A PROPOSAL FOR THE MECHANISM OF CAUSE OF GRAVITY

PAGE 2

By Philip Scott Ashburn, 2/21/2026.

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

   An important premise of this G-wave version of the Kinetic theory of the cause of gravity rests on the ability of G-waves to have the seven properties described at the beginning of this paper.  So now lets take a look at how good solid science can account for those seven properties.  To do this, though, we first need to address a HUGE mistake made in the modern understanding of quantum mechanics.  Don't worry, I'll make it quick.

The HUGE mistake is that most quantum mechanic professors and students (and the you-tubers) don't really research the literature on the subject, and just assume the general stuff being taught on the subject must be based on (and taking into consideration) all the key solidly-proven findings on the subject that would prove quantum mechanics wrong.  In other words, most everyone assumes "The experts must have done the basic research to know what they're talking about, especially big names like Feynman".

But NO, they didn't do the basic research needed to know what's actually been proved.  The commonly accepted conclusions of quantum mechanics have been repeatedly proven wrong many times since the original conception of quantum mechanics all the way up to recently.  So just for a moment, set aside the assumption that "others" did the basic due-diligence research, and listen from scratch to a different understanding that has been known all along, just not by the majority of quantum "experts".

Even when the detection of the split off beams doesn't occur until after the electrons would hit the interference plate, the same alteration of impact pattern occurs, making the electrons act like bullets when detected, and like waves when not detected.  This is understood to mean that the result of the "bullets" pattern change occurs before (going back in time) the detection occurs.  This is called the "delayed choice" experiment.  This is also interpreted to mean that the path of the electron doesn't exist until after the detection occurs.

These are some of the main experiments and conclusions about quantum mechanics.

PILOT WAVE THEORY

Now let's look at these same experiments and conclusions, but this time with the corrected answers that have been known all along, for anyone that did their due diligence research. 

The corrected understanding has been known about since the first debates emerged about quantum mechanics back in Einstein's day, and is called Pilot Wave Theory.  We'll get into the ridiculous politics of it later, but the corrected understanding of quantum mechanics is that electrons are not just "particles" or "waves" but rather one accompanied by the other. It's not a "particle" that has attributes of both a wave and particle.  An electron is a "particle" accompanied by a separate wave.   With this understanding, now let's revisit the same experiments and see what it tells us.

So this isn't a mysterious property of a single particle being able to act like a wave, it's a boat being pushed by waves.  Nothing mysterious here.

So if the electron or photon is sent through the same double slit experiment, with the splitter-plate detector, but this time being considered with it's accompanying Pilot wave, the beam splitter plate on the other side of the slits would block the pilot wave while allowing the particle to continue on to the plate unguided by the pilot wave, and so SHOULD hit the plate just like a bullet, removing the interference pattern.  The detectors, and fact of being detected, would have nothing to do with the experiment, just the fact that the splitter plate blocked the Pilot wave, leaving no (or not enough) intersecting waves to guide the particle into the interference pattern.    Nothing mysterious here.

The "going back in time" interpretation of the Delayed Choice experiment, now turns into the obvious explanation that nothing about the detectors or their distances has anything to do with the results, it's only the splitter plate blocking the Pilot waves that makes the electron or photon no longer be guided into an interference pattern.  It only looks like magic when you don't know the trick to the magic-trick.

The orthodox understand would be correct that if "detection" was causing the results to be different, depending on "detected" or "not detected", this would give rise to the conclusion that the "path doesn't exist until after it's detected or not detected", which is the "Copenhagen" interpretation called "super position".  It's saying that the electron doesn't exist between start point and destination, but only comes into existence after the path is determined.  

However, when considering that the Pilot wave could account for this exact same experimental result perfectly, with just the mechanics of a "boat on some waves", this makes the belief in "super position" simply "super gullible", or at least not well informed.

Well now, hold on just a minute!  How about all those other "spooky" phenomena found about quantum mechanics, such as quantum tunneling, a quantum corral, and such?

Same thing.  Pilot waves would account for it all observed pneumonia and experimental results, but without the "spooky" interpretations. 

When the first gathering of physicists debated the subject of quantum mechanics and the double slit experiment, they all agreed that photons and electrons showed some signs of behaving like a particle, and some signs of behaving like waves.  It is popularly believed that 

A PIVOTAL MISTAKE MADE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS

Let's start with the understanding that the orthodox understanding of "quantum mechanics" is not this "universally agreed upon" solid theory that all significant physics experts agree upon.  Did you know that Einstein made big newspaper headlines in his disagreement with orthodox quantum mechanics?  The newspaper headline was "Einsting Attacks Quantum Mechanics".  Einstein died being a proponent of a "local hidden variables" alternative understanding of quantum mechanics.  Neils Boher was a proponent of the "Copenhagen interpretation".  Today, the Copenhagen interpretation is what is accepted as "modern quantum mechanics".   So as we examine more closely what all the disagreement was about, at least don't start with the mistaken impression that this subject is a closed case.  And instead of just blindly believing other peoples conclusions, let's look at the actual experimental results, and the different reasoning of different people that turned those results into different interpretations.

  The "local hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics says that there is a pivotal mistake made in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics, which is the mistaken assumption that what looks to us like a single electron, single photon, or a single wave/particle is actually only a single "thing".    That is an assumption that jumps right past the possibility that what looks like only a single "thing" is really a "thing" interacting with a bunch of  other "invisible things" we might call "hidden variables".   The "hidden variables" theory was proposed long ago in Einstein's day, and was mistakenly thought by most of the general scientific community to be disproven by "Bell's Theorem" and Bell's experiments, but that disproof was fatally flawed, as will be shown shortly.  In fact, Bell, who's "disproof" was the basis for the rest of the scientific community to this day thinking that the "hidden variables" branch of quantum mechanics was disproven, told everyone that this is an incorrect interpretation of his theorem, and Bell himself championed the interpretation of the "hidden variables" interpretation (and Pilot wave theory).   So, it is the current scientific (quantum mechanics branch) community's pivotal mistake to not spot this fatal flaw in this base underlying premise of modern quantum mechanics.    But let's start from the beginning.

I have an "OK" write up of corrected Quantum Mechanics here in this paper, but I came across a very well presented and easy to listen to verbal history of all that went wrong in Quantum Mechanics and the needed corrections, presented in a Youtube video.  So I recommend listening to it first, and then proceeding with my paper.   It's a total eye-opener about the state of physics too.  Here's the link below.

   A sonar wave front (radiating out from a submarine) isn't in one specific pinpoint place, at least not like a solid object might be floating on a wave, and this "spread out" "sonar wave front" (shell)  phenomena is also observed in reality for things like electrons. Why else would an "electron" behave in exactly the extremely unique and bazar manner of a standing sonar wave front in incremental distances like ripples in a pond?   It's because it is a standing "sonar type" wave front. 

 More electrons in the valence shell means more units of amplitude of the standing wave at that valence shell distance, not more "rocks" of electrons orbiting a nucleus.  Think of higher energy wave ripples, not more Ping-Pong balls floating on the water.  This is also why an electron can act like a wave when radiating out on its own and going through slits (because it is a wave), but can also act like a piece of matter when held in place by a standing wave action like around an atom.  Understanding these things as interactions between standing waves explains why there are these strange rules, which are not strange at all for standing waves.

It has also been found that the minimum light energy for a particular kind of light is only emitted in standard "chunk" incremental sizes, not in all contiguously varying amounts in between. For visible light, those quantity fixed chunk sizes are called "photons".  That's because there is a standard wavelength of that light frequency that is being compared, and for it to be those particular lengths of waves those same-length waves have the same energy amount, which are also considered "quanta", meaning "only comes in fixed incremental quantities".   

A key aspect of understanding this is paying attention to the distinction between what exists and what is noticed. If only the peaks of waves cause a noticed effect, then the continuous waves that exist would only cause noticeable effects at the incremental distances and incremental wave heights of the peaks of the waves.  If you make the mistake of believing that only noticed effects are what exists, this could make it appear as though something existed only in increments, which is what also what quantum mechanics is dealing with. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TO UNDERSTAND MATTER, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ANTIMATTER, ELECRICAL CHARGE, AND ELECTRICITY; DIFFERENTLY

Does electricity flow through wires?  The answer is no.   It's been proven that the electrons in wires migrate inside the wire at about the pace of a slow snail when massive power is produced by those wires.  It is currently accepted electrical theory that the power from electric lines is transmitted as a field outside of the electrical wires, with the electrical wires themselves acting only as a guide for the area of transmission of the external power.  The model of electricity being like water in a water hose is incorrect.

A little more detail on why gravitational Aberration Must Add Significant Propulsion to Orbits, and why this was the primary basis for the theory of "curved space-time".

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 a force that traveled at light speed it would take 1.3 seconds to travel from the Earth's center of gravity to the Moon's center of gravity (239,000 miles), and so the pull angle of this force would come at the Moon from a direction shifted back along the Earth's previous orbital path  (shown exaggerated as "ABERRATED DIRECTION"). 

For example, if you were to look through a high powered telescope at a spot on the Moon, you'd actually be seeing light from a spot that is nearly a mile away from the current real-time location of that spot.  

That means, if gravity was a force that acted in the same direction that visible light was approaching the Earth from the Moon, the direction of force would be coming from the mile-off direction of its previously occupied location instead of from its currently occupied direction.  And "a mile off" is a very significant angle difference.  This also means that the Moon would experience a force acting towards where the Earth was 1.3 seconds ago in the Earth-Moon's mutual orbit around their Barry-center point.    

This altered pull angle from gravitational aberration (if it were happening) would be like a person swinging a ball around on a string (or old-time sling shot) by making small circles with their hand, making the ball swing around faster and faster, adding continual propulsion.

     If you continually add significant momentum (propulsion force) in the same direction that an object is already traveling in its orbit, orthodox thinking says that this would necessarily have to (must) increase orbital speed enough to throw orbital objects out of their orbits.  

  The lack of observation of orbital bodies continually speeding up and being spun out of their orbits (the fact that orbits can be stable) is the prime evidence that orthodox science uses to conclude (or "prove") that gravity therefore can not be acting towards the aberrated direction that light would approach from the gravitational source (it can't approach from an aberrated angle) or else it would necessarily have to destabilize orbits. 

   The only direction of gravitational force that would not continually add (or subtract) momentum (propulsion) to orbits is a direction straight between the current real-time centers of mass of those bodies.   This is why conventional physics has concluded that "gravity acts in the direction straight between the real-time current centers of mass of orbital objects".  

But that's definitely not in the direction that gravity would act if it propagated as a force at light-speed.    So while gravity "waves" have been experimentally proven to act in the aberrated direction, orthodox physics has concluded that "gravity" acts in the non-aberrated (instantaneous, straight between bodies) direction.

So how did orthodox physics try to reconcile what sounds like a complete contradiction?  They concluded that since orbits don't seem to be following the required physics laws for a force propagating at light-speed, gravity therefore must instead be "something else" that is NOT a force propagating at light-speed.  This is THE REASON why they originally came up with the idea of "curved space-time", to try to explain gravity as something "other" than a force propagating at light-speed. 

WHERE THE MISTAKE WAS MADE

It is correct that if gravity was a force that propagated at light-speed, the direction of force would be aberrated, and this altered direction of force would unavoidably add significant forward momentum (propulsion) to orbits.  All astrophysics books, Einstein, and all astrophysicists through the decades agree on this point.  This is correct and is simply unavoidable.  However, the next step in their logic chain says:  

1) A major force continually adding significant propulsion in the orbital direction would necessarily and unavoidably speed up and destabilize those orbits.      

2) Thus, a lack of orbits speeding up means there absolutely can't be a major force continually adding significant propulsion in the orbital direction, and thus gravity can't be caused by a force that propagates at light-speed.

But those are both incorrect statements!

A major force continually adding significant propulsion in the orbital direction WOULD NOT necessarily speed up those orbits if there was also a secondary equal force pushing in the opposite direction, counteracting the first force's added propulsion.   This means that the lack of orbits speeding up  does not necessarily mean there "absolutely can't be" a major force continually adding propulsion in the orbital direction.  

 This is saying that gravity is caused by the radiation pressure of a currently unrecognized type of EM waves, nothing more.  Not curved-space-time.  It's saying that gravity is not a suction or attraction, it's instead a net difference in opposing PUSHING forces. 

 Remember, this is an alternate full-replacement concept, explaining all observations in an alternate manner, not something that would act in addition to the idea of curved-space-time.

If gravity is caused by nothing other than the simple push of radiation pressure,  that means there's a vast amount of unrecognized EM waves all around us right now that could be harnessed as both a propulsion force and as a source of nearly limitless energy.    And YES, the radiation pressure model of gravity CAN explain why light is bent by massive objects, why time dilation occurs, why gravity travels at light-speed, why orbits can be stable, and all the rest, even more accurately than the bent-space theory.  But all that will be covered here shortly.

The scientific method (and Occam's Razor) says that the theory that can explain all observations more accurately and far more simply is the model that's more likely correct.

Orbital Drag

        Now imagine the Moon circling in orbit around the Earth as shown in the picture below. 

MANY SMALLER OBJECTS OF MASS SWIRLING AROUND A CENTRL MAIN OBJECT OF MASS

 This means any observers in the flat plane containing the orbit of the massive objects around each other (where you would see the eclipsing) would experience the fluctuation in gravitational effect as the orbiting objects alternated between blocking sight of each other and not blocking sight of each other, twice per revolution.  If you were looking at these spinning neutron stars from the side, or from any angle that you would not see any eclipsing, there would be no gravitational waves striking you, because no gravitational shielding (no eclipsing) would be happening towards your direction. 

  Let's take a closer look at the observation of these two neutron stars circling closely around each other at a significant percent the speed of light, and having their orbits decay to the point of them falling into each other.  Since gravitational changes travel at light-speed the gravitational pull of these two neutron stars would pull on each other in the direction that each neutron star was in the past the length of time ago it took light to travel between them.  This aberrated gravitation direction is shown exaggerated in the diagram below.

This action can be compared to the action that would be involved if there were two water hoses blasting a ball from opposite directions.  While the flow from the two hoses is balanced, the ball would not be propelled either direction.   That's an object floating in deep space.

So gravity isn't a "thing" coming from a gravitational source, it's a "lessening of the flow of radiation pressure" coming from the direction of a gravitational source, because that gravitational source blocked some of the ambient radiation pressure coming from behind the gravitational source (it cast a shadow).

So how fast would a zone of reduced G-wave pressure travel?  At light speed.  This works the same as if one of these fire hoses (or a garden hose) had the volume of water blocked for just a split second.  The several foot long gap in the water stream would travel at the same speed as the rest of the stream of water before and after the gap.  

Just like the gaps between water droplets would travel at the same speed as the water droplets (loosely speaking). 

       I find it interesting to note that a pivotal land-mark “experimental finding”, famous in all of scientific history, was the well publicized observations of the bent path trajectory of starlight when passing near the sun during a solar eclipse. The scientific community did and still does interpret this as “proof” that Einstein's theory that space-time was “bent” must be correct. 

Einstein said he wouldn't believe or propose such an abstract idea as "curved space-time" if there was any other more common sense (light-speed propagation of force) way to explain gravity, but he couldn't think of any other way to explain how how gravity could propagate as a force at light-speed without the unavoidable gravitational aberration causing orbits to speed up and destabilize.  At least that was his public statement. 

        The idea of "curved-space-time" is only one attempt at explaining  what gravity does, and is NOT one and the same as Einstein's formulas themselves.  Einstein's formulas are brilliant and are correct, but these formulas are actually a different thing than the model of curved-space-time, and are independently correct regardless of the correctness of the model of curved-space-time. In fact, those same formulas apply equally to the model of G-waves causing gravity.  And if you think questioning the idea of "curved space" is somehow counter to what Einstein would advise, think again.  Einstein said, quote "The important thing is not to stop questioning."   So let's question.  

   This paper will show how the light-speed EM Push 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 predictions do not prove a theory, they only keep that theory in the running of being one of the possibly correct theories, while other theories might also predict the same findings.   This can leave Einstein's formulas all correct, while leaving the "curved-rubber-space" visualization all wrong.  The EM-wave-push model of gravity is an alternate explanation of the mechanism of cause of gravity, also completely consistent with Einstein's formulas.   

The G-wave Push model of gravity has good answers to all its apparent problems.  But the "curved space-time" model of gravity has some HUGE problems with that theory that do not have any sensible answers, such as are explained next.    

While an object is already in motion, a series of additional pushes from the side causes what looks like a "curved" path, but a curved path is composed of nothing other than a bunch of small "side pushes" that each redirect the path a little bit more each time.  The phenomena that a curved path looks like something different than a bunch of individual small course changes is just an illusion.   This is exactly why there's a physics law that says a change in direction of motion requires an input of propulsion energy, just like speeding up and slowing down.

This is why a change in the direction of motion requires an introduction of new energy just the same as accelerating or decelerating.  An acceleration, a changed course and a curved course all require an input of new energy in order to not violate the conservation of energy law.  This physics law applies to all curved paths without exception.  To say that something can accelerate or change its course without an introduced energy is a violation of the conservation of energy law.

Apply this same principle (and physics law) to the curved path of the Moon (or any orbit).  The Moon is constantly changing its direction of motion as it orbits the Earth.   That curved path therefore requires continually newly introduced energy because that path is constantly changing its direction of motion as the Moon's path curves.    This means the conservation of energy physics law dictates that there has to be a propulsion force that is constantly being introduced to redirect (bump to the side) the movement of the Moon in order to redirect the motion of the Moon into a curved path.  You can't have redirections of the movements of bodies of mass without newly introduced propulsion energy.  

No matter how much you might not be aware of the cause of that introduced force, the introduced additional force must still be exerted in order to continually redirect the motions of these bodies of mass.  It's no different than if you were talking about pool balls or bowling balls making these redirected motions.  That's what real physics requires, period.   

 In the case of the orbital paths of planets and moons, the required newly introduced pushing force to cause those curved paths are the force of the radiation pressure from newly incoming G-waves that are pushing and redirecting these orbital paths into curved paths.  However, the "bent space" model's claim is that there is no newly introduced energy redirecting the curved path motion of the Moon, and that these curved paths of orbits of mass just change their directions of motion in a curve without any newly introduced energy, in complete violation of the conservation of energy law.  That's a problem. 

That's like someone claiming that they can make a pool ball just take off as though being struck by the cue ball, but without anything striking it (and without any conveyed force or energy).  That energy has to come from somewhere.  The bent space model claims it doesn't need any introduced energy to cause mass to change course and shoot off into a different direction (causing a curved path), and they claim they just gets a "pass" on this conservation-of-energy physics law violation.

The Curved-Space-Time explanation of the cause of gravity uses only analogous demonstrations that show that "mass bends space like a rubber fabric, and anything on that bent fabric gets pulled by gravity towards the bent fabric, which then makes the thing roll downhill (sideways) towards the direction of mass".

For example, if you tried to conduct any of those popular "ball on bent-fabric" demonstrations on a space station without pre-existing gravity, what would happen to the balls in that bent-fabric demonstration?   That's right, nothing, without pre-existing gravity.

The science show Veritasium clarifies that the model of curved space-time is saying that things that experience the effect of gravity, like us standing on the ground of the Earth, are actually having the ground push up into them like a rocket ship pushes up into an astronaut while the rocket is accelerating under the force of it's rocket boosters .  It's saying that the ground is pushing up into you, accelerating, not that you are being pushed down onto the ground like it feels to you and me. 

But this "clarification" does not explain why "bent space" would cause the ground beneath your feet to push up into your body while you were standing on the ground of the Earth.  There's no connection between the idea of space being "bent" and the supposed resulting ground pushing up into your feet.   Actually, if the ground was pushing up into everyone's feet around the globe (like the rocket blasting against the astronaut), the Earth would be exploding.  

This "ground pushing up into your feet" explanation just convolutes things enough to make it easy to loose track of the fact that this explanation of "bent space" still does not provide a mechanism of cause of why bent space would cause the ground to "push up into your feet while you're standing on the ground".    This obviously makes no sense, but to disagree with the orthodox declaration on this is to admit that you don't see the Emperor's Clothes.

#6TH PROBLEM WITH BENT SPACE:

Curved Space Is Not An Explanation Of A Mechanism Of Cause Of Gravity.

For the above given reasons, the "bent fabric" model gets an "F" failing grade as a model of a mechanism of cause of gravity.  To physicists who understand this subject correctly, they know that the bent-rubber-fabric model of gravity is not an explanation of the mechanism of cause of gravity,  and is instead only a visualization aid to give an example of relation of mass to resulting path type.  The bent-fabric demonstrations were only meant by Einstein to say that gravity "acts like this".  An analogy.  Einstein had tried to clarify this distinction on many occasions.   It's only those who don't understand this intended visualization aid correctly who mistakenly "retell" this bent-space concept as "the mechanism of cause".  This is not just my assessment, it is the assessment of many top physicists throughout the past, including Professor Feynman.

Professor Feynman said, quote (From The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, pg 7-9 Thur 10):  

   “All we have done is to describe how the Earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go.  Newton made no hypothesis about this (the cause of gravity), he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery”.  

That's an all inclusive unambiguous declaration about the world's physics stance that the bent space theory is not an explanation of a mechanism of cause of gravity, stated by arguably the top physicist in the world at that time.    The top gravity-physics experts in the world who truly understand the curved-space-time theory agree that no one has ever given any satisfactory explanation of a mechanism of cause of gravity.    They also say that the bent-space-fabric demonstrations are only correctly conveying that gravity  "acts like this", an analogy, demonstrating the relation of mass to resulting motion type.    

They said point blank that "We know what gravity does, and we have formulas that predict orbital paths, but we don't know what mechanism causes gravity".  This aspect of gravity is much less publicized in modern physics books about gravitational theory, making it much more common for physicists and physics studets to misunderstand the bent-space model demonstrations and interpret them as a mechanism of cause, rather than as the originally intended analogy of the relation of mass to motion type.   It is more intelligent to say "we don't know" than it is to pretend that you do.

#7TH PROBLEM WITH BENT SPACE:

The G-wave Push Model Of Gravity Has No Competitor As A Mechanism Of Cause.

As explained in the previous point, the bent-space model is not an explanation of a mechanism of cause of gravity.   There is only one model even "on the table" for consideration that accounts for a full mechanism of cause of gravity, and accounts for all physics laws and all observations, and that model is the G-wave Push model of gravity.

That's the only model of gravity ever proposed that explains a physical mechanism of cause of gravity that also accounts for all physics laws and all observations, and that doesn't violate the light-speed-limit of propagation.  This counts as a problem for the bent-space model as a mechanism of cause.

Yes, people can try to explain a phenomena with "bent-space-fabric instantaneous-action at infinite distance without the propagation of anything to convey that force" (while violating the conservation of energy law and the light-speed-limit law), but if there is a way to more accurately explain all the same premise observations via simple EM waves propagating at light speed, why resort to the hundred times more convoluted "Instantaneous bent-fabric-magic" explanation that doesn't even explain all the observations?  Unless you just can't figure out how it's done with simple EM waves.

The rules of the scientific process says that if you could more accurately explain the force of gravity and better account for all observations via the simple light-speed propagation EM waves, that should be a far preferred explanation over an explanation that does not account for all observations, claims instantaneous steering adjustment at infinite distance without the propagating of anything to convey that effect, and does violate the conservation of energy physics law in order to try to explain itself.

This is basically saying that if someone shows you a magic trick, you should first see if it can be explained by slight of hand or strings, something physical, before resorting to believing it was done by "result without physical cause", which is the definition of "magic".  That's why Einstein said that if gravity could be explained by the propagation of regular physical forces, that would be a far preferred explanation over curved space-time.  He just said he didn't know how it could be explained by regular physical forces. 

But remember, every single effect of gravity can be explained by just simple EM waves pushing things.  It's just a particular not-recognized wavelength of EM waves.  So by Einstein's own words, the EM model of gravity should be far preferred.  We don't need a convoluted "bent space" explanation.

Another clue that the bent-space model of gravity is wrong is that in all other areas of science besides gravity, science has been able to produced something that could control, manipulate, and cause effect (alter something) in that area of science.    In the last hundred and twenty years since Einstein's day, the "bent" model of gravity has not been able to produce the slightest bit of control, manipulation, or force alteration to gravity, not by even a quarter ounce, with millions of hours of effort put in by many of the worlds top physicists over the last one hundred and twenty years.   Look what they've done with electricity, computers, genetics, and phones.  But not a micro ounce of alteration to gravity.  Take a hint that this "bent" model is a dead end path.

However, if gravity is caused by the G-wave model, G-waves are Electro Magnetic waves, which can be manipulated using the right electromagnetic principles for that special wavelength.  There should be clues all over the place, with at least some tiny alteration to G-waves achievable through electromagnetic manipulations if those electromagnetic manipulations are even remotely "in the ball park" while still being able to be way off base.   Guess what.  There's a simple, at home, test anybody can do, involving an electric current run through a customized asymmetric capacitor that will alter the weight of an item a tiny bit, even if it is in a complete vacuum, proving this is not caused by ionic wind.  More on this explained later, after some other helpful explanations.  Then we get to the "big" effects.

They haven't ever seen or found any of this theory-saving life-preserver matter.  They only hope that it exists.

         An even bigger problem with this "attempted theory-saving-invention" of the idea of "dark matter" is that the missing extra matter would also need to be not composed of any of the elements on the periodic table (any known atoms or elements). When each element on the periodic table gets hot enough to emit light, when that light is shown through a prism, it creates a spectral line pattern that looks like a short bar code which is unique for each individual element (atom) on the periodic table. This is called Spectral Analysis. 

That's how they know which elements and what percent of them are in each star we look at.  When we spectral analyze the star light in far off galaxies there are no unrecognized spectral barcodes. They are all the regular ones for the regular atoms in the periodic table.  There are other methods used to detect black holes.  After adding all these detectable things together, in order for there to be only a single gravitational constant, there would need to be about ten times more mass of "dark matter" in many of those galaxies than the mass that is observed, in order for those galaxies to not spin apart, AND that ten times more matter would also need to also be composed of unknown elements not on the periodic table, and that matter would need to be literally completely invisible.  

Scientists have never seen or found any "dark-matter" and they have no idea how naturally occurring fully invisible matter could even exist.  In fact physical sciences says "dark matter" (non-elementary matter) should be fundamentally impossible to exist due to the fact that all possible electron and proton combinations are already represented in the periodic table, other than increasingly unstable super giant atoms.

That's a lot of extremely far reaching contrivances needed for the only purpose of trying to salvage the theory of a single gravitational constant, and avoid admitting there's a big problem with their gravitational constant theory.   

If the G-wave theory is correct there isn't only one single gravitational constant, and exactly the amount and type of matter we see in the universe is all there needs to exist in order to explain all observations, no dark-matter needed.  Which is more likely? The idea of dark-matter very conveniently excuses any possible degree of how far wrong their outcome predictions are.   The idea of dark-matter requires the swallowing of incredulous contrivances that would under any other circumstances be considered flat out ridiculous (most of the universe is naturally occurring completely invisible non-periodic-table matter).  G-waves are a far simpler explanation that much better fits all the facts, without needing to hope for the existence of "magic matter" as a blanket excuse necessary to keep a sinking theory afloat.

 In a highly elliptical comet's motion, the physical cause of the comet's acceleration towards the Sun is that the Sun's shading of G-waves causes there to be more G-waves headed towards the Sun than away from the Sun, causing there to be more radiation pressure pushing towards the Sun than away from the Sun, as described this paper. That comet is clearly accelerating when headed towards the sun, slowing down (decelerating) after passing the Sun, stopping, reversing direction, accelerating back towards the Sun, and so on continuously back and forth, the same acceleration and deceleration motions we were talking about when referencing the car and the "concrete law of physics" requiring an introduced force in order to accelerate.  

However, in orthodox astrophysics, when assessing the motion of this above described eliptical comet, the bent-space model claims that there is no input of energy required to accelerate and decelerate that comet.  Why? Because they don't know what is accelerating and decelerating that comet, and rather than admit they don't know what force is doing the accelerating, they choose instead to declare a suspension of the conservation of energy law and say that the comet is not actually accelerating or decelerating, and there is nothing pushing the comet, and so it must be something else weird "not-pushing" this "not-acceleration" of the comet like "bent-space" or such.    But correct physics says that someone not knowing what physical force is accelerating or decelerating mass does not mean the "energy required to accelerate" law does not apply.  

 Each G-wave impact transfers a little push energy, so the relatively greater number of pushes towards the Sun is what is continually pushing the comet towards the sun.  Its momentum carries it past the sun, and then the greater number of G-waves coming towards the Sun from the other side continue to impact the comet pushing it back towards the Sun and slowing it back down with brand new push impacts, and so on continually. It's all caused by a bunch of little pushes.

        The process described for G-waves pushing the comet back and forth is continually transferring brand new energy with every single new G-wave impact. If the flow of G-waves stopped, the effect that looks like gravity would stop with the last G-wave impact. There's no free lunch when it comes to direction changes or momentum changes requiring brand new incoming propulsion energy.  It's only an illusion that gravity is anything other than the simple kinetic energy transfer of one thing bumping into another and pushing it forward. 

 If there was a large person pushing you from the front, and a smaller person pushing you a little less from behind, which resulted in a net push force towards the smaller person, could you accurately call the net force towards the smaller person a "suction" or "attraction" or "gravity", even if you couldn't see the pushing people?   No, the only force type occurring here is the kinetic energy transfer of  pushes in different directions causing a net imbalance of pushing forces.   Gravity is not a suction or attraction, it's a net difference in opposing PUSHING forces. 

Since this G-wave theory is saying that the "empty space" out there is not empty at all, and is really a frothing ocean of intense wave energy that can interact with light, suppose the observed redshift of far off starlight  is ALSO being added to by it passing through vast distances of this ocean of G-waves, red-shifting the light just like glass or other mediums do.  According to current Astronomy, the current record for the most distant galaxy detected is a galaxy 32 billion light years away, and it has an amount of redshift which would require a recession speed of 687,000 km/s; more than double the speed of light in order to account for that amount of redshift, if its redshift was caused by only speed alone. 

Now add that on top of the problem that if there was a Big Bang starting point, that theory predicts that there should have been a certain amount of lithium created by the early conditions of the Big Bang, but that's incompatibly far off from what we find when we look at early-formation stars and especially the interstellar regions between the galaxies.  In fact, what we find is the amount of lithium that's predicted by the non-Big Bang model.  Basically the Big Bang model is incompatible with these findings.

Further, and even more conclusively, there are shapes of super-giant clusters of galaxies spanning billions of light-years that, due to their sizes, distances and speeds, would require trillions of years to settle into those shapes.  If you back-track the claimed "exploding" outward speed movement of the observable universe in the Big Bang (expanding universe) model, those speeding things would be backtracked to an exploding central starting point only about 14 billion years ago, which is about 500 times not long enough to account for the observed super-structures of clusters of galaxies, which basically disproves the Big Bang model. 

 This is to say that our stars and galaxies can't have been expanding at the rate indicated by the red-shift of starlight, or the beginning of the expansion would need to have started about fourteen billion years ago, and the shapes of the super clusters of galaxies would require at least Seven Trillion years to have settled into those giant formations, which is 500 times longer than the 14 billion years maximum time life-span of the universe that would be allowed by the Big Bang theory.   Further details of this subject are provided in the link below, from LPP Fusion.

Since the above evidence proves that there was no Big Bang, the general trend of redshift of starlight we observe can't be caused by a general trend of all stars and galaxies speeding away from us (like us being in the middle of an explosion, because there is no explosion), which means the general of red-shift of starlight must instead be caused by an "interference" effect of light, like when light passes through glass.  This means, the more distance, the more interference, and thus the more redshift.  That means the red-shift amount can still be used to determine distance, in fact even more accurately than when attributed to speed, but that reason for the red-shift is different.   

If physical matter is a standing wave that requires incoming waves to cause time to pass for it, and if this is true then it would have been impossible for the Universe to have started with a Big Bang from a single tiny starting point, because the creation causing waves need to be coming inwards from all directions in order to create the effect we perceive as physical matter and gravity.  It would really need to be something that looks like the opposite of a Big Bang, more like an implosion of G-waves coming in from all directions, either once long ago from astronomical distances away, or in an ongoing manner. The physical universe is an implosion not an explosion.

21.  Black Holes Are A Time Frozen Star

         According to the G-wave theory of the cause of gravity and time dilation, the understanding of Black Holes would need to be largely reconsidered from scratch. 

When a massive star gets near big enough to start blocking all of the G-waves that would otherwise pass through it, the first area to achieve the greatest amount of blockage/shading of G-waves (as more mass falls into the sun) would be a rim along the outer edge equator of the star, because the spin of the star would create a thicker bulge of mass on the equator relative to the poles. 

 As a star like this gains more and more mass, eventually the outer equatorial zone circling the sun blocks such a high percent of G-waves that time slows down along that zone to a great enough degree to act like a shield or insulator, blocking or greatly lessening the amount of heat, light and energy that can be emitted along the equatorial zone, relative to the poles.  This causes the star's energy to increasingly be emitted mostly and then, after growing in size, only out the poles, which is what our astronomers see as a pulsar, and eventually growing into a quasar. 

 When enough additional mass falls into a sun like this, the time freezing zone spreads along the outer edge and eventually covers and seals off even the poles, and so becomes a black hole.

A completely "time sealed" black hole, all the way around the outer surface, would block any G-waves from passing through the black hole and being emitted out the other side from the direction of the black hole, with the maximum gravity and time dilation effect being at the surface of the black hole, which is commonly called the "event horizon".  That gravity strength and time dilation effect would decrease with distance away from the black hole, due to the diminishing intensity of the G-wave shadow with distance away from the black hole.

When a pre-black hole sun first gains enough mass to turn into a black hole, there is not a collapse of the mass into a singularity point, just an increasing size of mass spread throughout the inner volume of the black hole, just like before becoming a black hole.  The proof of this is that if the mass of the black hole was condensed into a singularity point, the singularity point would cast no shadow of G-waves and so would not be able to cause any gravitational effect at all.    Also, you can't get any less than zero G-waves passing through any given area of space, and so once you reach enough mass in a given area of space to block 100% of the G-waves passing through that given area, condensing more mass into that same area does not reduce the G-wave flow any further less than zero G-waves passing through.  You can't get any less than zero G-waves passing through.  Adding more mass into that same area would therefore not increase its gravitational effect. 

This means the only way to increase the gravitational effect beyond an area first reaching a 100% blockage of G-waves is to block more G-waves from a wider area, and so cast a bigger wider shadow from a bigger wider body of mass.  

The fact that some black holes can have more gravity than other smaller black holes means those bigger black holes must be literally bigger and wider, with their mass spread out throughout their inner volume, casting a wider shadow of G-waves, and so not concentrated into a singularity point.   Black holes therefore can not be a big empty space with only a singularity point in the middle and an "event horizon" on the outer edge.  They have to be full of stuff throughout the inner volume in order to cast a proportionally wider G-wave shadow.

 When looking inside a black hole, since G-waves are still entering a black hole from the outside (mass only barely shades/stops G-waves), the greatest amount of shading of those G-waves, from the lesser waves-rate side, would occur only after the G-waves had passed across the entire diameter of the black hole, nearing the under side of the opposite side of the "event horizon" shell.  Remember, time can only flow at the rate of incoming G-waves from the lower waves-rate side (the higher rate side is irrelevant), and the zone with the least G-waves coming from the lower waves rate side is near the event horizon shell itself because those waves must cross and be diminished by the full diameter of the entire black hole.  At least for younger smaller black holes, the whole general central "middle" area of a smaller black hole would have the G-waves blocked by only half the diameter of the black hole (from the surface down to the center, instead of from all the way across like the outer shell), and so would leave far more G-waves striking the central area from all directions compared to near the shell, allowing a slowed-time to continue to pass in this central area middle zone while time was stopped completely for the zone nearing and including the outer shell "event horizon".    Although time is slowed throughout the inside of a smaller black hole, it passes relatively fastest at the center of the black hole and slows more as you approach the outer edge from inside.   

That inner core would only have time stopped for it completely if and when the whole black hole gained enough additional mass to allow even the radius of the black hole to contain enough mass to block all the G-waves from passing through, such as in a much larger black hole.

This would allow some time-requiring action to happen on the inside of a smaller black hole, but a falling thing couldn't fall past the time-frozen event horizon in order to get to the inside. 

If you could get past the event horizon, you'd notice that gravity decreases from the outer shell as you'd go deeper into the black hole, with an absence of gravity at the center. 

 This is because at the center there would be as much mass on all sides outward from you as there is on any other outward sides of you, all "pulling/pushing" equally from opposite directions, and so cancelling out any net pulling/pushing force.  If there was a safe "hole" or space ship in the middle of a black hole, you'd just float there with no gravitational effect.  But the inside of a black hole is not empty space like in the movies, it's super dense, and inhospitable to solid matter. 

But as long as the black hole hasn't yet grown large enough to cause the radius to contain enough mass to block all G-waves, while the black hole is still on the smaller side, the inner core of the black hole would continue to have a very slowed time pass inside, and be a sun burning in slow motion, but with no outlet for that energy to go anywhere, turning it into a contained super nova.   But no matter how much pressure or energy is emitted inside, if time doesn't pass in an area (the event horizon shell), physical matter can't get through that shell, making the inner core like a slow motion super nova exploding with an increasing force over time.  What happens beyond this point is an interesting subject I will cover at another time, but we can at least say that a contained and greatly amplified super nova is not just an empty space inside.

The matter that freezes in time does not continue to "crush down", not due to any resistance at all to crushing but solely because time doesn't pass in that area which would allow it to crush.  Time freezing makes the amount of force irrelevant.

 Once something reaches a time frozen state, newly fallen things freeze in time joining the Black Hole surface area like newly fallen snow, making the Black Hole grow ever increasingly bigger and wider, not crushed down to a singularity "point".  Time stoppage for that area also means density can not increase over "time".   

  In contrast, the current orthodox belief about black holes is that time stops completely for a thing when it reaches the event horizon of a black hole, but that things continue to fall and crush down over time after passing through the event horizon, and fall all the way down through an empty space below the event horizon until they are crushed into a "singularity point" at the very center of the black hole, possibly thousands of miles below the event horizon zone.   But a big empty space can't cast a G-wave shadow.

The further currently accepted orthodox beliefs about black holes follow hypothesized strange things that might happen to infinitely crushed mass as things continue to fall below the event horizon and do increasingly exotic things as they continue crush further down into a singularity point in the center of a Black Hole.  But, if they are correct that time has stopped for everything below the event horizon, how is it that anything can continue to crush or fall further, let alone crush all the way down into a singularity point, smaller than an atomic particle?  Doesn't time stopping make the crushing force irrelevant?

       Regardless of the size or mass of a Black Hole, there can never be any less than zero G-waves coming up through and out from a Black Hole, and the Black Hole doesn't "reach out" to cause there to be more than 100% of the naturally occurring ambient G-waves headed towards the Black Hole, so any size or mass difference in the Black Hole can't change the gravitational force amount  being exerted at the surface (event horizon) of the Black Hole.  The surface pressure imbalance always stays at zero G-rays pushing out from the Black Hole, against the 100% of the ambient G-waves pushing towards the Black Hole,  regardless of Black Hole mass or size.  Only a wider sphere of a black hole can cast a wider "longer" shadow, and thus cause a farther reaching gravitational effect, not a stronger effect at the surface (event horizon) of a black hole.

22.  The Energy Amount In Empty Space

        The reason there is more push force on an object near a Black Hole compared to the force pushing on your nose right now is only that a Black Hole blocks all the G-waves that would otherwise pass through itself and come from the direction of the black hole, allowing the naturally occurring ambient G-waves coming from the other direction in "regular empty space" to push an object unopposed towards the black hole.   

This is saying that there is the same amount of G-waves pushing on your nose right now as there is pushing on the event horizon of a Black Hole, with the only difference being that when you are not next to a Black Hole, the G-waves come from all opposing directions equally, and so push against each other to at least nearly fully cancel out any net difference in pushing force. 

More accurately, there is twice as much G-wave energy in the seemingly "empty" space pushing on your nose right now as there is on the event horizon of a super massive Black Hole, because a Black Hole has G-waves pushing in only one direction towards the black hole without that same amount of additional G-waves pushing in the opposite direction needed to counteract the push towards the Black Hole.  This isn't a word trick.  There is actually twice the energy amount being exerted on your nose right now as there is in the same volume of space on the event horizon of a black hole.   The countering forces on your nose are just so even and consistent that they are making themselves not noticeable to you.

The Sun has about 28 times more gravitational force than the Earth, which means the threshold of a sun gaining enough mass to turn into a Black Hole might be a mass of about (28 x 315=) 9,000 times that of the Earth, meaning a newly emerging black hole's gravitational force could be loosely estimated to have a lower end minimum of about 9,000 times Earth's gravity (very loose ballpark).

         A thing getting hit with 100% of the ambient G-waves from one side and zero G-waves from the other side isn't effected any differently whether the zero G-waves reaching it from one side are due to a Black Hole blocking them or due to an electro-magnetic full deflection of the ambient G-waves.  The pressure imbalance of 100% pushing against zero G-waves is the same, regardless of the reason why there is this pressure imbalance. 

The smaller the area the force is attributed to, the greater the force amount per surface area, and vice verse.  In orthodox physics, a black hole is concluded to be a "singularity point" which drives the force per surface area to infinity.   I think the orthodox calculations of black hole sizes do not take into account that time-freezing prevents a Black Hole from crushing down past the event horizon, which makes their size calculation way off, which makes their force-amount per surface area calculation way off  (by a whole bunch of zeros).  

Other than next to a black hole where at least "half" the ambient energy is blocked by the black hole, everywhere else in regular space there is far over twice as much G-wave EM wave energy in empty space as there is next to a black hole.  All other energies we are familiar with, even the detonation of a hydrogen bomb, is a distant drop in the bucket compared to the ambient background energy of G-waves that exists right in front of us, but is not showing itself due to it counteracting itself evenly from opposite directions, somewhat like air pressure is doing around you right now.

The same thing happens to G-waves, except that with G-waves there is an exact match to the G-wave "wind" catching ability of the matter  to the amount of mass of that matter.   This causes the amount of push energy exerted from G-waves to be automatically adjusted to push proportionally more on heavier things.

Normally, when a common man-made propulsion force pushes on something to speed it up, there is a certain kind of "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.  

 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.  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 (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.  

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.  

However, when G-waves push, the push is applied directly to every sub-atomic particles individually so they all accelerate simultaneously and autonomously.  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.

25.  The Electric Strong Force

         The force that holds electrons around the nucleus of an atom (the strength of an electric field, also known as the "electric strong force", also follows this same inverse square law (as shadows and gravity does) as to the rate of decrease of its force strength per distance from the nucleus.  The rate of decrease of the strenght of an electron from a nucleus or a magnet away from another magnet changes at the same rate that gravity decreases with distance, which is the inverse square law.  This hints that that the Electric Srong Force could be this same simple G-wave shadow action causing it on an atomic scale of distance.  The difference between the Electric Strong Force and gravity is only how strong the force is, not it's rate of strength decrease per distance.  For example, look at the strenght of two magnets compared to the gravity between those two magnets.

   The strength difference 

This is saying that the action we perceive as the electric strong force is actually the exact same shadow action from G-waves that causes gravity, not a different type of force.  The strength of an electric field only seems proportionally much stronger than the force of gravity due to the proportionally smaller distance between the nucleus and the electron (the two objects casting a G-wave shadow on each other) making the shadow that much proportionally stronger.   The distance between an electron and the atomic nucleus  are closer to each other by many orders of magnitude compared to planetary distances, and so of course if you had an atomic sized little "G-wave flash light" shining from behind the nucleus casting it's SHADOW on the "orbiting" electron, that atomic size shadow reaching the electron would be many orders of magnitude times stronger at that atomic distance compared to the strength of that exact same atomic shadow continuing on by the time it reached to spread out over interplanetary distances. That same "atomic size" shadow couldn't be anything other than many orders of magnitude weaker by the time that exact same atomic shadow continued on to spread out over interplanetary distances.  

This is the exact same G-wave shadow effect happening, not a different type of force.  Or is it a meaningless unrelated coincidence that the inverse square law rate that the electric force decreases it's strength over distance just happens to match exactly the rate that a background-light shadow decreases its strength over distance, which just happens to match exactly the rate that gravity decreases its strength over distance?   No, these are not all fluke unrelated coincidences.  Orthodox physics says it's just a big mystery as to why the force of gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than the electric strong force, and is oblivious to the fact that  a simple shadow accounts for all of this.  

After adding in many other optical phenomena, such as the polarization of light and the polarization of matter, etc,  applied to G-waves and metals (instead of visible light and polarized sunglasses), this results in the many variations of phenomena exhibited by magnets  and electro-magnetism.  It's not a fluke coincidence that rotating a magnet 90 degrees from another magnet can cancel the magnetic effect, exactly like rotating a light-polarized glass 90 degrees from another light-polarized glass stops polarized light from passing through, while rotating it another 90 degrees realigns the micro slits in the glasses and so re-allows the polarized light to pass through.  This is optics in action, in both cases, but with different EM wavelengths, polarizations, and different materials involved.

Einstein, and most of the other greatest physicists through the ages have always had a strong gut hunch that all energy types and all matter types are all really manifestations of one simple underlying base  "thing" or force type that is only appearing to be what looks to us like many different force types.  This hunch is that there exists a Grand Unification Theory that can explain all apparently different force types as resulting from only a single underlying force type if we could just figure it out. 

 Einstein was asked what it felt like to be a genius, and Einstein responded, quote "I wouldn't know, ask Tesla".  And Tesla said, quote "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration".  That's because energy, frequency, and vibration are what this one single building block of EM waves is composed of.

This is the source of the saying that there already exists more "background" energy in the volume of space in your empty coffee cup than would be required to boil off all the oceans of the Earth.

 In this sense, light beams themselves are the actual speed limit, while the occupant of a speeding ship does not experience any speed limit, as long as it is ignored that the outside time is passing faster. 

There's also another complication to the speed of light.  Suppose you're on a space ship going 99.99%  the speed of light, and your ship shines a head-light beam forward.  How fast are the photons of that head-light beam traveling forward relative to the speed of your 99.99% light-speed ship? 

Actually, if you will remember, the closer you come to the speed of light the more time slows down for the occupant.  So if you're going fast enough to slow time down to half time-passage rate, it looks to you like you're going twice light speed. Suppose on that twice-light speed ship (by your ship clock), your ship shines a head-light beam forward.  How fast are the photons of that head-light beam traveling forward relative to the speed of your twice-light-speed ship?  The answer is three times light-speed, as measured by the clock of your speeding (time-slowed) ship, because speeds are always added when judged by the time-slowed clock of the speeding ship, just like ground-speeds on Earth.  To you, that headlight beam is definitely going "light-speed" faster than your  twice-light-speed ship, according your ship clock.

  What about a ship going ten times light speed by that ship's clock, that shines a headlight beam forward.  How much faster is the ten-times light-speed ships headlight beams shining forward than the twice light-speed ships headlight beams?   To an outside observer, the two ship's headlight beams would look like they were going virtually the same light-speed with only an apparent wavelength difference, although there actually is a speed difference.  In this way, light can go different speeds, and could always go a little faster, although to an outside observer the difference is mainly distinguishable by a difference in the wavelength of the light.  

There are also other things that can slow down the speed of light, like the medium its passing through.  So if the speed of light has some variance, what does that variance do to the famous formula E=mc2 where "c" is supposed to stand for the constant speed of light?

29.  THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT

The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves.  

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter, including their laboratory, through the luminiferous aether, or "aether wind" as it was sometimes called. The result was interpreted as negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. 

However, according to this paper's description of the occurrence of "time", the factors that change the experience of time for a thing being measured also change the experience of time for the frame of reference, which would then only allow a difference in the two to be measured, never a measure of one without the other.

Mike Wallace of 60 minutes fame wanted to do a story on 60 minutes about this anti-gravity subject, but the parent company was controlled by Westinghouse which did not permit him to do the story.   Ira Rosen, ABC's executive producer for 20/20 and Primetime Live said he was definitely going to do a story revealing much of  this "anti-gravity" information and history, and later said "They won't let me do this story".   There were a couple Canadian scientists who started demonstrating amazing effects on Canadian public television. They even showed the "gellification" of metal on their show.  The next day some governmental "agents"  told them that if they didn't stop disclosing what they'd discovered, they would be put away and never see the light of day again.  Show over.  

The second head of Skunkworks, the most secretive branch of Loceed Martin, Ben Rich said to John Anders on his deathbed, quote: "We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity."   Ben Rich was a top echelon well respected business man, wealthy, and head of the top military-industrial complex company.  That's not something he would say on his death-bed shortly before dying if he didn't know it to be true.

         On the other hand, should the full extent of this technology be made completely public?  If a device the size of a small refrigerator could hurl boulders at near light-speed and wipe out whole countries or the Earth itself, should that kind of knowledge be put in the public domain?  I think not all the full deflection capability propulsion aspects that could be used as a doomsday weapon.  But, "Yes" on the relatively minor "material levitation aspects", and "yes" on the aspect of nearly free unlimited electrical power producible by affordable personal devices.  There are still dangers, and the world in general would probably still misuse even this lesser technology, but that has to be weighed against the benefits it could produce.  This could open up real space travel, ages beyond rockets.   This could eliminate most all pollution and alter the world in a very beneficial way. There could be no carbon emissions, no nuclear waste, no fracking, no oil spills, no air pollution, no global warming, no wars over oil, no electric bills, and no paying for gas for your car.   We could pump unlimited water into deserts and convert those deserts into gardens.  Transportation and travel could be revolutionized.  This kind of free power and force could open up new avenues of material acquisition and manufacturing that would have been far to expensive otherwise.   The ramifications are nothing short of world changing, into a sci-fi world.

31.   Free Energy, & How To Induce Anti-Gravity In A Material

         The idea of "free energy" is generally believed to be impossible by the orthodox scientific community, due to the solid belief in the laws of the conservation of energy which states that energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred, so they believe this makes it impossible for a device to output more energy than is input.  They are so sure about this that claims of devices that produce free energy are discarded out of hand as fake, and so not investigated.  

Now imaging this same concept of device adjusted to deflect a flow of G-waves instead of an electron beam.  By deflecting an incoming flow of G-waves in the same way, those deflected G-waves would miss hitting an object that they would otherwise have hit.  That would leave the natural ambient G-waves coming from the opposite side of the object to then push that object unopposed.

With the right electronic device currently available for purchase today you can hold that device only near an electrical power line and extract electrical power from the surrounding electrical field simply by holding the device in the surrounding electrical field around that power line.  This demonstrates the principle of solid state devices extracting electrical power from a pre-existing strong electrical field. 

 This same underlying principle can be used to apply to the very different wavelength of G-Waves, although adaptations need to be made to adjust for the very different wavelengths and polarizations of those G-waves, which also needs adjustments for the different materials required.

 Not knowing about G-waves can make it seem like energy would have to be coming from nowhere, and so you'd have no reason to look in this direction.  But once evidence is seen of the existence of G-waves (which is a main focus of this paper) there'd be big reason to look further, and the more you look the more that can be found.

However, when I say, "can be found", I mean potentially.   If you look on the internet, you'll find it is swamped neck-deep with fake videos of free-energy devices, in such proliferation as to make it a waste of time to try to search through them all for some sign of a real thing.  

 This is both because this is a popular search result which makes the makers of these videos money, and because there is a multi-billion dollar organization which funds a powerful-disinformation campaign to protect their monopoly on this technology.  This organization funds the building of this hay-stack of fake claims to protect against the few straws of hay that occasionally emerge that are real.

THERE IS A DANGER TO BRINGING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC.

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter contains things that could have come only from a pre-existing major planet that was blown apart, such as huge concentrations of salt deposits that could have come only from ancient liquid water oceans, and huge accumulations of heavy metals that can be concentrated only from the molten interior of a planet. There is also a natural orbital spacing pattern between the orbits of planets that dictates there should have been a major planet between Mars and Jupiter.

 That means there used to be a major planet in the orbit currently occupied by the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and that there didn't used to be an asteroid belt there, but rather the asteroid belt is the remains of the planet after the planet exploded. 

According to computer simulations, the simple collision of astronomical bodies is not likely to account for there being nothing left of the planet but the asteroid belt, because models of a scenario of even super huge asteroid collisions on a major planet would likely leave a more significant body remaining, not a complete removal of the planet entirely as we observe now.

 There is a small planetoid in the asteroid belt, called Ceres (actual photo shown here), which has a very large salty frozen water layer underground (more water than all the lakes and rivers of Earth combined). Note the bright spot in this picture which is basically a salt flat (field of salt) revealed by an asteroid impact.  Ceres composes about 40% of the mass of the asteroids in the asteroid belt, but it has a diameter of only about 600 miles, smaller than Earth's moon, and so doesn't have anywhere near enough mass needed to fit the mass amount that would be expected to remain if a planet's explosion was caused by even the most massive of asteroid impacts. 

           One way to amplify the propulsion effect in an asymmetric capacitor is to use a dielectric material with a much higher K factor, like titanium oxide (just white spray paint), barium titanate, or (best K factor of all) Rochelle salt crystals that you can grow from cream of tartar and baking soda.  The propulsion effect can be amplified even more by shaping the electrodes & dielectrics, and aligning and polarizing the crystal matrix of the dielectric crystals in the right way (having a major effect on the K factor).  Another way to amplify the effect shown in these videos is to take advantage of the aspect that it is not the size of the component parts that are the most effective determiner of force, it is the number of "sets" of these asymmetric capacitors layered on top of each other that can be a much more major contributor of force.  

  Electricity can be extracted directly from G-waves in a solid-state manner.  This can be done in a similar manner as the way in which electric power can be drawn from a nearby magnetic field through a process called electromagnetic induction. This process involves a change in the magnetic field within a coil of wire, which induces an electromotive force (EMF) and generates a current.  In the case of extracting power from G-waves, significant modifications need to be made to account for the very different wavelengths of G-waves, and for the fact that G-waves need to be converted into a magnetic field before being directly convertable into electricity.

There are also many dozens of other seemingly unrelated methods as well. Many of these over-unity devices are actually simpler than a lot of standard electric devices, but they're just along alternate thinking lines.

   For example, the famous car of Stanley Meyers that ran on the combustion of water sounds ridiculous on the face of it.  But by applying certain frequencies to water you can cause electrolysis with much less electricity than is normally required to cause electrolysis.  Electrolysis is the separation of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules of water (H2O), which are then both very combustible with each other and would run a car, just like Stanley Meyers demonstrated to many scrutinizing scientists who verified that the results were actually happening.  

Using electricity in the standard way to cause electrolysis uses more electrical energy than is output by the combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen.  However, by using only a little electricity to create certain frequencies aimed at the water, this can tap into a minute amount of the zero-point energy field to actually power the separation of the hydrogen atom away from the oxygen atoms, causing far more combustion energy than the electrical input energy. This is a bit like using a tuning fork to break a glass which holds back a flow of water that would power something. Cold fusion is another variation of this same principle, except with atoms.  And there are actually tons of other seemingly unrelated ways to tap into the zero-point energy field. 

Another category of ways of harnessing the background flow of G-waves, utilize different optical phenomena applied to G-waves, which are simply EM waves, which are just a non visible wavelength of light.  A one way mirror allows more light to pass through from one direction compared to the other direction.  The light that passes through a one way mirror is not stopped from the see-through direction, and so pushes less than the light that is stopped (reflected back) from the not-see-through direction, and this causes a radiation pressure difference from one direction compared to the other direction, which would propel the one way mirror if the amount of pressure difference was great enough.  Apply this principle to G-waves and a physical material and you have propulsion of that material.  An important part of the math for this can be found in the works by the Russian mathematician Pyotr Ufintsev who developed equations for predicting the reflections of Electromagnetic waves.

 How about a glass lens that bends the path of light and causes a concentrated light spot on a nearby object.  The radiation pressure of that increased light would push more. If that light were G-waves in sufficient quantity, that would cause propulsion on the nearby object.  You may have heard a while back about claims that gravity can be reduced for objects above a spinning superconductor, in the right circumstances.  of course that research was shut down without explanation. 

See what happens when you charge the leading side of an wing to millions of volts positive while charging the trailing side to millions of volts negative.  This isn't actually anti-gravity, but it does provide significant propulsion.

         I will warn you though.  Once you get a major propulsion or energy extraction effect, DO NOT TRY TO PATENT IT.  The patent office has staff members who are directed by the agencies that are trying to suppress this technology, who's job it is to spot any patents along these lines and use the INVENTION SECRECY ACT of 1951 (and other congressionally passed acts) to confiscate and suppress this related technology.  

32.  Coexisting Universes, & Faster Than Light Speed Travel

         If gravity is caused by the simple push of certain EM waves, shadowed by mass, then many of the far out orthodox theories based on "curved-space-time" like Black Hole Portals (and most of Stephen Hawking's work) would be undermined, and would have no basis in reality.    This might seem disappointing.   But if reality is based on this "EM wave" "light is everything" model, this opens up a whole new branch of possibilities that are even more awesome, and more attainable than the dead end orthodox branch.   The "EM" (push) model says that by simply deflecting G-waves coming from the direction you'd want to be propelled, this can leave the ambient G-waves coming from behind to propel a ship to near light speed quickly, using the energy already there in seemingly empty space, with technology not far off from what public science already understands. For a ship traveling at near light speed, time would greatly slow down for the occupant, which means it would appear to the occupant that they were traveling at many times the speed of light, although the universe would have had the normal time continue to pass by.  So a near light-speed captain could go a thousand light years of distance in only one hour of his ship time (which to him is a speed of 1,000 light years distance per hour).  Star systems would be flying by like in Star Trek, but the universe would have aged a thousand years in his hour.  That's a definite drawback if you have a family back home.

Less interaction than even captain Kirk when he ghosted into the other universe.   :)

If this is the case, by simply altering a certain kind of special vibration rate of a thing ("phasing" or changing its vibration rate) that thing would seem to disappear from one interaction set universe and appear in another interaction set universe, without needing to travel in distance anywhere. 

If you time the energy pulse input to match the frequency harmonic of the thing you want to effect, you can add to the vibration amplitude of the thing.   For example, when you are jumping repeatedly on a diving board, if you correctly time each time you come down with the movement of the board coming down, even every 2nd or third swing of the board, your bounce energy adds to the vibration energy of the board, making the board swing harder.  But if you are coming down when the board is swinging upwards, you smack into each other and your energy detracts from the swing energy of the board and the board detracts from your bounce energy.

That's how a tuning fork can add so much amplitude to the vibration of a glass that it can break that glass.  Vibrations on large items like diving boards and glass cups each have unique frequencies that are needed to effect them.

 In a higher vibration rate universe, vibrations would happen faster there, and so what looks like time would happen faster there.  So it would be possible to phase shift into a higher/faster vibration rate universe and travel for vast distances over months of faster-passing time there (with time nearly stopped for you due to your near light speed).  But while months of faster passing time were passing in the other "faster time universe", only minutes would pass in your home universe.  So, you could then phase shift back out into your home universe, thousands of light years away, while only minutes have passed in your home universe, and only minutes have passed for you.  The results are equal to what has been described for a "warp drive" or "worm hole", but there is no "warp" or "worm" 'bent fabric" physics in reality, you just "phase" shift the right kind of frequency, and then use G-wave radiation pressure to propel your ship.  This means it is real world physics that can show us strange new worlds and civilizations.

        By you "phase shifting" out of your home universe set (interaction set of matter), and into a higher or lower vibration rate universe, you could then travel to the inside of the co-existing location of a Black Hole that's in your home universe.   It would be as though there was no black hole in the other universe set you were interacting with, but you could be actually inside the location of the Black Hole that's in your home universe.

If you set up an advanced enough telescope array, you could look down on the Earth like a magnified Google Maps Satellite view and see events unfolding that happened 2,000 years ago. 

33.   A New Branch Of Physics 

         I have described the G-wave theory as a new "branch" of physics because of the very specific attribute of this theory that the conclusions that would follow are mostly all different than the conclusions that would follow along the "curved-space-time" premise branch.   If the G-wave theory is correct, that makes most of the conclusions that follow from the premise of curved-space-time simply WRONG.   I have noticed when talking to people about the G-wave theory they often try to dispute it with "gravity facts" that would only be true if the premise of curved-space-time were true.  It's important to distinguish which "facts/conclusions" are wholly dependent on which premise, not mix branches, and instead "start fresh" when following the logic trail of an entirely new premise.  The way forward in understanding and manipulating gravity, and extracting energy from the zero point energy field, will not be built on present orthodox gravitational beliefs, but rather a scrapping of that dead end branch and beginning new with a fresh start.  

A famous quote of Max Plank, conveying what he witnessed of his peers and scientific progress, is that  "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."   I would suggest that you shouldn't be too surprised when you encounter this social/psychological phenomena when talking about this subject with your peers.

34.  PASSIONATE CURIOSITY      

That description is the way I assess myself.   It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I'm passionately curious about this stuff and so stay with problems about this longer, and I have less trust in orthodox conclusions, and so I question a little more than what other people might just take as fact.   Passionate curiosity is a door opener because it makes a person take the time to ponder out more possibilities, ask "why is this", and take the time to puzzle out the riddles instead of just accepting what the experts say as "gospel" and moving on to something else.  It's also a willingness to question deeply what you are being told.  Keep in mind that in a thousand years the scientists of that future time are going to consider a lot of what is believed today as antiquated, silly, and way off base, having found a much better understanding.  So don't be so sure of the current science belief trend of today. 

 The most intelligent of minds are intelligent enough to have figured out that you don't know what you are not aware of, and what you are not aware of might change what you think you know (your opinion), and so it is therefore impossible to correctly be absolutely certain.  The smartest people have figured out they can not correctly be absolutely positively sure of anything.  Thus, humility and not being absolutely positively sure (and so open to questioning) is a sign of greater intelligence and wisdom, and a more simply correct perspective.    Being so sure that you are unwilling to question a conclusion, especially when it comes to convoluted "concepts of reality" is a sign of lesser intelligence.  

As a side note, I believe we are all connected in a miraculous way, not because any religious book or person says so, but because my actual real scientific investigations have shown me that this is true reality.  For me, this puts a whole new light on what we should do, and how and why this technology should and shouldn't be used.  I believe the "what" should not be disconnected from the "why".  It alters one's view of things in a way that makes us all not only allies but dear loved ones. With this love that I am talking about I don't want to do things that cause harm. I only want to help.  In short, I believe wisdom, love, family, time spent in nature and our spiritual side should be worked on and increased in balance with increased power over others and increased knowledge of apparatus development.  A thought I hope will stick in your mind down the road. 

And if you think your thoughts do not have a direct connection to the world and reality (beyond just steering your body around), you have some very interesting and amazing things to learn about the connection between thought and physical reality.

35.  Occam's Razor     

         The principle of Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is more likely to be the correct one. Need I say more?

36.  So What Can We Do About It

         Knowing that there's at least a real possibility that gravity is caused by a vast flow of EM waves that are ever-present all around us gives big reason to investigate the manipulation and harnessing of those EM waves.  Without the awareness of this possibility there's little reason to investigate in this direction.

         I believe this technology is currently being suppressed and mishandled by a low-moral cabal of the extremely rich and powerful, to keep themselves rich and powerful.  This keeps everyone else in needless need while causing great harm to the world.  

All the world's efforts to address global warming, pollution, poverty, "green" stuff, rockets to Mars, etc are all a drop in the bucket doing next to nothing compared to the thousand times greater effect that could be achieved with free energy and antigravity.  This is what would transform our world. The other stuff is more of just a relative distraction wasting time, effort and attention in comparison, which actually helps hide the real answers.  

Recycling and carbon tax isn't going to do it. 

I'm hoping that this paper will be passed along to as many people as possible, and that these ideas will reach enough of the right people to help put "free energy", low-level material anti-gravity, and our future with the galactic community back in the hands of "we the people".  For example, if someone could get Elon Musk to read this paper, that by itself could launch the start of a brand new world.  And if not Elon Musk, how about one of the people he works with that could tell Elon about this.  Or if this paper reached any one of a thousand other key people that could finance or otherwise peruse this technology in a way that would make it available to the public, this could do it.   

In order to get this information out to the right key people, it would make that much more likely to happen if it was passed along to as many people as possible, enough to go "viral" in the physics community.  I will tell you from experience that there is a seeming "firewall" in getting physics people to read this.  In order for the viral spreading to happen, I need just regular people to help get the spreading started.  You, yes you, could help get things started by getting other people to read this and pass it on again, preferably physics associated people, but anything helps to get the viral spreading started.  If enough people become aware of this, the right people will become aware of this and be able to help turn this into technology that will transform this world.   You could be the person that tipped the right domino that led to the branch that went viral.   You can be the person that made it happen for the world.

Another approach that has at least a small chance to break all this open is to join the fight to legislate the bill that's already before the congress that would force the black-ops departments to disclose the technology that is already in existence. There is already a major movement to legislate disclosure, asking for a bill granting an exception to the National Security Act, making it not illegal for black ops personnel to break their security oath and disclose the existence of this technology.  

I watched these congressional hearings. This testimony also confirmed that the departments that control this technology are not operating under the oversight or control of the congress or U.S. government, being basically a rogue authority all unto itself (there's a long story there). 

 The testimony also confirmed that they have departments to shut down any new arising similar technology from the civilian sector and from the regular military.  The hearings also confirmed that there was further non-televised testimony to congress by hundreds more of these confirmed government/military people further verifying all this.  An interesting thing that was claimed by some of these witnesses is that there is an alternate physics branch that redefines physics "correctly", and that the physics taught publically is a manipulated "red herring" that these departments spend considerable money to promote, to protect their monopoly on "real physics". 

Some research grant money is used to steer research in THE WRONG DIRECTION. Congress needs more pressure from the public to pass this bill and related bills.  That's what climate activists need to be asking for, not to ask people to stop using gasoline without a better replacement.  Look up the "disclosure project" and "The Lost Century And How To Reclaim It" and interviews of Dr. Steven Greer for both this congressional hearing subject and for a good history of extraterrestrial involvement.  These are not unsubstantiated "internet" claims, all this can be verified by anyone that takes the time to investigate it.  

 Or, there's skip everyone else and just get a few like minded people together to help make some of these over-unity or antigravity devices yourself, if you're a real inventor type.  Many hundreds of people have done this over the years, and keep doing this.  It's not that hard, but they then make the mistake of trying to patent it or go public with the claim and demonstration of the result but not disclose the full detail method (trying to make money on it), and so are "stopped".  Don't do that. It has to be spread far enough and fast enough that stopping you won't stop the spread of the ability to make the devices.

         This is an "open source" paper.  All ideas and wording I have used in this paper are intended to be open for use by other people, freely without restriction.  All I ask is that these ideas not be attempted to be claimed as owned or restricted for use by anyone else.   My original paper covering these ideas was emailed to physicists across the world in 2006.  I've included some of their responses in the next section of this paper.   This paper has been updated several times since then, with this being my latest version.  I invite you to respond and tell me where you think I'm wrong or right, and/or give me some new information that could be added to this paper so I can distribute another improved updated version.  Again, I also ask that you forward this paper to other people you know that might be interested.  If they pass it on, that's what can turn viral.   Also, the more we get this out to other people, the harder it will be for "them" to put it back in the bottle.

Thanks for your interest.

Philip Ashburn    (I go by "Phil")   

solidstateuniverse@yahoo.com (but if you're going to email me, you might want to call me too and let me know you've sent me an email, because I don't even look at most of my emails). 

541 636-7386 

P.S.  I would like to give special thanks and recognition to Katherine Sloan for having the interest and intelligence to listen to me try to explain my ideas, and so being an inspiration and help in my exploration of where these ideas have taken me.

Thanks Katherine!!!