement that observations don't show this "diminishing returns" effect.
The diminishing returns effect from gravitational shielding, though, is very hard to detect due to the following aspect.
The lesser the G-wave light blocking capacity (%) of the material or planet, the smaller the difference would be when comparing expected results from this shielding effect vs the absence of the shielding effect predicted by orthodox "curved-space" theory. Since enough matter to block all 100% of the G-waves would be represented by a Black Hole, this tells us that, loosely speaking, the percent of G-waves blocked by the Earth is ball-park the percent that the strength of Earth's gravity is compared to a Black Hole. Let's ball-park that loosely speaking to say that Earth's gravity is .00001% or "an astronomically small percent" of the gravitational strength of a Black Hole. That leaves 99.99999 % of the G-waves passing through the Earth without getting blocked (again, loosely speaking).
That means when looking at the Earth as the blocking shade from the gravity of the Sun, the effect on a third aligned body of mass like a satellite, would predict only a .00001% difference in gravitational strength on that satellite compared to what the curved space model would predict. That small of a difference in prediction can be hard to detect in real world observations, and so unless you know what you're looking for can look like no difference at all, or look like just a small anomaly to orthodox science. But there still is "a" difference.
With classical orthodox curved-space theory, the straight alignment of the Sun, Earth and a satellite should have a pull force equal to the separate pull forces added together when not aligned. The G-wave push theory predicts the same thing minus an extremely small amount of "pull" due to the shielding effect.
Interestingly enough, this test-scenario with the Lagos satellites has already had its required gravity measurements recorded and published by NASA, provided by Erricos Pavlis at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, although not for the purpose of testing this theory. After hundreds of passes over many years, the findings were that when the Sun was on the opposite side of the Earth than the Lagos satellites (the night side of the Earth) the average pull of gravity on the satellites was slightly less than the expected totals of the individual pulls when not aligned (day time). This is an "anomalous" finding according to orthodox theory, but it's predicted by the shielding effect of the Kinetic theory of gravity.
GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTORS
Another piece of evidence of the existence of the gravitational shielding effect can be found in the results published from the gravitational wave detector facilities across the world.
In the1990s, the U.S. started building the LIGO facilities to detect "gravity waves", defined as a the quick changes (fluctuations) in gravitational force that reach the Earth from two super massive objects circling rapidly around each other, like a pair of neutron stars. There ended up being two gravity wave detector facilities built in the United States, and six total across world.
In the fall of 2017, the gravity wave detectors detected the passage of a massive but short burst of gravitational waves, then 1.7 seconds later several orbiting telescopes detected a brief but bright pulse of gamma radiation light coming from the same direction and source, which was in the elliptical galaxy called NGC 4993, located 144 million light years from Earth. That bright flash of gamma waves, traveling at light-speed took 144 years of travel time to reach the Earth, the same as the travel time of the gravitational waves.
It's easy to breeze right past this observation, but why would two massive objects orbiting around each other 144 light years away from the Earth cause significant enough fluctuations in the force of gravity to be detected on the Earth from that distance away? According to the inverse-square-law on the rule for determining gravitational strength the only gravitational strength change (fluctuation) in the amount of force that should reach the Earth from 144 light-years away should be based on the changes in the distance those bodies are away from the Earth as they orbit each other, then applied to the inverse square law to account for the reduced strength by distance.
The percent of change (fluctuation %) should equal 144 light years of distance divided by the diameter of the orbit, which would be an astronomically small % of change, like 1/100,000,000,000ths of a percent of change in force amount. When you further reduce that astronomically small percent of change in that force by then reducing it again by applying it to the inverse square law to account for the force reduction due to distance, the resulting fluctuation of force reaching the Earth is far too small to be detected by the gravity wave detectors.
And even that astronomically small amount of force change would then be almost entirely negated (brought to zero change) due to the fact that the distance of one body drawing away from us would be negating the effect of the other body approaching us as they spin around each other. You might say their orbital barrycenter point (center of gravity of the pair, the "axel point of their wheel") is not altering in its distance away from us as they spin around each other, and so the barrycenter point should the prime determiner of distance in this calculation of force, which isn't alternating at all. This is to say, according to the standard bent-space model and these correctly calculated astronomical percentages, the alteration/fluctuation in gravitational force (the gravitational waves) felt by the Earth from these spinning bodies should be astronomically too small to be detected by this testing apparatus on Earth.
However, according to the GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING effect explained above, if gravitational shielding was happening, when one super-massive object blocks or "shields" (eclipses the sight of) another massive object, the strength of the fluctuation in the line of that eclipse would raise and lower by a very large percent of its total gravitational strength, fluctuating by 100% if they were black holes, causing an astronomically larger fluctuation in force than predicted by the curved space model, and so making these fluctuations actually detectable by the testing apparatus here on Earth. Gravitational shielding can account for what these gravitational wave detectors are detecting.
THE 144 YEAR DELAY IN THE ARRIVAL OF THE GRAVITY WAVES INDICATES THERE IS GRAVITATIONAL ABERRATION HAPPENING
The observations of the gravity wave detectors showed that the rate of the fluctuations in the gravity waves increased at a pace that would indicate this pair of neutron stars were spiraling in on each other, having their orbits decay rapidly, until the gravity waves suddenly stopped when the pair of neutron stars presumably crashed into each other and exploded resulting in the flash of gamma waves 1.7 seconds later.
The fact that it took those gravity waves 144 years to reach the Earth is good evidence that gravity propagates at light-speed, and so the delay in the propagation of that force would cause the force to be aberrated, as claimed by the Kinetic theory of gravity. Further, if there wasn't Orbital Drag happening, there would not have been a significant enough force to cause the orbits of those neutron stars to decay as quickly as this observation showed, and the existence of Orbital Drag is also strong evidence of the Kinetic theory of gravity.
DISPROOF #13.
PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE
(WHY HEAVY AND LIGHT THINGS ARE PROPELLED TO EQUAL SPEEDS BY GRAVITY)
A commonly quoted disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity is as follows. When a bowling ball and a feather are both dropped at the same time in a complete vacuum (minus the wind resistance factor) they both fall at the same speed. A heavy item which requires much more energy to move is propelled to the exact same speed as a light item which requires much less energy. If gravity was a force created by EM-waves there would be no mechanism for the EM-waves to selectively dial up and down the energy transfered to match the varying needs to propel these heavier and lighter items to equal speeds as each other.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
G-waves are absorbed in proportion to the amount of mass of the object. For example, look at this X-Ray picture and note how the denser heavier bone material catches proportionally more X-Rays than the lighter tissue areas.
That proportional dialing up and down of the amount of X-Rays absorbed depending on the denseness of matter happens automatically, by more mass catching more X-Rays, and less dense matter catching less X-Rays, transferring less energy. The same thing happens to G-waves, except that with G-waves there is an exact match to the G-wave "wind" catching ability of the matter to the amount of mass of that matter. This causes the amount of push energy exerted from G-waves to be automatically adjusted to push proportionally more on heavier things that need more push to go a set speed, and automatically less on less mass objects that need less push to go that same speed.
DISPROOF #14
EXTERNAL PROPULSION WOULD COMPRESS WHAT'S PROPELLED
GRAVITY PUSHES THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN EXTERNAL PROPULSION
Normally, when a common man-made propulsion force pushes on something to speed it up, there is a certain kind of "internal squashing" that occurs, such as when the driver of a dragster gets pushed back into the seat of the car when the car takes off and accelerates out of the starting gate.
There is a chain of pushing and squeezing events, with a bunch of things pushing into each other, with the tire pushing against the ground, pushing the axel which pushes into the car frame, which pushes the car seat into the back of the drivers body, which squashes into the middle of the driver's body, which pushes into the front of the drivers body, etc, with all these things applying pressure and squishing into each other. This internal compression pressure, commonly called the "G force", can become so great in a fighter pilot's jet acceleration that it can kill a pilot.
However, if you were in an elevator that had it's cable cut, and you descended into a free-fall, all items in the elevator would seem to you to be "floating" as they fell AND ACCELERATED. This is to say that your suitcase would feel weightless, and you would no longer feel your weight pushing down onto the floor of the elevator, all at the same time that everything in the elevator would be accelerating (continually speeding up) downwards at a rapid rate like a racecar stepping on the gas pedal, with no "squishing".
The astronaut training program uses this same phenomena to train their astronauts. They take a big cargo plane (called the "Vomit Comet") and have it go into a dive downwards accelerating (speeding up) at the same speed that something would fall, while the plane blocks the wind and so removes the wind resistance factor.
If G-waves were causing gravity, that's an external propulsion force, which should cause compression. So if G-waves were causing gravity why would things feel like they were floating while everything was actually being propelled to speed up rapidly and accelerate as fast as a race car stepping on the gas pedal? How could G-waves accomplish this lack of compression while accelerating? It's commonly claimed that there isn't a way.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
The difference is that when G-waves push something, they push directly on all individual internal sub-atomic particles throughout the inside volume of things simultaneously, while the jet fighter and dragster engines only push on one outside side surface of things, which makes all atoms of the whole thing squash into each other in the chain of all the other parts of the thing.
When the jet fighter gets pushed by its jet engines, each row of atoms in front of those jet engines squash into each successive additional row of atoms in front of them, squashing all of those layers of molecules into each other, thus causing a compression pressure.
This is a bit like a row of cars where only the farthest back car is the only propulsion source for the whole row of cars, and so the farthest back car by itself needs to push the entire row of "dead" cars in front of it, by each car pushing bumper into bumper into each other car in order for the whole line of dead cars to move.
However, when G-waves push, the push is applied directly to every sub-atomic particles individually so they all accelerate simultaneously and autonomously, and so don't push into each other. This is much like a row of cars all stepping on their own gas pedal individually, at the same time, equally, and so all moving forward in unison, retaining the gap between cars, without any of them coming near each other or bumping into each other, or pushing each other at all. Thus, no squishing, no matter how fast they all accelerate at the exact same speed.
It is when all atoms and sub-atomic particles of a thing are propelled directly, equally and simultaneously that an item can be propelled and accelerated with no apparent difference in pushing force on different parts of the item, with no compression pressure. This is what "falling" is.
DISPROOF #15
Violation Of The Conservation Of Energy Law.
The disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity says that the Kinetic theory requires that vast amounts of energy come from nowhere to push bodies of mass around, and that this energy coming from nowhere is a violation of the conservation of energy law, disproving the Kinetic theory.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that comes from behind the stars is a well proven fact that is not disputed in the slightest. The question of where it came from does not slow it down from existing. The only difference between the CMB an G-waves is the amount and intensity of those EM waves.
HOWEVER... It is the "curved space" model that actually does violate the conservation of energy law. Here's the proof. It takes an introduced force to redirect the motion of mass.
This space ships need side thrusters to change its direction of movement.
This pool ball needs a force acting in a sideways direction to make the ball move laterally.
While an object is already in motion, a series of additional pushes from the side causes what looks like a "curved" path, but a curved path is composed of nothing other than a bunch of small "side pushes" that each redirect the path a little bit more each time. The phenomena that a curved path looks like something different than a bunch of individual small course changes is just an illusion. This is exactly why there's a physics law that says a change in direction of motion requires an input of propulsion energy, just like speeding up and slowing down.
An acceleration, a changed course and a curved course all require an input of new energy in order to not violate the conservation of energy law. This physics law applies to all curved paths without exception. To say that something can accelerate or change its course without an introduced energy is a violation of the conservation of energy law.
Apply this same principle (and physics law) to the curved path of the Moon (or any orbit). The Moon is constantly changing its direction of motion as it orbits the Earth. That curved path therefore requires continually newly introduced energy because that path is constantly changing its direction of motion as the Moon's path curves. This means the conservation of energy physics law dictates that there has to be a propulsion force that is constantly being introduced to redirect (bump to the side) the movement of the Moon in order to redirect the motion of the Moon into a curved path. You can't have redirections of the movements of bodies of mass without newly introduced propulsion energy.
No matter how much you might not be aware of the cause of that introduced force, the introduced additional force must still be exerted in order to continually redirect the motions of these bodies of mass. It's no different than if you were talking about pool balls or bowling balls making these redirected motions. That's what real physics requires, period.
In the case of the orbital paths of planets and moons, the required newly introduced pushing force to cause those curved paths are the force of the radiation pressure from newly incoming G-waves that are pushing and redirecting these orbital paths into curved paths. However, the "bent space" model's claim is that there is no newly introduced energy redirecting the curved path motion of the Moon, and that these curved paths of orbits of mass just change their directions of motion in a curve without any newly introduced energy, in complete violation of the conservation of energy law. That's a problem.
That's like someone claiming that they can make a pool ball just take off as though being struck by the cue ball, but without anything striking it (and without any conveyed force or energy). That energy has to come from somewhere. The bent space model claims it doesn't need any introduced energy to cause mass to change course and shoot off into a different direction (causing a curved path), and they claim they just gets a "pass" on this conservation-of-energy physics law violation.
No Free Lunch
Professor Feynman clarifies what we know about the cause of any force as follows: “One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin.” (Feynman et al, 1964, Vol. 1, p. 12-2). It takes an introduced propulsion energy in order to accelerate or decelerate a body of mass. That's a concrete law of physics that always applies to accelerations. For a car or bowling ball to accelerate rapidly, and be propelled forward, or to change course and redirect its motion sharply or into a curved path, takes the expenditure of energy. It can't happen without it. That energy is coming from G-waves.
16th DISPROOF OF THE KINETIC THEORY OF GRAVITY
REQUIRES A PREFERRED SPOT
This "proof" against the Kinetic gravity theory I'm going to present as an exact quote from JAMES R. ISPER, physics professor at the university of Florida:
*THE REQUIREMENT OF A "PREFERRED SPOT"
"This would require that 1 specific point in the Universe is preferred, namely, the center of the Earth. Yet it is known that the other objects in the Universe at large do not revolve in uniform fashion about Earth, even seen from the perspective of Earth. Hence we need an agent that continually redirects the incoming beams so that they have picked out, out of billions and billions of other significant objects in the Universe, the center of Earth as their target, and are able to adjust continually their sighting as the Earth meanders throughout the Universe. One can always come up with an explanation. Please let it have some degree of universality in that it is not specific precisely to us! Are we to accept the hypothesis that we, and our Earth, are preferred by Nature. Such a hypothesis trivially includes the needed explanation. This is not objective science."
Unquote.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
I disagree with Professor Ispen's opinion that a "preferred spot" is needed in order to have G-waves come in towards the Earth (or towards any location anywhere) from all directions. What does he think starlight does at any location in space throughout the universe? Yes, come in from all directions regardless of where you are in the universe. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation also comes in from all directions wherever you are in the universe. He is thinking that the "push"/Kinetic theory of gravity requires G-waves to be pointed ONLY at the Earth, when the theory actually states that the G-waves would be coming and going in all directions everywhere across the universe, the same as starlight does or the cosmic microwave background. Mr. Isper's "required preferred spot" objection is obviously wrong and not well thought-out, but the more interesting and useful thing to note from this is that even a tenured physics professor who is considered a top expert in his field can be wrong about his understanding of physics, even on the simple stuff.
17TH DISPROOF of The Kinetic theory of gravity
IF EINSTEIN DIDN'T ANSWER ALL THESE DISPROOFS, THEY CAN'T ALL BE ANSWERED.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
Einstein himself said that it would be far preferred to be able to explain gravity as just another simple EM force propagating at light-speed (keeping it simple), but that there doesn't seem to be a way to do that and account for the lack of orbits speeding up and destabilizing from gravitational aberration. His words. Some of the other disproofs also seemed to not have answers. It was only because there seemed to be no way to explain gravity as a simple propitiating force (that overcame the above disproofs) that Einstein first theorized that gravity therefore must not be any kind of propagating force at all, and so instead must be "an attribute of curved space-time". Einstein said that if we HAD answers to these Kinetic disproofs he would prefer the Kinetic model of gravity by far. This was his claimed thought process.
However, there's also strong historical indication that Einstein did come up with the same answers talked about in this paper, but that these answers and the resulting new branch of electro-gravitics became classified "above top secret" due to the National Security dangers involved in the associated weaponry. That gag-order forced Einstein to not make public this new direction in physics. But that's a subject dealt with more thoroughly later in this paper.
Above is shown one of the many physicist teams who have reported success in creating artificial gravity, who have also soon after their reports mysteriously "disappeared", or mysteriously and suddenly stopped all research along these lines.
17th DISPROOF Of the Kinetic theory of gravity
The curved-space-time model of gravity accounts perfectly for all observations and has no "deal breaker" contradictions like other alternative gravity theories.
MY COUNTER ARGUMENT
The model of "curved space" Requires Instantaneous Steering Adjustment At Infinite Distance.
The central claim of the curved-space theory is that gravity must act in the direction that points directly between the current real-time (now) centers of mass of the orbital objects, not in an aberrated direction.
By definition, in order to achieve a lack of any gravitational aberration at all as objects move means that there must be no time delay between the the movement of orbital bodies and the resulting adjustment of the direction that gravity acts, in order to continue pointing directly at the current center of mass of the other moving orbital object.
If there was any time delay between the change of location of orbital objects and the corrected steering adjustment of the direction that gravity "acts", that would necessarily re-introduce gravitational aberration, which would necessarily destabilize orbits (without orbital drag and G-waves existing).
The curved-space model claims a straight between the current centers of bodies direction-of-action of gravity, which is one and the same as saying the steering adjustment of that direction of action must occur instantaneously.
This means the bent space model must claim that there is an instantaneous adjustment to the direction that gravity acts
between up to infinitely distant objects as they move. If the steering adjustments weren't instantaneous, there would be gravitational aberration.
But the six gravity wave detectors across the world all proved in unison that changes in gravitational force (gravity waves) propagate at light-speed and act in the aberrated direction, delayed by the aberrated amount of time.
So the curved-space theory is claiming that gravity propagates at both at light speed while at the same time projecting its steering adjustments instantaneously across the universe. That sounds like its traveling at two very different speeds simultaneously. But in either case, how are infinitely distant objects suppose to "know" which direction they're supposed to be "pulled" towards by gravity if there's nothing propagating between that distance to convey that force or information, as required by the "curved space" model of gravity? That's a big problem with the curved-space model of gravity. Some would say that's a "deal breaker" for the "curved space" model and it just doesn't hold water. At the very least you should say that the curved space model is not a problem free model.
The Kinetic gravity model requires only light-speed EM waves in order to account for all observations. According to the principle of Occam's Razor, the Kinetic model of gravity is more likely to be correct than the "curved space" model.
IN SUMMARY
Gravity isn't a "thing" coming from a gravitational source, it's a "lessening of the flow of radiation pressure" (a shadow) coming from the direction of a gravitational source, leaving the ambient radiation pressure that's already behind objects to push objects towards the gravitational (shadow) source.
JUST A REMINDER WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT ALL THIS ACADEMIC THEORY
The huge, immense, monumental, unbelievably amazing thing about this EM-wave-cause-of-gravity theory is that all significant flows of EM waves (of any wavelength) can potentially be harnessed as an energy and propulsion source, regardless of their particular wavelength (more on this later). And that's all G-waves are; EM waves. This naturally occurring major flow of G-waves that exists alll around us everywhere would dwarf any man made flow of common EM waves that man has ever made, even at the heart of a nuclear reactor. That means, there's that much energy that could be harnessed right in front of your nose, right now, all the time.
The particulars of these COUNTER ARGUMENTS point to showing us how to harvest this ambient flow of EM waves as a propulsion and cheap energy source available everywhere. The importance of this theory being correct or not is the importance of completely transforming this world, opening up travel to the stars, providing nearly free energy for everyone, ending the need for gas, poverty, nuclear power, world hunger, war, on and on. It is ALL important.
But to make this happen, your help could be of great help. First, your feedback given to this author could help improve this paper for an updated version. Secondly, every time you pass this paper along to someone else interested in this subject matter this opens up a whole new branch of dissemination of this information that could be the right branch of dissemination that reaches the right other people that could help this technology come to fruition and help all of us. That's why this is all not just some academic ideas that don't effect you. That's why it might be worth your time to read this paper.
PAGE 2
This web-page is getting pretty long, so I'm breaking it up into sections. If you'd like to read more on this subject click the link below to get to the next page of this paper.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse