the cause of GRAVITY

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.   IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, READ ON.  IF NOT, HERE'S A LINK BACK TO THE HOME PAGE.

This matters because, if it's right, 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, and that's all interesting stuff in my view.

The orthodox curved-space-time model of gravity does a great job of describing and predicting "what" gravity does (the end result), providing the formulas needed to calculate and predict orbital paths and outcomes, 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 anecdotally demonstrates resulting path and action types.  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.  This theory joins all forces as just  appearance differences of the same single underlying force, explaining how they can be translated into each other, since they are not actually different things at their base level. 

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". And which theory can produce physical artificial manipulation results. 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 the idea of curved-space-time but replacing the concept of 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.

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 (of a generally unrecognized type of waves, like light & EM waves) that  push whatever they run into, and come in from all directions throughout the universe like an all encompassing background light, coming from behind the stars (like the Cosmic Microwave Background), although with a vastly greater intensity.   

Both objects would cast a shadow on each other. 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 is the cause of the force we perceive as gravity.  That's it.  No curved space-time.

This theory has historically considered many wave/particle types as the possible culprit that could account for the cause of gravity within the Kinetic (LeSage) 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 candidate that would not fail.  For the purposes of this paper, let's call these particular hypothesized gravity causing wave-particles "G-waves". 

For the first part of this paper, let's explore the consequences of what would happen if G-waves could have the seven properties described below.   We will cover how G-waves could accomplish these seven special properties in more detail later in Page 1 of this paper, but also in page 2 of this paper.

  FORMAL ASSUMPTION BOX

Here's the seven premise working-assumption properties of G-waves, that will be justified later.

1) they propagate at the speed of light.

    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) The fraction of G-waves that are absorbed into matter are in proportion to the amount of mass being struck, making the kinetic energy transfer (the forward momentum of the mass being struck) exactly proportional to the amount of mass being struck.  This causes "light" and "heavy" things to be propelled to equal speeds by G-waves.

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.   

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.

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").   

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 to 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 be able to 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:

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 go on to say that 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 to me:

      "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. 

The aberration angle of light increases with smaller orbits.  Also the speed of orbits increases with smaller orbits, and so orbital drag would increase with smaller orbits.  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.

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 GPT 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 GPT 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. 

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

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 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 involving the "was here" position of the central planet.

 Relative to moon #1, the moon on the opposite side (moon #3) would have the needed aberration angle to add propulsion to moon #1.  The other moons would also cause an increased gravitational force on moon #1 when considered in their "was here" positions relative to their current positions.  For example, relative to the position of moon #1, moon #2's "was here" position is closer than its current position, and closer equals relatively stronger gravity in the direction moon #1 is already headed in its orbit.   Relative to moon #1, moon #4's "was here" position is farther away than its current position, which equals relatively weaker gravity in moon #1's counter orbital direction.  That means, for many things orbiting around a central mass, there is also a "distance aberration" that also adds momentum, besides the "angle aberration".  All "was here" positions add propulsion to the other moons in the orbital direction, compared to real-time current positions.  

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. 

  The net propulsion forward happens only because each moon sees and acts towards only the previous "was here" positions of the other moons.

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 like) 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

       The key is in understanding what heat actually is. “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 simultaneously in unison, like a flock of birds up in the air all turning their direction and propelling themselves in unison, and so not increasing the rate of bouncing off each other.  

 The only difference between these propulsion types is the direction and timing of the atoms and subatomic particles being propelled) relative to each other.  On an atomic scale, atoms and subatomic particles propelled in different directions or at different times 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, at the exact same time in unison,  is equal to the whole object being propelled in gravity or falling without any alteration of heat.   

The difference between propulsion with heating and propulsion without heating is in scale and timing, not in principle.   Try this thought experiment. Imagine four subatomic particles floating stationary in deep space, not moving, without attraction or repulsion from each other.  Here comes another subatomic particle flying in and striking the other particles like a queball striking billards balls, blasting them blasting them apart like a pool break, with all particles flying off in different directions.  That's "heat".  Now imagine that the same four subatomic particles are floating there in deep space, stationary relative to each other, but now there's an incoming wind of waves so much smaller than the particles that the waves blow evenly on those particles in exactly the same direction at the same speed, causing them all to accelerate simultaneously.  What happens is that since they all moved at the exact same time in the exact same direction, there is no relative movement between any of them, and none of them grow closer or farther apart from each other. Other than looking at the distant outside world, there would be no indication of movement between them, and so no indication internally that anything had happened at all.  It is only the relative movement between adjacent "particles", changing the distance between each other (bouncing off each other) that is what we perceive as "Heat" or "bombardment".

In the large scale world we can see that it's possible for a collection of things to accelerate simultaneously, while not changing their distance between each other.  Look at bunch of coordinated drones.    To say that acceleration can not occur without creating pressure or heat is to say that subatomic particles can't accelerate simultaneously.  That is a difference in scale, not a difference in principle.  If you agree with the principle that things can accelerate  simultaneously, you have to agree that it's possible for subatomic particles to accelerate simultaneously, which is the equivalent of accelerating without pressure or heat. 

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 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.

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. 

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 its 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.

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 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 the 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 exact unison with each other.  So, yes the G-wave (Kinetic) theory does predict time dilation, and explains the exact mechanism for causing this, while "curved-space" doesn't actually provide a causal mechanism, just the math to predict the outcome.

 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.

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.  

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 of the measuring device 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 measuring 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.