A proposal FOR the mechanism of cause of GRAVITY

PAGE #1

THIS PAGE EXPLAINS AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY FOR THE MECHANISM OF CAUSE OF GRAVITY, AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MOVING OR THE REST OF THIS WEBSITE. IT'S JUST A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THIS FACINATING SUBJECT. IT'S JUST FOR FUN. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, READ ON. IF NOT, HERE'S A LINK BACK TO THE HOME PAGE.

HOME PAGE

A PROPOSAL FOR THE MECHANISM OF CAUSE OF GRAVITY

By Philip Scott Ashburn, 2/21/2026.

Earlier versions 5/18/2025, 2/1/2018, and 1/7/2006.

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 (LeSage) theory of gravity. These counter-arguments are important because if they can show that the Kinetic theory of gravity is correct, at least in the variation of this theory presented here, 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. This isn't hope, it's already been done.

This matters because in short order there could be nearly free energy for everyone, we'd gain the ability to shoot off to the stars, carbon emissions could be completely eliminated, and resources could become so plentiful that we could all have material wealth without having to fight over limited resources. It could vastly and quickly transform our world.

The orthodox curved-space-time model of gravity does a great job of describing and predicting "what" gravity does, providing the formulas needed to calculate and predict orbital paths and such, but contrary to popular opinion it does not claim to provide the mechanism of WHY gravity acts as it does. The example of a bowling ball & marble pressing down on the bent fabric of a trampoline uses pre-existing gravity on these objects to explain the resulting cause of "gravity" towards each other, which does not explain a mechanism causing gravity, it only explains resulting path and action results. Einstein made it clear this was not claiming to be a mechanism of cause. No successful gravitational theory provides an actual mechanism of cause of gravity, EXCEPT for the form of the Kinetic theory of gravity explained in this paper.

The bent-space model of gravity has served well over the last hundred years as a predictive tool that provides the math needed to calculate the end result of what gravity does. The Kinetic model does not dispute the math, it explains WHY the math, and the mechanism of WHY the results of gravity happen. By answering the WHY of gravity, this Kinetic model can take us past bent-space-time's "WHAT happens" (the end result) into what we need to know to figure out how to manipulate, control, and harness the forces of gravity.

It's interesting to note that the bent-space model has over the last hundred years never been able to produce even a single ounce of artificial gravitational force, so there's good reason to look in 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 (if taken as a why) 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 curved-space-time. You might say we're keeping the math that was attributed to curved-space-time but replacing the physical cause.

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", & "flux" 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 by a certain type of background radiation "flux" (new type of wave/particles) 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.

The radiation pressure of these hypothesized wave-particles 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 this theory proposes causes the force we perceive as gravity.

This theory has historically considered many wave/particle types as the possible culprit that could account for the cause of gravity within the LeSage (kinetic model), with the candidate particle/waves generally failing in some manner when put to the test.

So for the purposes of this analysis, we will skip all the candidates that have failed, and consider only a very special new candidate that would not fail.

For the first part of this paper, let's explore the consequences of if the hypothesized gravity-causing wave-particles (that this paper is hypothesizing exists) have the seven properties described below. We will cover how these special wave-particles could accomplish these properties later in page 2 of this paper. For the purposes of this paper, let's call these particular hypothesized gravity causing wave-particles "G-waves".

Here's the premise properties of G-waves:

1) they propagate at the speed of light, and are a form of non-visible light, although they have unique properties that distinguish them from the other more commonly recognized electro-magnetic waves (EM waves).

2) they are absorbed perfectly into the matter they strike, converting all of their energy (and all that they are) into only the perfectly straight forward momentum (kinetic energy transfer) of the matter they strike, without any of that energy being converted into heat or anything else.

3) Most of them pass right through the Earth much like neutrinos have been proven to do (like X-rays pass through an apple), with only an extremely small fraction of them being absorbed into matter.

4) the intensity (total amount and concentration of them) in common space is astronomically huge, so that even though a very small % of them are absorbed into matter, there would still be a huge amount of these wave-particles converting their energy into a pushing force.

5) these wave-particles appear electrically neutral & don't interact with electric charges or deflect from magnetic fields, at least not in the same way known to effect EM waves.

6) they cast their "light" on all inner subatomic particles of an object or planet, spreading their pushing force internally throughout the inner volume of mass with a sub-atomic distribution of force, and not just push on the outside surface of things.

7) Even though there is only a very tiny percent of them being absorbed into matter, that small % are still absorbed into matter in proportion to the amount of mass being struck, making the energy transfer of kinetic energy (the forward momentum of the mass being struck) exactly proportional to the amount of mass being struck. This proportional absorption property is very much like the way in which the "light" of X-Rays is absorbed by body parts in direct proportion the density of the material being struck by the X-Rays. That's why an X-Ray picture shows whiter areas (more X-Ray absorption) at the locations of denser material, and darker areas (less absorption) at the locations of less dense material. The absorption rate of X-Rays tracks with the increase of density of the material they strike. In this same way the absorption rate of G-waves tracks exactly with the mass of the objects they strike.

When the propulsion energy conveyed into mass is exactly proportion to the amount of mass, and the propulsion is distributed throughout the inner volume of subatomic particles perfectly evenly (in proportion to the mass), this causes things to be propelled in the exact manner as a thing "falling" or being propelled by gravity. No one thing gets propelled any more or less than anything else around it, recreating the famous thought experiment of a man falling in an elevator, but with kinetic propulsion as a mechanism of cause instead of "bent-space".

Let's fully recognize that in order for G-waves to exhibit the above seven described properties, they'd need some special explaining to account for how known forces could be extrapolated to account for waves doing such strange things, without just re-writing physics laws for these select waves. That explaining will follow later in this paper on page 2, but for now, let's just see how things would work if G-waves could have these seven properties.

And for the purposes of evaluating the feasibility of all the further ideas presented in this paper, assume that we are talking about a scenario where the model of "curved-space-time" is not the cause of any observed phenomena, and instead all observed phenomena are caused by only the alternative theory explained in this paper. This means this paper is proposing that this alternative theory is the cause of all observed phenomena instead of curved space-time, not in addition to being caused by curved space-time. For the whole remainder of this paper, imagine the Kinetic model acting with a complete absence of "curved-space-time" and all its associated assumptions. We're starting from scratch in a universe where things are just floating in space without any gravity existing anywhere.

Now imagine these G-waves striking a planet. Traditional gravity does not exist. Things are just floating in space. 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.

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).

In order for the G-wave/kinetic model of gravity to work, G-waves would need to 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.

However, it is still the kinetic energy transfer of G-waves into matter that would be pushing that matter, just like a ball striking another ball to push it forward, and so this kinetic pushing aspect is why this theory is sometimes 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, 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 G-waves 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 G-waves coming from 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 of any kind 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: "The trouble with this theory is that it gives rise to a resistance to motion which would cause the earth to slow down in its orbit" (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

Another prime 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 of orbits.

ABERRATION

When regular visible light comes from a spot on the Moon and heads towards the Earth, it does not transmit instantaneously, but rather light travels at light-speed, which makes that light take 1.3 seconds to reach the Earth from the Moon. 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 the light from its previous location 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". This is a proven, undisputed fact.

If gravity was caused by a force propagating at light-speed this would also cause the direction of the force of gravity to approach from a direction shifted back along an object's previous path, and 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 the 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 (LeSage) theory of gravity."

MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO BOTH DISPROOFS #1 AND #2:

ORBITAL DRAG COUNTERACTS ABERRATION

My counter argument to the mainstream dis-proofs #1 and #2 is that they are both perfectly correct that one force would add momentum to orbits, and the other would cause a loss of the momentum of orbits. One would add propulsion in the orbital direction while the other would add propulsion in the counter orbital direction. They oppose each other directionally. So, the loss of orbital momentum caused by Orbital Drag could counteract the gain in momentum caused by gravitational aberration, and so potentially counteract each other and 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.

But if they were both happening together they could be counteracting each other. What the lack of orbits speeding up and lack of orbits slowing down actually means is that if gravitational aberration exists Orbital Drag must also exist in order to counteract it.

This counteracting possibility keeps both of these discarded theories in the running as possibly being correct if they were both happening together.

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

ABERRATION AND ORBITAL DRAG WOULD NOT CANCEL OUT AT ANY EXCEPT A SINGLE ORBITAL DISTANCE

If you press the above facts to a physics professor (or Chat GPT) they will admit that "Yes, in a LeSage/kinetic model of gravity, the two different forces of gravitational aberration and orbital drag would oppose each other directionally, and would cancel out at one single orbital distance, but they then say the force of orbital drag would change with orbital distance at a different rate than the force caused by aberration, making these two forces diverge from each other at different orbital distances and so unable to cancel out at any except a single orbital distance where their forces match.

In the words of HAL PUTHOFF, Ph.D. from Stanford University, specializing in gravitational physics. After some previous correspondences between us, in 2006 he wrote:

"Phil, Now you have given me some food for thought, the requirement of blue-shifting to correct for aberration. Isn't there a problem with fine tuning here though? A couple of masses close together have relatively little aberration, while if further apart have more. The blue-shifting to correct this has to be fine tuned accordingly. BTW, I have a Russian paper that was translated by FTD a few decades ago that provides various calculations concerning this model that I found useful and could provide. Cheers, Hal".

MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THIS THIRD DISPROOF.

Hal was initially thinking that the smaller the orbit the less the aberration, which would make its force go down with smaller orbits while the blue-shift force would go up with smaller faster orbits. I responded to Hal's correspondence to say that it's my understanding that the smaller the orbit the faster the orbital speed, the greater the aberration angle and the greater the orbital drag. The orbital speed, orbital drag, and aberration angle all increase with smaller orbits and decrease with larger orbits.

A quick Chat question will confirm that the aberration angle of light increases with smaller orbits. Chat also confirms that as an orbit grows smaller it needs to go faster in order to remain stable. Just look at the orbital speeds of the planets around the Sun. Mercury 172,000 mph, Earth 66,600 mph, Jupiter 29,300 mph, Pluto 10,500 mph. Closer orbits means faster orbits. And faster orbits means increased blueshift forces in the counter orbital direction. Faster travel and closer orbits also means an increased aberration angle and so increased aberration force. Smaller orbits change their directions around the orbit quicker and cross more degrees of radius in less time than larger slower orbits. That means orbital speed, orbital drag, and aberration forces all raise and lower at the same time as each other with different orbital distances. However, this alone doesn't necessarily show yet that they all raise and lower at the same rate as each other. It is correct that in order for this kinetic/shadow model of gravity to work, both forces would need to increase and decrease at the same rate as each other at different orbital distances.

We'd want to know at what rate orbital drag would change with orbital distance, and at what rate the aberration force would change over the same orbital distance change, then compare these rates to see if they track with each other.

Let's first do a simplified spit-ball calculation to see if we're even in the right ball park.

To get a rate of orbital drag change with distance, let's get an orbital drag figure concerning our Moon at both it's current distance, and at double its current distance. Then we can compare that to the rate of change of the aberration force over that same distance.

Chat says that the Moon's orbital speed around the Earth is 2,290 mph. If the Moon were at double its orbital distance, the Moon would need to be traveling at an orbital velocity of 1,620 mph in order to maintain a stable orbit around the Earth. The change in orbital drag force would closely track with the change in the speed of the orbit, so if we were to look for the rate of change of orbital speed from double the orbital distance to the current orbital distance, that would be 2,290 divided by 1,620, which would be a rate of change of speed (and thus orbital drag) of 1.413.

Chat says that the Earth's light approaches the Moon from a direction that is at an angle 0.703 arcseconds, off from the direction of the Earths true current position. That makes 0.703 arcseconds the angle of aberration of light that the Moon receives from the Earth, which would be the same angle for gravitational aberration. Chat says that if the Moon were in a stable orbit at double its current orbital distance the aberration angle of approaching Earth light would be .498 Arcseconds. If we were to look for the rate of change of aberration from double the distance to the current distance, that would be .703 arcseconds divided by .498 arcseconds, which would be a rate of change of the aberration angle of 1.411. Doubling the orbital distance caused an Orbital drag change by a factor of 1.413 while the aberration angle changed by a factor of 1.411 over that same distance. 1.413 and 1.411 are rates of change that are in the ballpark of each other. They shouldn't be expected to track in an exact match because there are certain other non-linear elements to these measurements and resulting forces that would need to be calculated in to show the exact match. Those other non-linear elements are explained in more detail on page 2, because the calculations are lengthy and complicated, but for this point in these explanations, let's just say for now that the preliminary ballpark results of the rate matching are intriguing, and this first-glance look has not yet eliminated the possibility that these two forces could potentially track with each other and counteract each other.

In other terms, aberration adds propulsion to orbits that raises in proportion to the speed of the orbit. Orbital drag pushes in the opposite direction of orbits proportional to the speed of the orbits. But the fact that they both raise and lower at the same time does not necessarily meant they both raise and lower at the same rate as each other, and it is this need to both raise and lower at the same rate as each other that would be required for these forces to cancel out at different orbital distances, and so be able to maintain stable orbits.

This rate calculation is not as easy to calculate as it might first appear because there are many potential hidden variables that could cause these two forces to track with each other or make it harder to track with each other.

CHAT GPT explains some of these hidden variables as follows, quote:

There are several kids of mechanisms that could accomplish the automatic balancing and fine tuning.

A built-in symmetry of the background flux itself. If the background flux has an internal symmetry that guarantees: any motion induced imbalance automatically produces an equal and opposite correction, then cancellation would not be accidental. For example, imagine the background isn't random impacts, but something more like a standing wave pattern filling space. If that pattern is structured so that any sideways shift caused by motion automatically changes how blocking works in the opposite way, then the two effects could track each other. In that case, drag and aberration would not be independent. And they would be two faces of the same process. That removes arbitrary tuning because symmetry enforces balance.
Two coupled background components. Instead of one flux, suppose there are two: One that produces shadow-based attraction. One that produces motion based correction. If those two components are linked by a deeper rule-meaning they cannot vary independently, then cancellation could be built in. In that case, changing one automatically changes the other in the same proportion. That makes stability structural rather than accidental.
Interaction depends on relative motion in a self-correcting way. Suppose the way matter interacts with the flux changes slightly depending on its speed. For example, as an orbit starts to gain energy, the interation strength automatically shifts just enough to increase drag. In other words, the system would "push back" against deviations from stability. That makes balance dynamic rather than fragile.
A conserved quantity in the background medium. If the flux behaves like a medium with its own conservation rules, for example, conserving total momentum in a distributed way across space, then local imbalances might redistribute automatically. That would mean when aberration tries to add energy, the medium resonds n a way that redistributes momentum to cancel the effect. This turns the background from random particles into something more like a structured field.

UNQUOTE FROM CHAT GPT:

So there are definitely models that don't work, but there are several possible models that do work to account for the aberration forces being able to cancel the drag forces to achieve stable orbits. So we can say that objections #1, #2, and #3, by themselves, do not necessarily disprove the possibility of the G-wave "kinetic" model of the cause of gravity being correct. So let's look further.

4th DISPROOF of the Kinetic theory of gravity.

IN A MANY MOON ORBITAL SYSTEM THERE WOULD BE NO OFFSET ABERRATION ANGLE BETWEEN THE MULTIPLE MOONS AND THEIR CENTRAL PLANET, AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO MOMENTUM ADDED TO THE MOONS ORBITS 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. Light, even aberrated light, would always be approaching the orbiting bodies from a direction coming straight from the central body of mass, not from a different aberrated direction.

The light from the central body would strike the moons from a direction coming straight from the central body, with there being no aberration angle of that light from the central body, no sliing-shot effect, and thus a light-speed gravitational force would do the same thing, creating no aberrated force angle from the central body to add momentum to the orbiting bodies. In other words, the central body has to be off-set from the orbital barrycenter point in order to create an aberration angle sling-shot effect from the central body.

That would leave only the Orbital Drag effect slowing the moons down, without the aberration angle of the central body 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.

(Note: this is my own disproof of the Kinetic theory of gravity that had me stumped for a while. I haven't ever actually seen this argument made by anyone else)

MY COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THIS "DISPROOF"

It is correct that there would be no aberration angle between the central body and any of its orbiting moons when in a many moon system, for the exact reason claimed in the above disproof. The above statements and conclusions in that disproof are all perfectly correct. However, the needed aberration angle sling-shot effect for each moon would come from the aberration angle created between each moon and the other moons, not between the moons and the central planet. The other moons' aberrated (was here) positions do orbit a barrycenter point and so do create the needed aberration angle sling-shot effect for a moon, not the "was here" position of the central planet, which adds no aberration angle sling-shot effect.

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.

Keep in mind that the actual propulsion force is coming from the kinetic energy transfer of the incoming G-waves which can only push things forward. The bodies of mass (moons) are only shadowing that energy, a bit like one race can catch the draft of another race car in front of it, because the car in front blocks some of the wind for the car behind it. The main difference is that with the time delay of the speed of light, each moon "sees" its fellow other moons (and so is "pulled" by the other moons) as though those other moons in front were in an increased favorable position for "pulling" compared to their real time positions. Likewise the moons behind look (and so act) like they're in a less favorable position for pulling than they actually occupy.

Considering many moons spread out equidistant from each other for the purposes of a simple demonstration, if only the real-time positions were causing effects, the gain from the moons in front would be equally counteracted by the pull from the moons behind, causing no net propulsion. The net propulsion forward happens only because each moon sees and acts towards only the previous "was here" positions of the other moons.

This same propulsion-adding effect that occurs with many moons around a central planet also occurs with the many planets orbiting a sun, and with all galactic arms going around their galactic center.

5th 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 and subatomic particles are being propelled) relative to each other. On an atomic scale, atoms and subatomic particles propelled in different directions increase their rate of bouncing off each other (vibrating in random directions) is "heat". All atoms and subatomic particles 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 strong and broad 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 vibrating and shooting off in different directions, and so do scatter and "heat" matter, just like microwaves heat your coffee.

However, this "Kinetic gravity" (G-wave) theory is proposing that the hypothesized gravity-causing G-waves would place each wave/particle "push" force distribution area and energy amount on a far smaller scale than all other known waves and particles, enough to drop below a "quantum minimum" amount of energy that's required to cause vibration and deflection of atomic particles, but still conveying it's kinetic energy towards the effect of pushing. When combined with a sufficient number of these micro pushes that are spread out perfectly evenly and internally throughout atomic particles, G-waves could blow like an even stead wind, which looks and acts indistinguishable from a field effect when looked at on a large enough scale (above sub-atomic). All the known wave/particles just don't drop below this quantum minimum energy level, and so it's assumed by conventional thinking that it's just some automatic property all wave/particles that upon impact they must cause heat, internal scattering & release of energy/noise.

In a more lay-person's way of looking at it, you might say that the push of each G-wave on a subatomic particle would be more like an air molecule blowing on a beach ball which, with enough other air molecules blowing with the same strength and direction, would blow the ball straight forward, compared to all other known larger wave/particles which would be more like a bowling ball striking the beach ball, which would of course knock the beach-ball flying off at various angles, vibrating.

The property difference we're talking about here is the required scale that could drop the energy of G-waves below the quantum minimum required to cause heating, "noise" and propulsion at various angles. And scale and even distribution are not changing physics rules for G-waves, only extrapolating the effects of this smaller scale on a "quantum minimum".

Dropping the scale of force and force distribution area of the push of G-waves sufficiently, with enough quantity of them, could allow G-waves to “blow” in such smooth evenness applied equally throughout the inner volume of ll 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 sub-atomic 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 vibration or bouncing off each other, and so no alteration to heat. This principle is saying nothing other than that the reason a flock of birds don't all bounce off each other is simply because they are individually propelled in the same direction.

That stops the "bouncing off each other" which is equivalent to "heat" on a molecular level. If you say that a propulsion force can't be applied to a group of atomic particles & atoms without heating them, you are saying that a force can't be applied to a flock of birds without them crashing into each other, which is no different in principle other than at the scale of size you are talking about.

In physics terms, this theory proposes that, on a small enough scale, this could cause "perfect absorption" with no internal excitation; which means no bouncing around, no loss of kinetic energy from the collision other that straight into "perfectly coherent with center-of-mass acceleration only; and "non-diffusive" meaning no random impulse noise.

The mechanism for causing this "center of mass" acceleration is simply that if G-waves intercept mass in exact proportion to the amount of mass, that would cause what looks like "center of mass acceleration. This proportional interception works the same way that X-Rays intercept heaver denser body parts in proportion to the density of the body part, and make an X-Ray picture of a bone look proportionally whiter where the less dense flesh looks proportionally darker in the picture.

Also in physics terms, this would cause a momentum transfer that would act like a classical pressure field producing only bulk acceleration in a single direction. G-waves don't heat because they transfer all their kinetic energy into unidirectional motion, simply by acting on a small enough scale with an even enough distribution of force, unlike all other known far larger wave/particles.

6th 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.

7th 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.

8th 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 so do G-waves, one of which is 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.

9th 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.

10TH 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 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.

11th 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 deep space 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 deep space trajectories would loose momentum and, without an external propulsion source, slow down. I say the above disproof is perfectly correct. However, I claim that raw observations DO show that things traveling in these special deep space 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 an exact quote from the show "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. (see link below for extensive references)

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.

VERITASIUM: THE PROBLEM EINSTEIN COULDN'T FIX

12th 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.

13th 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 remove some of passing G-waves from the flow, and so 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, and the lesser the % of G-waves that are absobed into matter, 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. For example, if only .000000% of passing G-waves were to be absorbed by the Earth, that would cause the shielding effect of the Earth to be very hard to differentiate from an absence of any shielding effect. 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 .000001% 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 .000001% 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. This paper is proposing that the lack of shielding effect that is believed to be observed by conventional science is actually only the expected outcome from the shielding effect being too small to measure the way they are measuring it. But there still is "a" difference from the shielding effect that can be measured in the right way.

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 million years of travel time to reach the Earth, the same as the travel time of the gravitational waves.

THE STRETCHED SPACE PROBLEM

The orthodox scientific interpretation of the effect on their measuring device is that the effect measured was a "gravitational wave", what they are interpreting as a "ripple in spacetime itself", not a change in matter, a change in spacetime curvature itself, which means "the stretching and squeezing of space".

However, there is a big problem with this orthodox curved-space model. If "space-time" itself was stretching and contracting, this would cause any measuring stick within the stretched space zone to also expand and contract equally, which would make that internal measuring stick not able to measure a stretching of the space around it. That would make the orthodox interpretation not work, in my opinion. I say that the bending or stretching of space could not be measured by a measuring stick within the stretched space, because they would both expand and contract together, according to the "curved space" definition. The LIGO "measuring stick" apparatus is within the area claimed to be the "stretched-space", and so should not be able to measure a contraction or expansion of the space-time of that stretched-space.

However, according to the G-wave version of the LeSage/Kinetic theory of gravity, the effects on the LIGO apparatus could be accounted for by the effects of the changes in "radiation pressure" (or pushing force) of G-waves coming from the distant orbiting neutron stars, traveling at light speed towards the Earth, fluctuating in intensity.

As the neutron stars orbited each other, they would vary between being closer and then farther away from the Earth by the diameter of their orbit, varying between causing more and then less gravity effect on the Earth.

An approaching zone of higher or lower push from G-waves, traveling from these neutron stars at the speed of light, after reaching Earth would pass over the nearer part of the LIGO testing apparatus first, and push more or less on that near part before reaching the farther part of the apparatus, causing the squeezing and expanding that was observed, in a very much more traditional understanding of pushing on something more and then less to expand and contract the measuring stick. In this way, "stretched space" does not explain the measureing stick findings where the G-wave explanation does explain these measuring stick findings.

AMPLITUDE INCREASES WHEN IT SHOULD BE GOING DOWN

There's another huge problem with the LIGO findings not matching what should be expected from the curved-space model. The inverse square law that determines the rate at which the strength of gravity decreases with distance requires that the amount of fluctuation of the strength of gravity reaching the Earth from these neutron stars should alter in relation to the distance these neutron stars are away from the Earth. That means when one star is closer to the Earth, as it orbits the other star, it should have a stronger pull on the Earth than when its on the far side of it's orbit farther away from the Earth. Closer should cause stronger gravity action on the Earth, and farther away should cause weaker gravity action on the Earth.

The difference in the amount of pull on the Earth when one of the stars is in its closer orbital position compared to its farther away orbital position should be greater difference with larger orbits in which its distance away from the Earth varies to a larger degree due to its larger diameter of orbit.

A smaller orbit has its distance away from the Earth vary less (because the diameter of their orbit is less), and so its gravitational strength on the Earth should vary less as it goes from its nearer orbital position to its farther orbital position.

This means that the amplitude of the amount of change in gravity action on the Earth should increase with those neutron stars' larger orbits and decrease as their orbits grew smaller, because the distance changes would grow smaller. The frequency of the changes would grow higher with smaller orbits, because it would take less time to complete each orbit in smaller orbits, but the amount of force change (the "amplitude" of the force change) should decrease with the decreasing diameters of smaller orbits, That's at least according to the inverse square law of determining the strength of gravity at different distances.

However, the LIGO measurements showed the exact opposite results, that the amplitude of the changes in gravitational force increased (grew larger) as the orbits decreased in size (and distance). That's saying that there was a larger change in force resulting from a smaller diameter orbit. I interpret these experimental findings to be not compatible with what should be expected from the curved-space inverse-square-law model.

However, there is a clear simple explanation for these LIGO findings, and that's GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING. If the Moon were to orbit the Earth at half its orbital distance, the Moon would look huge to us and block much more of the night sky. If the Moon were orbiting at twice its distance away, the Moon would look tiny to us. Increasing the nearness would increase the amount the Moon can eclipse the Earth or Sun. In this same way, if these two neutron stars were orbiting each other within a plane that caused them to eclipse each other as seen from the Earth, the amount of eclipsing would increase as their orbits decayed and they drew nearer to each other. If you apply this principle to the GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING effect explained earlier, this would predict the amount of gravitational shielding occurring (the eclipsing) to increase with the nearness of the two stars, causing a far more widely varying amplitude of the effect of gravity as each neutron star grew closer to the other star, alternating between eclipsing and not eclipsing the other star as they spun around each other. The gravitational shielding effect would increase with smaller orbits and decrease with larger orbits, just like the amplitude findings of the LIGO apparatus.

THE AMOUNT OF AMPLITUDE PROBLEM

Keep in mind, it is not the strength of the gravity action (push or pull) that would be measurable by this LIGO apparatus, but rather only the difference in the amount of push from the highest amount caused to the lowest amount caused. The overlapping amount of push (pull or "action") would be undetectable, because it would be a steady continuous unchanging force remaining constant on the entire Earth and so entire LIGO measuring device.

To get the amount of the change in force, we would subtract the lesser force from the greater force. This would be the amplitude of change, the same calculation as though you were subtracting nine pounds of continuous force from ten pounds of continuous force to get a net difference of one pound of force worth of change.

First, if we look at just one of those two neutron stars at a time, circling around in it's same mutual orbit, the force fluctuation on a measuring device on the Earth would be the force it exerts on that device at the star's near side of it's orbit minus the force it exerts on the device at the far side of it's orbit. That force number is a fraction after 28 decimal places, questionably too small of a force difference for the LIGO apparatus to detect. But as one star nears the Earth, the other star moves away equally in their mutual orbit, causing their net mutual gravitational change amplitude on the Earth to be greatly dampened, almost negated, making the amplitude far to small to be detected by the LIGO apparatus.

However, what would be easily detected by the LIGO apparatus is the amplitude change that would be caused by GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING. Instead of the amplitude change amount being based on only the change in distance away from the earth, which is astronomically small, it could alternate between nearly doubling in strength and halving in strength, when the neutron stars alternate between being eclipsed by each other and not being eclipsed by each other, and so raise the amplitude change from a fraction after 40 to 60 decimal places up to a as much as nearly an on and off light switch.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

More specifically, as the two neutron stars orbit each other, if their plane of orbit was in line with the Earth in such a way that they eclipsed each other as they spun when seen from the Earth, the amount of change of gravitational shielding that occurs from each eclipse would grow greater as their orbits decayed and they grew closer to being nearly right on top of each other. Not only does gravitational shielding explain why the amplitude goes up as the orbits get smaller, gravitational shielding would also predict an amount of change in force reaching the Earth that would be vastly greater than would be accounted for by distance change, and so would be far more detectable here on Earth.

GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING EXPLAINS ALL THIS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE 144 MILLION YEAR DELAY IN THE ARRIVAL OF THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES INDICATES THERE IS GRAVITATIONAL ABERRATION HAPPENING (delay in the propagation of that force, equal to the time it would take light to travel that distance)

There is a word game being played here by conventional science. If a person told you that a car was traveling at hundred miles an hour from Oregon to Florida, and at the same time that same car also teleported instantaneously from the same starting point to the same destination in Florida, you would notice a contradiction in that claim; that the car can't have done both at the same time, going two different speeds simultaneously. You would say you need to choose one claim or the other as your claim.

In physics, the orthodox stance is that gravity has effects that happen instantaneously across the universe (no time lag of redirection of force as objects move), instantly adjusting its direction of action to always point directly to any other object of mass's current position, regardless of the distant object's direction changes. That's the premise and required claim of "curved space-time". At the same time, orthodox physics has to explain why there was a 144 million year time delay in the effects that reached the LIGO facility measuring apparatus. Their attempted explanation is that gravity does both, but it's an acceptable claim if we call gravity by a different name when claiming that it acts instantaneously across the universe, and by another name when we can see that it propagates at the speed of light. Their answer is to declare that these are two different phenomena, caused by two different things.

My counter claim is that gravity isn't two different things traveling at two infinitely different speeds simultaneously, but rather gravity is only one thing, G-waves, that only travel at the speed of light, and only apply force at an angle that mimics the same action angle predicted by the "instantaneous" curved-space model (straight between bodies), via the mechanism explained in this paper. I say there's more than one explanation for the action direction of gravity to usually be pointed directly between bodies, not just instantaneous action.

Not only that, but if a phenomena can be explained using only light-speed forces, the principle of Occam's razor says that we should not prefer a different model that requires instantaneous action at infinite distance without any mechanism to convey that force (which fits the definition of magic).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DISPROOF #14.

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 some type of waves there would be no mechanism for the waves to selectively dial up and down the energy transferred 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, nothing special here, 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 of 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 #15

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 #16

Violation Of The Conservation Of Energy Law.

This 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 and G-waves is the amount and intensity of those EM waves.

HOWEVER... The "curved space" model must invoke "action at a distance" "curved space" special physics rules in order to explain how orbital objects curve in their curved orbital paths, where as the Kinetic model of gravity can explain the curved paths of orbits via the simple mechanism of the kinetic energy transfer of light-speed G-waves.

Here's how the simple action of G-waves can explain orbital paths, without the existence of curved-space or the use of any of the associated special physics rules it grants itself. The following explanation is explaining what would happen without "curved space" and with just simple kinetic action.

It would take an introduced force to redirect the motion of mass.

This space ship would need side thrusters to change its direction of movement.

This pool ball would need 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 would be needed to cause what looks like a "curved" path. So a curved path would be caused by 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 might look like something different than a bunch of individual small course changes would be just an illusion. There would be a physics law that says a change in direction of motion requires an input of propulsion energy, and it would apply to curved paths just as much as speeding up and slowing down. It would make the rule that applies to a pool ball changing direction apply equally to a moon that changes direction. But the Kinetic model would do something that the curved-space mode can not do, and that's explain all these different orbital and pool ball action types with just the simple energy transfer of kinetic energy, without needing to rely on special rules granting instantaneous action at infinite distance with "curved space-time".

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.

17th 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. Professor Isper is responding to the claim that the Kinetic theory of gravity is saying that the gravity causing "pushing" EM waves (G-waves) would be coming in from all directions throughout the universe, like a background light: Quote:

*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 assessment 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 and no where else, 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.

18TH 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, I think it unlikely that Einstein didn't figure out the counter-arguments explained above. There's 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, the same thing that happened concerning the atom bomb while that was top secret. That gag-order forced Einstein to not make public this new direction in physics. I don't think it can be argued that the technology and physics behind weapons a thousand times more powerful than the largest publically known hydrogen bomb would be considered classified, and would not be allowed to be announced to the public. So you can't hardly expect that, if everything being discussed in this paper was true, that the top physicists working on this related technology, would be announcing their findings to the public. You can only know that this technology would specifically be kept a secret from the public, and you can't hardly think it conspiratorial to say so. But that's a subject dealt with more thoroughly on Page 2 of this paper.

19th 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 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 on the other side 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. On page 2 (the next section) I'll cover how the mysterious G-waves can accomplish the seven characteristics that are the premise of this theory without violating or inventing new physics laws, along with a whole host of other explanations that are needed to pull all this together. Just a hint for now, though. The secret lies in "pilot waves". Page 2 of this paper goes into some fantastic stuff, but if you'd like to be best prepared with some very helpful underlying understandings before going on to Page 2, then first take a look at the three YouTube videos that have links below. Your eyes will be opened.

Also before you go to Page 2, please consider giving me (Phil) a call at 541 636-7386 so you can tell me what you think so far.

PILOT WAVE

CORRECTED QUANTUM MECHANICS

THERE'S NO MECHANISM OF CAUSE OF GRAVITY

PAGE 2 OF THIS PAPER

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse