GRAVITY SCIENCE

That's definitely NOT in the aberrated direction that gravity would act if it propagated as a force at light speed.  

WHERE THE MISTAKE WAS MADE

It is correct that if gravity were a force that propagated at light-speed, the direction of force would be aberrated to the same direction that light would approach from the objects of mass, and this altered direction of pull would continually add significant forward momentum (propulsion) to orbits.  All astrophysics books agree on this point. This is correct and is simply unavoidable.  However, the next step in their logic chain says that the lack of orbits continually speeding up means there absolutely can't be a major force continually adding push/momentum to orbital objects in the orbital direction, because if this was happening this would absolutely have to continually speed up those orbits and so destabilize those orbits.  

But that's incorrect.  The lack of a thing speeding up does not mean there absolutely can't be a major force continually pushing the thing (adding momentum), it instead means that if there is a major force pushing a thing there must also be another major "2nd" force acting in the opposite direction slowing the thing back down.   More specifically, the flaw in the orthodox reasoning is that it does not consider the possibility that gravitational aberration could exist (with the sling-shot extra propulsion happening) while at the same time there is also some other second major force that is also pushing in a counter orbital direction, which could counteract the added propulsion from gravitational aberration and slow orbits back down to the stable orbital paths we presently observe.   The existence of such another huge second force continually pushing in a counter orbital direction on all orbits can seem basically impossible, and so not worth even considering, which is the orthodox thinking.   However, this other counteracting force has every reason to exist, and this paper will show it to be not only possible but very likely.  In short,  this other counteracting force is known as “orbital drag”. 

  There is an alternative theory on the cause of gravity known as the "Mechanical"  theory of the cause of gravity (or Kinetic, Le Sage, or "Push Gravity"), that was discarded in the early 20th century by the general scientific community mainly due to the fact that an unavoidable consequence of it is that it would cause significant “orbital drag” (fully explained soon).  In the words of one of history's greatest physicists, professor Feynman, "Since orbits don't consistently slow down and decay this theory must be wrong." (see The Feynman Lectures on physics, Vol. 1, pg 7-9).

However, if both phenomena were true and occurring at the same time, they could both be counteracting each other, and so cause neither a slowing down nor a speeding up of orbits, keeping both of these discarded theories in the running as possibly being correct if they were both happening together.  Since astrophysics across the world agrees that one force would speed orbits up, and that the other force would slow orbits down, by applying these two already agreed upon and accepted scientific findings, this tells us that these two opposing forces could potentially push against each other and cancel each other out, and so not throw orbits out of their relatively steady states, and so NOT disprove these theories.  As simple as this sounds, you won't find this "orbital drag counteracting aberration" theory addressed or even considered in any physics book, even to suggest why these forces might not counteract each other.  If these two forces are counteracting each other, this would account for gravity being able to be a force that propagates at light-speed (in all circumstances) without having the aberrated force angle throw orbital objects out of their orbits, making orthodox science  WRONG in their conclusion that gravity can't be a force that propagates at light speed.  

There are other main-stream scientific objections to both the light-speed-gravity-force theory and the Kinetic-cause-of-gravity-theory, but this paper presents counter arguments to those other objections as well.  This "counteracting" theory not only predicts all standard gravitational phenomena, but also predicts certain deviations from classical calculations that match unexplained gravitational anomalies that are presently observed.  But far more importantly, this theory predicts a very inexpensive way to harvest a new extremely powerful energy source, and a way to control and manipulate gravity.  The importance of this theory being correct or not is the importance of completely transforming this world, opening up travel to the stars, providing nearly free energy for everyone, ending the need for gas, nuclear power, poverty, world hunger, war, and on and on.  Achieving nearly free energy for everyone could help our environment to a degree far exceeding any other endeavor.  It is ALL important.   And YOUR feedback to this paper can help make all this happen (explained later).  An earlier version of this paper has been responded to by a number of big name physicists across the world, with some of their responses provided at the end of this paper. This paper will start with a closer look at the Mechanical (Kinetic) theory of the cause of gravity so we can establish some key ideas that will be the basis for many of the other points made in this paper. 

2. The Mechanical ("Push"/Kinetic) Theory of the Cause of Gravity

This theory says that the force we perceive as gravity is the result of a certain type of commonly unrecognized electromagnetic waves (EM waves) that push whatever they run into, and come from all directions throughout the universe like an all encompassing background light, like star light and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation come in from all directions regardless of where you are in the universe.  These EM waves would have the characteristic of being able to penetrate planets like X-rays do through an orange (like neutrinos have been proven to pass through the Earth), and spread their push out evenly on the inside volume of things at a subatomic level.  This paper calls these gravity-causing EM waves "G-waves".  Take a look at the diagram below, and imagine how both objects would block some of this background light and so cast a shadow on each other. 

This phenomena would push more in the more lighted directions compared to the push from the shadowed directions, causing a net imbalance of pushing forces, pushing the two objects towards each other.  For example, if a massive planet blocked .001% of these rays that would otherwise pass through it, that would leave 99.99% of the rays to pass through the planet and push the smaller object upwards from below, countered by 100% of the ambient rays pushing the smaller object downwards from above towards the planet, leaving a net difference (excess/imbalance) of .001% of the ambient force to push the small object towards the planet ("down").  This is saying that gravity is caused by the push of a currently unrecognized type of EM waves, nothing more.  Not curved-space-time.

The "Push Gravity" waves (G-waves)  that come from all directions (like a background light) would also be heading directly into the Earth's orbital leading side as the Earth orbits around the Sun, and so those waves coming from the Earth's leading side would be blue-shifted because those waves would be going in the opposite direction as the Earth is traveling in its orbit around the Sun, running "head on" into the Earth , like a head-on car collision.

  If there was enough "pushing waves" to cause gravity, this blueshifting and redshifting of those waves would cause any orbital objects to experience orbital drag, a continual loss of momentum in the orbital direction.   When this Orbital Drag aspect is considered alone the loss of orbital momentum would be expected to result in a slowing down and decay of orbits, having things fall out of their orbits.  A lack of any observed slowing down of orbits has led conventional scientific thinking to conclude that the phenomena of orbital drag must therefore not be occurring, and must mean the whole “mechanical” "Push" explanation of the cause of gravity must be wrong.   Again, in the words of one of history's greatest physicists (Feynman), "Since orbits don't consistently slow down and decay this theory must be wrong" (see The Feynman Lectures on physics, Vol. 1, pg 7-9).

  However, as is a main point of this paper, when the loss of momentum resulting from Orbital Drag (from the "push gravity" theory) is considered as happening at the same time as the gain in momentum from the sling-shot effect of the "light-speed gravity" theory (from gravitational aberration), it becomes at least a possibility that these two counter-opposing forces could cancel each other out and result in no net alteration of orbits.  This means Mr. Feynman (and current orthodox gravitational theory) is mistaken in the reasoning that a lack of the slowing down and decay of orbits means that the Mechanical Push Theory of gravity is therefore necessarily proven wrong.   A correct way of stating it would be to say if gravitational aberration exists, Orbital Drag must also exist to counteract it.  This "EM push" model of gravity explains the mechanism of why  Einstein's formulas happen, including explaining the effects of light being bent by massive bodies and time dilation (all explained later in this paper).  

There is nothing inherently placing any limit on the length of an EM wave, only a limit of our current technology to detect longer and longer wavelengths (and more exotic particles).   So super-long EM wavelengths with various spins and polarizations should be able to exist.  

This "push gravity" theory is talking about the effect of a longer more exotic EM wavelength than is commonly familiar to science, that has the characteristic of being able to penetrate planets, just like neutrinos have been proven to be able to pass right through the entire Earth in the same way as X-Rays go through an apple. 

Super-long EM waves would also fit the extrapolated  expected characteristic of carrying a super-tiny amount of momentum per wave, as the force amount per wave is known to be inversely proportional to the wavelength (meaning the longer the wave the less the force per wave) which would cause a super tiny amount of force per wave, allowing for a super even distribution of force from a "wind" of these waves blowing on subatomic particles.   Super-long EM waves should also have a super deep penetrating characteristic, being able to penetrate the Earth like X-rays do through an orange,  just like neutrinos are already known and proven to do.  Neutrinos also exhibit EM wave-like characteristics, and may actually be just another form of EM waves according to the latest findings.  So G-waves could be a close "cousin" to neutrinos, since they share so many traits.  In fact it's possible that all regular normally found neutrinos are the familiar "left-spinning" type, while G-waves are the undiscovered "right-spinning" type of neutrino, or something similar.

There are many other EM wave types that that have been found to naturally permeate space going in all directions like a background light, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which are believed to be left over remnants that came from the Big Bang.  G-waves could also be left over remnants from the Big Bang, just like the CMB, but in vastly larger quantities.  The microwaves of the CMB are blocked and absorbed right away by planets, suns and galaxies, and so have been filtered out and eliminated at fairly rapid rate out of existence, in terms of cosmological time, leaving only a tiny fraction of them today compared to their concentration during the Big Bang.  But since 99.999% of G-waves pass right though planets and most suns, most all of the G-waves that would have been emitted during the Big Bang would not have been filtered away, and so would still exist today in concentrations near that of the height of the Big Bang, leaving an unimaginably high concentration of G-waves possible to still exist today as a "background light".  You might say we're still at the height of the Big Bang as far as the G-wave intensity is concerned.

Since planets and suns block some very small % of the G-wave background light, if you could photograph G-waves in the night sky, it would look like a photo negative of the night sky, with the planets, suns and distant galaxies being the dark spots against a brilliant white background of G-wave light.

        Keep in mind that no EM waves of any kind are ever detected "directly" or "found".  The impacts of visible light, microwaves, radio waves, neutrinos and all the rest are all only detected by proxy, by some physical result happening at their termination point which we deduce must be caused by an EM wave.  EM waves are all invisible while en-route, and only assumed to exist due to the result they have at their termination point.  Visible light causes a chemical reaction and heat when it impacts a chemical at the termination point and thus looks like a color, or propels atoms.  Microwaves and all other EM wavelength categories cause their own variation of results at the termination point.  Only in this way do we consider EM waves "detected".  Other than some effect at the termination point we wouldn't know EM waves existed. 

         G-waves would need to have the characteristic of spreading their pushing force internally across the inside volume of things without heating them up to any significant degree (explained next).   So G-waves' one single identifying effect at their termination point would be to PUSH whole objects or areas completely evenly throughout their interior volume without heating up the items.  Pushing "down"  is what they do.   If you hold an apple in your hand and let it drop, you will notice the termination point detection fingerprint of G-waves.

The huge, immense, monumental, unbelievably amazing thing about the aspect of this theory (that says gravity is caused by the push of a certain wavelength of electromagnetic waves), is that all major flows of electromagnetic waves can potentially be harnessed as an energy source, regardless of their particular wavelength (more on this later).  And this naturally occurring flow of G-waves that exists everywhere would dwarf any man made flow of common EM waves that man has ever made, even at the heart of a nuclear reactor.

5.  The Heat Caused by a Bombardment of So Many Rays

         A main objection to the mechanical "push" (G-wave) explanation of the cause of gravity is the thermodynamic (heating) problem of how the gravity causing EM waves could possibly be striking things in such required intensity without heating them up to any noticeable degree, let alone not heat them up to the sun-like temperatures that would at first glance be expected.  The orthodox scientific belief on this point is that there is no way the super-heating would not occur, and therefore there must not be any gravity-causing waves striking everything as required by the mechanical "push" theory of gravity.  

         I think that this super-heating would not be the case.  The key is to understand what "heat" is, how the energy of heat is different from the energy of a whole object moving. “Increased heat” is just atoms increasing their speed in different directions, and so increasing their rate of bouncing off each other (vibrating) in different directions relative to each other, like pool balls bouncing off each other in a pool break.  A large scale item accelerating (with no increase of heat) is just those same atoms all increasing their speed in the exact same direction as each other in unison, like lifting the end of a pool table, or a strong wind causing all pool balls to accelerate simultaneously in unison in the same direction (not increasing the rate of bouncing off each other).  

The regular EM spectrum of wavelengths are too short to spread their impact evenly over sub atomic particles and so would and do definitely transfer their momentum unevenly at a subatomic level (like a pool ball break) and so do "heat" matter, just like microwaves heat your coffee.  

        However, the gravity-causing "push" waves would be of such a long wave-length that they would have a super-small amount of energy/push per wave, and would “blow” in such smooth evenness applied equally to all sub-atomic particles that they would act more like an even steady wind striking the "sail" of each individual sub-atomic particle equally, pushing all particles in an identical direction, with identical force, causing them all to be equally propelled in exact unison (like a flock of birds moving in unison), in the same direction relative to each other, so that there would be no increase of bouncing off each other, and so no alteration to heat.

6.  Zero Point Energy 

   However, such a bombardment of this huge amount of energy would likely still have at least some occasional micro momentary imbalance from opposing sides, and so would be expected to produce some very slight degree of added vibration to atoms, adding a very minute amount of heat.  Guess what?  When any atoms anywhere are attempted to be cooled down to absolute zero degrees, regardless of matter type, there is always a mysterious added heat that emerges heating them back up, from a source little understood by conventional orthodox science. It's called "zero point energy" because it is most easily detected when approaching "zero" degrees.  

This exotic energy is commonly thought to be "fluxing in and out of existence in the quantum field", but it is actually only the showing of the very slight micro momentary net imbalance amount of the huge opposing forces of G-waves coming from all directions, not the power of the force itself.  It is only the balance or net difference in these huge opposing counteracting forces that is fluctuating just slightly off from being perfectly balanced, not that there is some super-tiny force that is fluxing between existing and not existing.   It's more like the air pressure around you is continually pushing at 14.7 lbs per square inch (at sea level), but doesn't seem to be having any effect because it's balanced on all sides of you, counteracting its own push from opposing sides.  But even air pressure has a few more air molecules (above the average) hitting you from different sides at each micro moment, and so does have a very slight imbalance of air pressure fluctuating in different directions, although too small of a difference to be normally noticed or measured.  If all you could detect was the micro fluctuations of the imbalance of air pressure, it would be a mistake to interpret the fluctuation amount as the amount of air pressure itself, or think that the air pressure was "fluxing in and out of existence".  Only the net imperfections of the balance of opposing G-waves (0 point energy) is what is fluctuating.

The naturally emerging tiny bit of energy from the micro fluctuating imbalance of zero point energy does not happen only at near zero degrees.   It instead happens all the time regardless of temperature, and is only more easily noticed by us when looking at things near zero degrees temperature.  When looked at on a massive planetary scale, that tiny bit of emerging energy adds up, and so we would expect to see the emergence of unaccounted for excess heat when looking at larger more massive planets.

7.  The Cause of Gravity's Rate of Strength Decrease Per Distance

          The EM "shadow" or "push" theory of the cause of gravity would dictate that the rate of decrease of its force over distance would be caused by the rate of decrease of the intensity of the G-wave shadow over distance.   If the G-wave theory were correct, the relative change in the intensity of a G-wave shadow per distance would have to follow the same shadow-intensity-decrease-per-distance formula that applies to any other shadow scenario (from a diffused background light source), which is the inverse square law.  The known and proven shadow formula for light states that the view blocking area covered by any object (and thus the intensity of its shadow of a diffused light-source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance away from the shadow-caster.  Thus a playing card held at two feet away from your eyeball covers one fourth as much of your field of view as the same playing card held at one foot away.

        Isn't it interesting that this exact same rate of the decrease of the strength of a shadow over distance is observed for gravity?  Yes, if the distance of a space ship away from Earth's center is doubled, the gravitational pull is quartered (2x2).  This is the "shadow"  formula for a diffused light source.   In comparison, the orthodox bent-space-time (bent fabric) model of gravity DOES NOT PREDICT that there would have to be this or any specific rate of decrease of strength of gravity over any particular distance,  and instead the supporters of the orthodox gravitational theory only observe what the rate is in reality and state it.  This means they know what it does (the formula that calculates it) but they don't know why there is this specific rate.  The G-wave gravity theory predicts only this exact rate, nails this prediction on the head, and explains the exact mechanism of why this happens.    Science is about theories predicting outcomes and the theories that predict correctly being considered more likely correct.

8.  A Direct Measure of Zero Gravitational Aberration

         It is commonly claimed that there is "a direct measure of zero gravitational aberration", meaning that bodies of mass pull straight towards the real-time current directions of the centers of other bodies of mass, and that proves that gravitational effects are instantaneous (necessitating the curved-space-time theory).   However, the  "direct measure of zero gravitational aberration" they are talking about is based on an incorrect assumption that gravity is the only significant force being measured.  It is true that only a force acting very near the straight between the real-time positions of bodies of mass would account for the observed orbital paths (which is what zero gravitational aberration would look like).  The end resulting force direction of very near the straight between bodies of mass direction is correct (with exceptions explained later), and is not in dispute.  However, that does not mean there is no gravitational aberration happening.  It instead means the force of the aberrated gravity vector is then adjusted by the second force of the Orbital Drag vector, only totaling the end resulting force vector of very near the direction of straight between the current centers of mass of orbital objects.  

9. Gravitational Shielding  

With a limited number of G-waves passing through any given area of space to start with, as these G-wave EM waves are absorbed by matter and converted into momentum (push), this would cause a decreasing gravitational effect per amount of mass as that mass amount approached enough to block all 100% of the waves.  This is the same effect as would happen if you increased the number of lampshades in front of a light source.  As each lampshade in a row removes some more of the remaining light, each additional lampshade after that is hit with less total light to be able to block, and so blocks a lesser number of "photons". This causes a diminishing returns effect of light blocking  per additional lampshade.  Now think of photons of G-waves instead of photons of visible light, and apply this same shielding effect to those photons passing through a lineup of planets that each block 50% of those G-wave photons that would otherwise pass through each planet, as shown in the picture below.

As an extreme example, if you lined up two black holes that each blocked 100% the G-waves that would otherwise pass through it, where one black hole was fully eclipsing any sight of the second black hole hidden behind the the first black hole (relative to you), the black hole closest to you would not block any more G-waves coming from the eclipse direction than the further black hole was already blocking, because you can't get less than zero G-waves coming towards you from a particular direction.   The blocking tops out at zero waves getting through, regardless of any additional aligned mass behind it.

  If this shielding effect was occurring, this should result in the pull from two aligned bodies of mass on a third aligned body of mass to be less than the individual pulls added together  when they weren't aligned (eclipsed).  However, the lesser the G-wave light blocking capacity (%) of the material or planet, the smaller the difference would be when comparing expected results from this shielding effect vs orthodox theory.  For example, if a planet blocked only .001%  of the G-waves that would otherwise pass through it, then there would still be 99.999% of the G-waves remaining for a second planet or object to block, making any detectable difference between shielding and not shielding only extremely slight.   Since enough matter to block all 100% of  the G-waves would be represented by a Black Hole, which might have about 9,000 times stronger surface gravity than the Earth (number explained later), this tells us that the Earth only blocks maybe one/9,000th of the G-waves passing through it.  This would result in only an extremely small gravitational shielding effect to be expected when involving the Earth as a blocking "shade", although still a difference.  

         With classical orthodox theory, the straight alignment of the Sun, Earth and a satellite should have a pull force equal to the separate pull forces added together when not aligned. The G-wave push theory predicts the same thing minus a very small amount of "pull" due to the shielding effect.  

Interestingly enough, this test-scenario with the Lagos satellites has already had its required gravity measurements recorded and published by NASA, provided by Erricos Pavlis at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, although not for the purpose of testing this theory.  After hundreds of passes over many years, the findings were that when the Sun was on the opposite side of the Earth than the Lagos satellites the average pull of gravity on the satellites was slightly less than the expected totals of the individual pulls when not aligned (with angle differences accounted for). This is an "anomalous" finding according to orthodox theory.  It's predicted by the shielding effect of the Push-Gravity theory.

10.  Gravity Wave Detectors Prove Gravitational Aberration Is Happening

         In the1990s, the U.S. started  building the LIGO facilities to detect "gravity waves", defined as a the quick changes in gravitational force (fluctuations) that is emitted by two super massive objects circling rapidly around each other, like a pair of neutron stars.  There ended up being two gravity wave detector facilities built  in the United States, and six total across world. 

The ability to eclipse & block the sight of the other object (shield the gravitational effect) would also increase with the nearness of the objects to each other, and so the strength of the fluctuations would become much more significant and detectable in the last stages of decay of the two objects' orbits, when they are nearly right on top of each other causing the maximum eclipse effect.  After the two neutron stars collided 144 million years ago, they stopped emitting gravity waves (the force stopped fluctuating) because the on & off eclipsing stopped alternating when they joined together to become one exploding item releasing the gamma rays.  

But by far the most important point to draw from this observation is that the burst of gravity waves travelled at the same speed and from the same direction as the gamma ray light from the ensuing explosion.  This proved that gravity waves (changes in gravitational force) do propagate at the speed of light, and that both the light and gravity waves came from the same aberrated direction of where the colliding pair of neutron stars were 144 million years ago, not from where the neutron stars are currently, which is nowhere (loosely speaking), because they blew up long ago.  This event, and a number of other similar events detected by the gravity wave detectors, prove that gravity travels at light-speed and that gravitational aberration does occur. 

         Take for example 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.

Any slight forward pull in the direction these neutron stars are already headed in their orbits (any propulsion angle not exactly straight towards the current center of the other neutron star) would continually add significant momentum (push/propulsion) to their orbital velocity around each other, and cause a major continual increasing centrifugal force to their orbits. Without a significant counter-orbital force introduced from the blue and red-shifting of G-waves, this major continually added centrifugal force would unavoidably force their orbits to grow larger and larger, preventing their orbits from ever being able to decay, preventing them from ever being able to collide.  

But these neutron stars did have their orbits decay fairly quickly and collide, which means there must be significant Orbital Drag involved slowing them back down, which means there must be significant blue and red-shifted G-waves doing the slowing.  Compare this to the "curved space" theory, which would provide no explanation for the rapid decay of these orbits.  Other kinds of radiation involved are not anywhere near powerful enough to counteract the centrifugal force let alone quickly slow down and decay their orbits as fast as has been observed. 

Why do you think the changes in gravitational force took 144 years to reach the Earth from an event that was 144 light-years distance away?  Because gravity travels at light-speed.  But why does gravity travel at light-speed?  Because gravity is a wavelength of light, meaning that gravity is caused by electromagnetic waves, which all travel at light-speed.  When less intensity of the light that makes up G-waves come from a certain direction (due to being blocked by matter), that causes less push from that direction, which is mistakenly interpreted as a "pull" from that direction. 

 To clarify, a "gravity wave" as defined and detected by Gravity Wave Detectors is a slightly different thing than a "G-wave" as termed and described in this paper.   The common physics use of the term "gravity wave" is talking about a "pulse", ripple, or fluctuation in the total force of gravity coming from a certain direction, not the source "photon" of EM waves that this paper says causes gravity.  

On the subject of the direction of the force of gravity, you might also note that the direction and force amount of the gravity of these previously described neutron stars was time delayed by the 144 years of travel time it took the light to reach the Earth.  That means the direction of the force of gravity we are receiving now is definitely not acting in the precise direction of the real-time current (now) centers of mass of those neutron stars, because the real-time oscillating position of those stars stopped 144 years ago when they blew up, stopped circling around each other and stopped being separate neutron stars.  That's NOT  their current positions, missing the mark by 144 years.  That's not even close. 

JUST A REMINDER WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT ALL THIS ACADEMIC THEORY

 Remember, this theory predicts and explains an easy way to harvest a new extremely powerful and cheap energy source, and a very attainable way to control and manipulate gravity.  The importance of this theory being correct or not is the importance of completely transforming this world, opening up travel to the stars, providing free energy for everyone, ending the need for gas, poverty, nuclear power, world hunger, war, on and on.  It is ALL important.  But to make this happen, your help could be of great help. That's why this is all not just some academic ideas that don't effect you.  They could drastically change your and everyone's world, literally.  That's why it might be worth your time to read and understand this.  

11.  Light Being Bent Without Curved Space Time

    There's a Russian research paper talking about photon-photon interaction and even how to detect them : http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9308293  .   This was given to me by Dr. Roberfroid from the Particle Physics Department of Oxford University back in 2006.  This means that it has been shown to be possible for an electromagnetic wave to push a different electromagnetic wave, although only to a very small degree.  The normal range of known EM waves have only a very small effect on each other.  However, each different wavelength has its own unique properties, and the exotic waves in the EM push theory have the unique property that they can push other EM waves much more than the other more recognized EM wavelengths, in fact pushing other EM waves just as effectively as pushing regular matter.   This means that the same push imbalance that causes gravity on physical objects cause G-waves to push photons of light towards a large mass like the sun, just like a strong wind can blow a bullet off course.

  This is saying that if a bullet were traveling at light speed near the sun, G-waves would push (blow) that bullet towards the sun in the same exact bent path trajectory that a ray of light, a rock or anything else traveling at light speed would have if it speed past the Sun.   It's just that the light speed aspect reduces the amount of time the object or photon would have to fall before the object is speeding away on the other side, and so it creates such a shallow (barely bent) trajectory that it might appear like something different than the same falling action that occurs in any other falling situation. 

  With the theories presented in this paper you may note that the G-wave theory of gravity also predicts the exact same bent path trajectory of starlight near a massive body, and so is equally "proven" by these experimental observations. 

         But how about those pesky "time bending" experiments, with high precision clocks running at different rates when orbiting in low Earth gravity vs regular ground Earth gravity?   Doesn't that prove curved space time?  No.  G-wave theory predicts that as well (explained later), and actually predicts it with actual clear cause, not with rubber-sheet vagaries that are missing an actual mechanism of cause for the prediction.

12.  WHY DID THEY COME UP WITH THE IDEA OF CURVED-SPACE-TIME

Since orthodox gravitational thinking didn't consider the possibility that orbital drag is counteracting the added propulsion from light-speed gravitational aberration, that leaves them pinned into a corner of needing to explain how light-speed gravity would NOT be aberrated, and not throw orbital objects out of their orbits.   Basically, the lack of observation of orbital bodies being spun out of their orbits is the evidence that orthodox science considers the "proof" to conclude that gravity therefore can not be traveling as a force at the speed of light, or else they believe it would necessarily have to destabilize orbits.   This conclusion is obviously a mistake, but that leaves them required to then explain their conclusion that "gravity can't travel as a force at light speed", which in fact would need to act instantaneously in order to avoid any aberrated angle of the effect of gravity.   This mistaken conclusion then pinned them into a corner of needing to explain an instantaneous effect of gravity at infinite distance without anything propagating to convey that force.  That's a tough corner to be pinned into.  How can you explain that?    Basically, the only thing they could think of (that Einstein thought of) is that maybe "gravity isn't a force that propagates at all, and is instead an effect that is an attribute of the "curvature of space-time".   Maybe that gets them out of needing to explain their claim of non-aberrated gravity.  None of them really liked resorting to the idea of an instantaneous non-propagated-force, but they couldn't think of anything else that might explain how light-speed gravity isn't being aberrated and throwing orbital objects out of their orbits.  One wrong turn pinned them into a bad corner of needing to try to explain a chain of other seemingly impossible things.  That's curved space-time. 

13.  Several big problems with the idea of curved-space-time.

         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 the formulas are actually a different and separate thing than the idea of curved-space-time, and are independently correct regardless of the idea of curved-space-time.   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."  

   This paper will show how the 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.   Let's compare and contrast these two theories with each other.

If you remove the factor of pre-existing gravity from this bent rubber sheet model of the cause of gravity the balls would not be pulled down-hill on the bent rubber sheet and they would instead either just sit there unmoving or shoot off in a completely wrong direction the second they tried to travel around the central object.  Without pre-existing gravity already assumed to exist in this model of the "cause" of gravity there would be no gravitational result.   In essence, what the "bent fabric" model is claiming is that pre-existing gravity pulling in the direction towards the plane of the "bent fabric" causes the resulting gravity in the direction towards the mass. 

  If you're going to bother to assume there is pre-existing gravity in a model of the "cause" of gravity, why not just have the pre-existing gravity pull straight towards the mass in the first place instead of towards the plain of the bent-fabric, and this would cause the balls to "fall" directly towards mass without "bent-space-fabric".  In fact, if pre-existing gravity already pulled directly towards mass, then adding "bent space" would only make the orbiting balls shoot off in a completely wrong direction again.   Or if pre-existing gravity pulling towards the plain of the bent fabric is what causes gravity pulling towards mass, then what caused the pre-existing gravity pulling towards the plain of the bent fabric?   This "bent" model only serves well to hide the fact that a root cause of propulsion is not provided.

 You can't use a certain kind of force to define or explain the cause of that same force, or it disqualifies itself as an explanation of cause.   That would be like saying what causes wind to blow is wind blowing.   By using the force of gravity pull as a pre-existing premise in the bent-rubber-sheet explanation, it could be a demonstration of the relation of mass to motion paths, but it disqualifies itself from being an explanation of the cause of gravity.  You can however use an example of wind in action to help explain the motion of other wind action types.  For example you could say the swaying of grass from the wind is like the motion of the swaying of trees from the wind, and that's exactly what the bent rubber sheet model is doing, saying "gravity pulling balls on the rubber sheet is like gravity pulling moons in an orbit".  One doesn't explain the cause of the other, they are both only parallel examples of the same force (pre-existing gravity) in action, just a different way of demonstrating a relation between mass and similar motion paths.   

COMPARED TO AN ACTUAL EXPLANATION OF CAUSE

However, you could explain the cause of gravity by saying that "mass blocks some of the G-waves that would otherwise pass through the mass, and so the ambient background G-waves coming from the opposite direction blow harder in the direction towards mass compared to the direction coming away from mass, and so it is the relatively greater radiation pressure of G-waves blowing towards mass that causes the propulsion we perceive as gravity."   This explanation, like it or not, at least does not try to present to you the resulting action of pre-existing gravity to try to explain the cause of gravity.

We don't need a marble rolling down hill from gravity on bent-space-fabric to explain the cause of gravity.    Simple radiation pressure from specialized EM waves predicts and shows the mechanism of cause directly.   The radiation pressure of G-waves pushes the path of any trajectory of anything (including light) more towards the Sun than away from the Sun, because the Sun blocks some of the background ambient G-wave radiation pressure that would otherwise pass through the Sun.  And YES, it has been shown that radiation pressure can bend the path of light (discussed later).   There's no "bent space fabric" needed to explain this.  Gravity is caused by the simple push of physical forces, not "bent fabric".

BENT SPACE DOESN'T PREDICT ORBITAL PATHS

If you still have doubts, try to find where the rubber sheet model of gravity would necessarily dictate any of Einstein's formulas or the inverse square law.  It doesn't.  The shadow of radiation pressure would have to follow the inverse square law, exactly.   All of the rubber sheet trajectories are derived independently from real-world observations and then only overlaid onto the rubber sheet model after the fact, forcing the rubber sheet model to mimic observed trajectories.  So, of course they can force the rubber sheet model to mimic known gravity paths, they could force it to mimic anything.  But the rubber sheet model by itself, on its own, doesn't predict any of those paths, and so doesn't deserve credit for any predictions.  It's important to understand this distinction about the "bent-rubber-sheet space" model. 

INSTANTANIOUS STEERING AT INFINITE DISTANCE REQUIRED

Another huge problem with the "curved rubber space fabric" idea of the cause of gravity is that it requires that there is an instantaneous transmission of something in order to work.  If there was any delay between the change of location of orbital objects and the corrected steering adjustment of the direction of force (or direction that gravity "acts"), even at light speed, that necessarily introduces a lag in the corrected direction of force, which reintroduces gravitational aberration.  In order to eliminate gravitational aberration, there must be no time lag between location changes of distant objects and the corrected steering of the direction of force (or action) on other distant objects, regardless of the distances involved.   You can look in any Astrophysics book, or google search, to see that modern astrophysics theory says when calculating orbits, "gravitational effects are to be taken as instantaneous", and that means orbits are to be calculated with the pull directions straight between the current real-time positions of astronomical bodies, regardless of their movements or distance, NOT in the aberrated direction that light would approach between those bodies. 

 That means instantaneous.  That means no delay of steering (direction of force) adjustment between infinitely distant objects. That applies to calculating the orbits of planets in a solar system (light-minutes or light-hours away) as well as galaxies on the opposite sides of the universe (between objects a billion light years away from each other).    In order for the gravitational force to act straight towards the real-time current positions of moving objects, the direction of pull must be continually redirecting precisely towards the other objects with no time delay, because any time delay at all would cause the direction of pull to NOT point directly towards the real time position of the other moving object.    To achieve zero aberration, the "bent" model requires that the direction of pull that gravity acts must continually and instantaneously adjust to the correct direction straight towards the other object involved regardless of distance, and regardless of the speed and changing direction of movement of the other object.  How is this re-direction-that-gravity-acts adjustment supposed to know how its supposed to instantaneously adjust to continue to point straight towards a traveling object that could be a light-year away up to infinitely far away as it moves? That distant object could change directions and go in any other possible direction at any time. Even if you accepted "bent space" as real, bent space still needs to instantaneously adjust the direction that it acts towards a distant moving object, with no time delay.   So, how does this required instantaneous transmission of steering information happen?  That question needs to be answered for the "bent space" model, because instantaneous-steering-adjustments is the central needed requirement and premise in order to make the "bent space" model work.   Bent space only made people loose track of the instantaneous-steering-adjustment requirement, it didn't solve it.  

DUAL SIMULTANIOUS SPEED

Another huge problem with the "bent space" model is that they have also found through the global gravity wave detectors that changes in gravitational force ("gravity waves") do travel at light-speed through the universe.  Light-speed gravity is also required by Einstein's formulas.  So if changes in gravitational force (gravity waves) do travel at the speed of light, how is it that these changes of gravitational force are also transmitted instantaneously across supposedly infinite distances in order to cause these instantaneous "steering" adjustments to "curved space"?  That means that the "bent space" model also requires gravity to travel at two very different speeds simultaniously, light-speed and instantaneously. That's a huge problem with this theory, or more accurately, that makes this theory not make sense.  So how did the physics community handle this incompatibility?   They decided to call gravity various different names like "Delta gravity" and others  when talking about gravity traveling at different speeds.   By calling gravity by multiple different names when it suits them, that effectively made it sound like they weren't saying that "gravity" travels at two infinitely different speeds simultaneously.  But this is what this "bent" theory (with the different names for gravity) is saying if you pay close enough attention to what is being said.

BENT SPACE DOES NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS , IT ONLY OBSCURES THEM

The "curved space-time" model has served well in making people loose track of the problems that it's meant to explain.  This "bent rubber sheet" model needs pre-existing gravity to try to explain the motion of the curved path of a ball.  It needs instantaneous-steering-action at infinite distance to account for the needed steering adjustments.   And this model needs to claim that  gravity acts at two very different speeds simultaneously, both instantaneously and at light-speed at the same time.  But due to the tricky wording used around this subject, it's very difficult to even track down where physics claims that gravity acts instantaneously, as evidenced by the very high percent of physicists that will swear physics doesn't claim that gravity acts instantaneously.   Astrophysics books that describe how to calculate orbits use the tricky wording that "gravitational effects are to be taken as instantaneous" rather than saying "gravitational effects are instantaneous".    But the tricky wording and claims of this "bent space" model does serve well to hide these huge problems of what is inherent in this model, and so help avoid having to deal with these problems.    

MAGIC

The curved-space model DOES require that there is instantaneous effect at infinite distances without anything propagating across that distance to convey that force, which fits the definition of magic.  

IT TAKES AN INTRODUCED FORCE TO REDIRECT THE DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT OF MASS

       Further, Newton made a key proof that proves the existence of gravity as a force.  It goes like this.    There are two kinds of acceleration.  One type of acceleration exists in a straight forward direction, accelerating faster or slowing down.  Acceleration is a change in velocity.  But Velocity can change in two different ways.    The other type of velocity change is that you can keep the same speed but change the direction of movement.  Velocity change includes a change in direction. 

It doesn't matter if each of those small side pushes are additional energy pushing from the side or pushing in a direction that the object is already going which directly accelerates the speed of the moving object, those increments of added propulsion energy are the same amount of alteration to velocity.   

Another way of saying it is that if you see a curved path, that curved path takes as much newly introduced energy to cause the curved path as it does to accelerate that object to a greater speed.   This applies to all curved paths without exception.   If you don't see or know what's introducing new energy to push something into a curved path, that just means you don't know where that introduced energy is coming from, not that the needed newly introduced energy isn't there.

Apply this principle to the orbital path of the Moon.  The Moon is constantly changing its direction of motion as it orbits the Earth.   That curved path is a continuous acceleration requiring continually newly introduced energy because that path is constantly changing its direction of movement as the Moon's path curves.    This means there has to be a force that is constantly being introduced to redirect (bump to the side) the movement of the Moon.  You can't have redirections of the movements of bodies of mass without a newly introduced expenditure of energy as a force.  No matter how much you might not be aware of the cause of that force, the force must still exist in a continually newly introduced form 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 continually newly introduced pushing forces are the forces of newly incoming G-waves.

It's only a person who is not aware of these unseen forces of G-waves that might be tricked into concluding "the curved path must be happening without any force pushing it, so it must be some kind of bent-space-magic".  No, a curved path necessarily means there are constantly newly introduced forces acting to continually push and redirect that object into a curved direction.  And those constantly newly introduced pushing forces are newly incoming G-waves.    Keep in mind that the "curved-space-time" idea does not account for any newly introduced pushing forces to account for curved orbital paths, and so does not account for this concrete physics requirement for curved paths, it only works well to obscure this physics requirement.

CURVED SPACE IS NOT AN EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY

For all these reasons, the "bent fabric" model gets an "F" failing grade as a model of the cause of gravity.  This is why, to physicists who understand this subject correctly, they know that the rubber sheet (bent fabric) model is not an explanation of the cause of gravity,  and is instead only a visualization aid to give an example of resulting path type.  It's only those who don't understand this visualization aid correctly who mistakenly "retell" this concept as "the cause".  This is not just my assessment, it is the assessment of Professor Feynman, 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”.  

The top physicists in the world who truly understand the modern theory of gravity say point blank that "We know what gravity does, and we have formulas that predict orbital paths, but we don't understand the mechanism that causes gravity".  This is a much less publicized aspect of modern gravitational theory.

CURVED SPACE HAS BECOME AN EMPEROR'S CLOTHES SCENARIO

For all of these above mentioned many huge theory-smashing problems with the bent-space model (that isn't really an explanation of cause in the first place) many of the physicists of Einstein's era thought the idea of curved-space didn't make sense, which it doesn't.  But enough other physicists of Einstein's era said "yea, I can't think of anything else that would explain why orbits aren't destabilizing", and so there became a great political pressure in the scientific community to act like the bent-space concept made sense, and not be the one to say "It doesn't make sense to me, it's full of holes".  In other words, it became an Emperor's Clothes scenario where people didn't want to be the one to say "I don't see the Emperor's clothes".  Disagreeing with what they thought Einstein was saying would have been very harming to their physics careers and test scores.   

But Einstein didn't say the "bent-space" idea was an actual cause of gravity, only a visualization aid of the relationship of mass to motion type (which is correct), so the belief that "bent-space" is supposed to be an actual cause is actually only a misunderstanding.  But this misunderstanding still holds the full sway of effect for most people as though it was claimed to be a cause.  Einstein said "We have no idea what mechanism causes gravity", but that's buried in history, or assumed by most people that "well, Einstein didn't really mean that". 

14.  Dark Matter Effect Without Dark Matter      

        The concentration of these gravity-causing "push" waves  ("G-waves") could easily be not exactly equal throughout the entire universe.  On an intergalactic scale, it would likely be more like a high or low pressure system in our Earth weather, with varying concentrations in different galaxies.  If there were a higher concentration of these waves in some other galaxy the gravitational "pull" (actually push) would be stronger per amount of  mass (more waves = more push per same amount of mass), causing there to be a greater observed gravitational pull per amount of matter.  If this were the case, this would predict a varying range of extra "pull" strength per same amount of matter in different galaxies, with greater differences in galaxies farther away.  This is exactly what is observed to occur in many other galaxies, ranging  all the way up to ten times more pull per same amount of matter in some other galaxies.  This variable strength aspect is exactly what is predicted by the G-wave theory, and this is exactly what is observed in reality.  This is talking about the amount of pull strength required per amount of mass in order to keep those galaxies from flying apart as they spin. 

 However, if orthodox gravitational theory ("curved-space-time") were correct instead, gravity would have a single fixed amount of pull strength per amount of matter that remains constant throughout the entire universe, with physicists calling this hypothetical fixed pull-strength  a "gravitational constant".    A fixed gravitational constant is exactly what is NOT observed to occur in many other galaxies, ranging up to a factor of ten times stronger gravity per amount of observed matter in many other galaxies.   But rather than physicists admitting they are wrong about there being a single fixed gravitational constant, as is clearly observed, they instead choose to conclude that since they can't be wrong about their belief in a gravitational constant, there must instead be ten times more invisible matter out there than all the other detectable matter in the universe combined in order to correct for how far wrong their gravitational predictions are.  This invented hoped-to-exist, theory rescuing matter is what they decided to call "Dark Matter". 

         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" should be virtually impossible to exist in a naturally occurring form. 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.

15.   No Free Lunch

         Professor Feynman clarifies what we know about the cause of any force as follows: “One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin.” (Feynman et al, 1964, Vol. 1, p. 12-2).   For a car or bowling ball to accelerate rapidly, and be propelled forward, and then reduce speed to a stop, then reverse directions and accelerate rapidly in the opposite direction, takes the expenditure of energy.

  However, in orthodox astrophysics, this concrete law of physics is ignored when the scenario is a comet instead of a car, and that comet is traveling in a very highly elliptical orbit around the sun, so that its motion is going nearly straight towards and away from the sun,  instead of a round orbit.

  That comet is speeding up, clearly accelerating when headed towards the sun, slowing down after passing the sun, stopping, reversing direction, accelerating back towards the sun, and so on continuously back and forth, the same acceleration motions we were talking about when referencing the car and the "concrete law of physics".  The only difference is that orthodox astrophysics is not considering the possibility that EM waves could be continually pushing the comet and accounting for the required propulsion force, and so it is instead assumed there's nothing pushing the comet and so it must be something else weird "not" causing this propulsion like "bent-space" or such.   But, no, not knowing what is pushing the comet does not mean this "push" and "energy required" law does not apply.  The physical cause of a highly elliptical comet's motion is that there are more G-waves headed towards the Sun than away from the Sun, because the Sun blocks some small percent of the G-waves passing through the Sun.   This G-wave imbalance causes items in our solar system to be impacted with a greater number of G-waves headed towards the Sun than the number of G-waves headed away from the Sun.  Each G-wave impact transfers a little push energy, so the 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 energy transfer pushes.  It's the rapid succession of continual G-wave impacts, and the reduction of the G-waves coming from the direction of the sun, and the even flow of these incoming waves, that causes the illusion that there is any other action involved here than the simple kinetic energy transfer of one thing bumping into another and pushing it forward. 

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. 

16.   Potential Energy Without Potential Energy

         According to the highly-elliptical-orbit-comet scenario just explained above, the comet would also be gaining "potential energy" as it went "up" and away from the Sun, but it can now be seen that the potential energy expected to throw it back down is actually just the hope that the G-waves will continue flowing towards the Sun and continue transferring their new kinetic energy, which in truth might and could stop at any time.  It is only the long consistency and reliability track record of past kinetic energy transfers of G-waves that makes what we anticipate as "potential energy" seem like a sure enough bet of happening again to appear as anything different than an expected-in-the-future continuation of future kinetic energy transfer.  But since it might not happen, potential energy is really only a "hope" and a "good bet" for another push, until it actually happens, and then when it does happen it's just current kinetic energy transfer.  That makes potential energy actually nothing other than expected in the future kinetic energy push.   

If I push you only once, is that really a different "type" of energy than if I push you so often that you expect I'm going to push you again?   That makes potential energy the same type of energy as kinetic energy, just a different consistency of the pushes.

17.   Physical Matter is Standing Waves

           When there are a series of waves coming in from different directions, there can be a phenomena created known as a "standing wave".  

  A standing wave must be continually re-manifested by new incoming wave energy or it would cease to exist, or at least cease to have time pass for it.  The physical universe would cease to exist (or have time pass for it) without this continually incoming wave energy.

 What looks to us like "matter" is just standing waves.  So all that exists is either waves that can look like matter, or waves that can look like waves (energy), or the 99.9999% vast majority of waves that we don't interact with at all, that looks like empty space.  There is nothing but waves looking like different things. 

Matter is not a different substance than waves that can change its substance into waves  (E=mc2).  Instead, matter is always composed of only interacting waves, and as such, by simply having the waves interact differently, this can release some amplitude (or small part) of the waves to "take off in a different solo direction", which we then see as a huge amount of released energy (E=mc2).  But matter never actually "changes" from a different substance into a wave, it is always composed of only waves.  It only looks to us like something different than wave energy because of the standing wave illusion.

18.  Quantum Mechanics and Standing Waves

         The common conceptual model of an atom is that electrons and atomic particles are represented as little balls in tiny solar-system-type orbits above the nucleus, and that these particles have these special rules they need to follow.  One of these strange rules is that the electrons must exist in only certain incremental "heights" of above the atomic nucleus, not in orbital paths but in the shape of a "shell" around the nucleus, and can't even exist in transit between those incremental height shells, meaning they must disappear from one orbital height shell and instantaneously appear at a different orbital height shell.  No in-between positions allowed, and so no traveling between the two positions is allowed.  Positions and energy levels must come only in increments that are called "quanta", with this whole incremental phenomena being called "Quantum Mechanics".  

It doesn't make any sense as to why the model of an atom being like a little solar system would cause these "rules".  If an electron were like a little rock it could travel anywhere between the different fixed orbital height levels as it travels from one height level to another, and it could travel along single line orbital paths, not be positioned spread out in fixed height level "shells" around the nucleus.

         However, if electrons were instead standing waves,  like sonar wave fronts radiating out from the nucleus, they would naturally be shell/sphere shaped with the shell equidistant from the nucleus, and waves (like ripples in a pond radiating out from a pebble drop) can only exist with incremental spacing between them or they wouldn't be rippling waves. 

   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. 

WALKERS

Another way of expressing this alternative idea of "quantum mechanics" is to think of an electron as a standing wave "thing" of it's own which is continually interacting with a vibrating background medium.  That makes it impossible to understand electrons without looking at how the electron is interacting with the vibrating background medium.  

A good way to demonstrate this principle is with an experiment that vibrates a petri dish of silicon oil.  When a droplet of that same oil is dropped onto the vibrating surface of the oil, the energy of the drop falling pushes the surface of the oil down.  The air gap stops the oil drop from adhering and joining the surface of the oil, so the droplet bounces back up. But the impact of the droplet interacts with the vibrations of the oil surface to create a slowly moving standing wave on the surface of the oil.  The vibrations of the oil also feedback into maintaining the bounces of the oil-drop, creating successive bounces of the droplet which land on the leading edge of the slowly moving standing wave of the background medium, which slowly moves the droplet forward as it continues to bounce.  These oil droplets that travel like this over a vibrating background medium are called "walkers".   

All well and good.  But where it gets interesting is when these walkers are submitted to conditions that mimic the tests of quantum mechanics, such as the double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, and a quantum corral, the test results match the "spooky" results known for quantum mechanics.  

That's too many long-shot similarities to be just coincidence. This is all to say that electrons are a standing wave "small area thing" that is accompanied by and interacting with a wider surrounding "pilot" standing wave action of a background medium.  You can't understand one without the other.

 Nearly a hundred years ago Louis de Broglie, a quantum theorist, proposed that all particles have a wave that accompanies them and guides their motion, and that wave is created by tiny oscillations of the particle.  This "pilot wave" theory was not nearly as popular as the standard "Copenhagen interpretation" which became what most physicists of the time "voted" for, and so has been taught to new students from then on.

19.   Universal Redshift and The Big Bang

         The observation that "the farther away a galaxy the greater the redshift of its light reaching us" is commonly interpreted as proof that the whole universe is expanding from a "Big Bang" starting point.  One possible cause of the redshift of light is indeed that the light source is speeding away from you, with that speed being proportional to the amount of redshift.  However, it has also been observed that light passing through certain mediums also causes redshift.  The more material passed through the greater the redshift.  

 Maybe galaxies are traveling at over double the speed of light, but it's also possible that some (or maybe up to all) of the average star's increasing redshift with distance is caused from light passing through "interference", which also increases proportionally with increased distance, and would cause an amount of redshift raising proportional to the distance, just as observations show.   Interference could be causing all of the general trend of increased redshift with distance instead of it being from any general trend of universal expansion.  This means the phenomena that there is a general redshift occurring of the starlight we see doesn't tell us if the universe is necessarily expanding at all, how old the universe is, or if there even was a "Big Bang". 

So if there wasn't a Big Bang starting point, how did the universe begin?   The problem is not the answer, its in the assumption of the question.  The universe didn't just "begin" at some point and "pop" into existence.  It's ongoing.   It's only our limited concepts that feels a need to put a familiar "beginning" to it.

20.  Time Dilation

Suppose that "time passing" for an area (& particle of matter) is a function of the frequency of  G-waves incoming from different directions which create the "standing wave" we perceive as matter particles.  Loosely speaking, suppose it takes a full "back and forth" movement of a certain kind of vibration of matter (pendulum) to equal one unit of alteration to the wave area, and when there are less of these special waves coming from one direction, the vibration (back and forth) speed is limited to the lesser waves rate of the fewer waves side.  Ten waves from one side and twenty waves from the opposing side can only cause ten back and forth vibrations, and thus time would function at half speed relative to an area that received twenty waves from both sides. 

There are two naturally occurring reasons that would cause a reduced rate of G-waves to reach something from one side compared to its other side.   One of the reasons is an object traveling extremely fast. When an object travels fast (relative to light-speed), any waves approaching from behind would be redshifted.  Redshifted G-waves impact at a slower rate than non-shifted waves.  This is why traveling extremely fast would cause time to slow down for an object.   Time-dilation (the % that time slows down) from speed occurs in exact proportion to the occurrence of the frequency decrease (redshift) of light that approaches from behind a speeding object.  Not close to within a few decimal places, ... it's an exact match to the farthest calculation decimal.  That's far to exact of an unlikely match to be only fluke coincidence.  This is saying that time dilation is caused by the simple Redshift (frequency decrease) of G-waves that impact the trailing side of a speeding object, which then impacts the speeding item at a slower rate from the trailing side.  Time dilation is Redshift.   This means if a thing reached the full speed of light, the passage of time would stop entirely for that thing because the light-speed waves approaching from behind could never catch up and impact the speeding object from behind, causing zero G-waves to impact from behind, causing zero time to pass for that object. 

The other reason for an imbalance of incoming G-waves from opposite sides is that a large object of mass would block some percent of the G-waves that would otherwise come from its direction, and so cause relatively fewer G-waves to impact a nearby object from the direction of the large object of mass.  Thus exceedingly large amounts of mass can also cause time distortion (time slowing) in its area, proportional to the amount of G-wave shading on at least one side of an object.  It's basically a reduced rate of incoming G-waves from shading.  This is why the lesser gravity exerted on our Earth satellites causes satellite clocks to run a micro bit faster compared to ground clocks.  All satellite clocks must have their time adjusted to compensate for this. 

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 an object reaches the "event horizon" (explained next) surface of a black hole, G-waves stop reaching the falling object from the direction of the black hole itself because they are blocked from passing through the black hole from horizon to horizon, and thus (according to the G-wave time dilation explanation) time stops for that fallen matter and has already stopped for everything beneath it (the black hole itself).  Time stoppage for an object that reaches the event horizon of a black hole, therefore means the falling object can't move or crush any farther.  This makes the event horizon itself the zone where things transition into a frozen-in-time collection of the latest things to fall.  That means, the matter in a Black Hole (and at the event horizon surface) 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 or emit light.  Once it reaches a Black Hole (time frozen) state, newly fallen things freeze in time joining the Black Hole surface area like newly fallen snow, making the Black Hole ever increasingly bigger and wider, not crushed down to a singularity "point".  Time stoppage for that whole area also means density can not increase over "time".   Also, it is the shadow of G-waves that causes the far reaching effect we perceive as gravity,  so a Black Hole can not be a "singularity point" because a point would cast no shadow and so have no gravitational effect.  

         The moment a super massive star gains enough other matter falling into it to stop all the G-waves that would otherwise pass through it, the time-freezing initiates fully at the sphere zone of full blockage, and at that zone matter stops being able to compress, and it stops being able to emit light, making us no longer able to see the "time frozen" star, which is why it appears to us as black.  

  In contrast, the current orthodox belief about black holes is that they are a "singularity point" where all the matter of the black hole has continued to crush down past the "event horizon" all the way down until the entire mass of the black hole has been squeezed down over time into a pin-point size smaller than an atomic particle, and that the "event horizon" surface of a black hole is nothing more that the elevation at which light can no longer reach escape velocity (usually many hundreds of thousands of miles above the singularity point), making the space between the "light-escape event horizon" and the "singularity point" empty of any mass, other than the latest things that are falling through.  That's what current science believes.  Orthodox calculations follow what would happen over time as things fall below the event horizon and do increasingly exotic things as they continue to fall into the singularity point of a Black Hole, but they are forgetting that's all nonsense if time doesn't pass that allows any of that to happen.  Even orthodox physics says the closer you get to the event horizon of a Black Hole the more time slows down, and stops completely at the event horizon, so why would anything continue to crush down past the event horizon if time has completly stopped for it?    But, that's the current orthodox belief about black holes, which the G-wave theory of gravity and time dilation says is all wrong. 

The G-wave theory of gravity & time dilation says that the inner core of a black hole is usually a full sized super massive star frozen in time, covered by an outer layer of newly fallen frozen-in-time non-crushed things. It still looks like a traditional black hole from the outside, but if you average out the not-dense outer time-frozen layer with the naturally high density of the inner time-frozen star, the whole Black Hole is usuually less dense with matter (per inner volume area) than the most massive of all the stars out there.  It's just more massive  than the most massive of the other stars out there, and its diameter keeps growing larger as new non-crushed matter falls on it like time-frozen snowflakes.   

        Regardless of the size or mass of a Black Hole, there can never be any less than zero G-waves coming up through 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.

The light that tries to leave the event horizon of a black hole can't leave the event horizon because time isn't passing at the event horizon that would allow an atomic movement action that would cause light, not because of an "escape velocity" gravity problem for that light.  That's why a black hole is black.  However, the escape-velocity-gravity factor does cause an effect on objects nearing the size of a  black hole.  Some of the suns out there that are near massive enough to reach a black hole state, but not quite there yet, would have enough gravity that the light from that star would be greatly slowed down by the gravity of that star, causing that light to be red-shifted to any possible degree.

That means that we have now described three different possible causes of the redshift of starlight in this paper; 1) something speeding away from us, 2) interference (passing through the medium of wave-filled space), and 3) near-black-hole sized gravity slowing the escape-velocity speed of light. 

 That means that when astronomers claim that a star is moving away from us at twice the speed of light based only on their red shift readings alone, that doesn't necessarily mean that star is traveling away from us at all (although it might be), leaving us not certain of how much each factor is contributing to the observed redshift. 

Keep in mind, Einstein said he didn't believe in "black holes" as envisioned by the mainstream other physicists at that time, and so in fact, this new envisionment of a "time frozen star" is agreeing with Einstein in the aspect that the other mainstream envisionment of black holes is wrong.  

Actually, there is twice as much G-wave energy in the "empty" space pushing on your nose right now (if you count two opposing directions that cancel each other out), than there is on the event horizon of a super massive Black Hole, which has G-waves pushing in only one direction towards the black hole.

 One of the most massive stars we have seen in the universe so far is called R136a1, and has been estimated to have a mass of near 300 times that of our Sun. 

 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.  So we can estimate that if you diverted all the G-waves that would otherwise strike your nose from the left (leaving zero G-waves striking your nose from the left), the ambient 100% of the G-waves coming from the right side would continue to push your nose from the right side (now unopposed) with the same force exerted on the surface of a Black Hole, which the above calculation estimated to be a minimum of around 9,000 times Earth's gravity.  That's the force amount that can be exerted on a space vehicle to propel it by a full deflection of all 100% of the ambient G-waves that would otherwise strike it from the direction you'd want the ship to go.  By this calculation, we can estimate the power that can be extracted out of seemingly empty space to be in the ballpark of a minimum of a force equaling 9,000 time's Earth's gravity pushing (in one direction) on whatever we place in this deflection field, or far more than that if we were to extract energy coming in from all the other opposing directions simultaneously. 

         If the gravitational force on the surface of a Black Hole were instead calculated by taking the total gravitational force observed (by the pull it exerts on nearby star systems & such) applied to being emitted from something the size of a baseball, the force per surface square inch would go up astronomically because of how small of an area the force is being attributed to.  

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).  

    R136a1 has been estimated to have a radius of about 35 times that of our sun, which means a little above that would be a loose estimate of the Event Horizon size of its sphere when the time freezing would initiate for it if it were to gain enough mass to turn into a Black Hole.  That makes just a little above its original size the likely ball-park size of its event horizon it would maintain for quite a while when becoming a black hole.  However , if a much more condensed mass like a neutron star were to gain more neutron stars until it reached the transition amount of mass, the sphere size at transition would be far smaller, meaning the event horizon of this emerging black hole would be much smaller. So the event horizon of different black holes at the transition point of them becoming black holes can be of very different sizes.

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.

Another way to look at the amount of G-wave energy that exists around you right now (touching your nose) is to compare how much sunlight it would take for the light of regular sunlight to push down hard enough (via radiation pressure) to equal the push force of gravity on Earth.  Loosely speaking, that's "sunburn" times a million. That would be far more visible sunlight hitting you than would come off the Sun if you were three feet away from the Sun's surface.  Now imagine that same amount of sunlight three feet away from the Sun's surface (times 315 times stronger), except it's of an invisible wavelength, not visible to the human eye.  That's how much nonvisible "sunlight of G-waves" is available everywhere, right in front of your nose, transferable to momentum (push) or electricity, never dimmed by clouds or anything else (except black holes).  That's more energy than you could ever have a use for, available everywhere.

G-waves are absorbed in proportion to the amount of mass of the object.  For example, look at this X-Ray picture and note how the denser heavier bone material catches proportionally more X-Rays than the lighter tissue areas.

This is to say that the "G-wave wind catching ability" of mass is proportional to the amount of mass, somewhat like a bigger boat has a proportionally bigger sail that catches proportionally more wind, providing proportionally more propulsion energy.  

For example, if a feather has "1 mass unit" and a bowling ball has a thousand "mass units" of weight, the feather would absorb 1 mass unit of propulsion energy, and the bowling ball would absorb a thousand mass units of propulsion energy.   But since it takes the bowling ball a thousand times more propulsion energy to move it to the same speed as the feather the end resulting speed is the same for both of them.  This is to say that they would both "fall" (be propelled) at the same speed (minus the wind resistance factor).

Another way to envision this is to imagine the lowest possible common denominator of mass measurement that all sub-atomic particles or EM waves could possibly be composed of, and imagine that each of those tiny equivalent mass components had an equivalent ability to catch the wind of G-waves (equivalent sail size). Let's call these equivalent smallest mass and sail-size components a "quanta-sail".  

Every single individual quanta-sail  weighs the same (has the same mass) as any other quanta-sail, and would catch an equal amount of G-waves while in the same G-wave field intensity. If one quanta sail receives "one unit of propulsion energy", ten quanta sails would receive ten units of propulsion energy, propelling the ten quanta-sails to the same speed as the single quanta sail.    It doesn't matter if one quanta-sail is sitting all by itself, or near or attached to a million other quanta-sails, any possible quanta-sail grouping would still be propelled to same speed as any other quanta-sale grouping (in that same G-wave field), making the groupings of the quanta-sails irrelevant to their end resulting same speed.  Heavier items of mass are simply composed of larger groupings of "quanta sails" compared to smaller items of mass.  This is why a bowling ball falls at the same speed as a feather (absent the wind resistance factor). 

There is a chain of pushing events, with a bunch of things pushing into each other, with the tire pushing against the ground, pushing the axel which pushes into the car frame, which pushes the car seat into the back of the drivers body, which squashes into the middle of the driver's body, which pushes into the front of the drivers body, etc, with all these things applying pressure and squishing into each other.   This compression pressure, commonly called the "G force", can become so great in a fighter pilot's jet acceleration that it can kill a pilot.  

  But Why would things feel like they were floating while everything was actually being propelled to speed up rapidly and accelerate as fast as a race car stepping on the gas pedal?  The difference is that when G-waves push something, they push directly on all individual internal sub-atomic particles of things simultaneously, while the jet fighter and dragster engines only push on one outside side surface of things, which makes all atoms of the whole thing squash into each other in the chain of all the other parts of the thing.

This is a bit like  a row of cars where only the farthest back car is the only propulsion source for the whole row of cars, and so the farthest back car by itself needs to push the entire row of  "dead" cars in front of it, by each car pushing bumper into bumper into each other car in order for the whole line of dead cars to move.  

  It is when all atoms and sub-atomic particles of a thing are propelled directly, equally and simultaneously that an item can be propelled and accelerated with no apparent difference in pushing force on different parts of the item, with no compression pressure.  This is what "falling" is.

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 strength per distance from the nucleus, which shows it to be this same simple G-wave shadow action causing it on an atomic scale.  The strength of an electric field only seems much stronger than the force of gravity because the distance between the nucleus and the electron (the two objects casting a G-wave shadow on each other) 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 is 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 wave types and different materials needed.

26.  The Grand Unification Theory

        This "G-wave shadow, push" theory of the cause of gravity explains how what "looks" like the force of gravity is really nothing other than the  kinetic energy transfer of certain EM waves bumping into things and pushing them forward.  As this paper has explained, this same simple kinetic energy transfer action of EM waves can be extended to explain heat, potential energy, dark matter, physical matter (as a standing wave), quantum mechanics, time dilation, Black Holes, the electric force and magnetism, time itself, and all other only seemingly different force types, making this the key to understanding all seemingly different force types as really only our different imaginings of the same underlying single force type of the kinetic energy transfer of EM waves, or forms of "light".  There is nothing but this same simple energy and action type that plays out in many ways, that only looks like different energy types when seen from afar. Up close, it's just EM wave (light) interaction dynamics that causes it all. 

 There can be no Grand Unification Theory if all force types are not actually composed of only one single underlying single force type.  That means one force must not only cause all other forces, it must actually be all other forces.  In order for there to be a correct Grand Unification Theory there can be only one force type that exists.   This paper is describing that one single underlying force type that can be extrapolated to explain what looks like all different force types, and that one single underlying force type is the kinetic energy transfer of electromagnetic waves (light) applied with optical and quantum principles.  This one single force type (of the results of "light" or EM waves) can produce vastly different effects by altering differing aspects of that light, such as the differences in frequencies, wavelengths, polarization, and spin direction, etc. all applied to various phenomena of optics and quantum phenomena.  This is what turns into what seems to be endless different phenomena and materials.  When you get down to the most base constituent elements of all things, there is no suction, attraction, pull, gravity or "fields", but rather everything is made of "pushes" of EM waves applied to optical and quantum principles of that light.  

 The whole universe, all matter and energy, being created from one single underlying force type would be the the simplest design, and the simplest design is far more likely, both from a "designer" origin, or from having happened all on it's own, or from a combination of the two, at least compared to an insanely convoluted design that needs hundreds of different custom force types and thousands of different underlying building block types in order to function.  There is no simpler design than having only one single building block being responsible for manifesting what looks like all matter and all energy, and that one single building block is waves, or loosely speaking different forms of "light". 

On top of this, it just so happens that this one single building block can explain all matter and all energy.   Greater understanding lets you trace back more seemingly convoluted things back to the same base constituent causes.

***

ANOTHER REMINDER, WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT ALL THIS ACADEMIC THEORY

 Remember, this theory predicts and explains a potential way to harvest a new extremely powerful and nearly free energy source, and a way to control and manipulate gravity.  In order to understand how this works, and maybe have you help in the steps to bring this technology to the public, it requires you to understand some base concepts first.  So if you'd like to play some part to help completely transform this world, open up travel to the stars, provide free energy for everyone, end the need for gas, nuclear power, war, world hunger, pollution, global warming, and on and on, then read on with this in mind.

27.   A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

By reducing the volume of G-waves coming from the direction of a black hole (or massive object) from the blockage of G-waves, this manifests to observers as what looks like proportionally MORE energy (more gravity) appearing as added energy to things falling and crushing next to a black hole.  You might say that the reduction of "invisible/background" energy (by being blocked and absorbed by matter) is translated into an equivalent or proportional amount of additional "visible" noticeable energy of increased gravity.

  Tesla said that there is no difference between empty space and matter filled space other than that empty space is like it's "asleep" and matter filled space is like it's "awake".  Really think about that for a second.  This conservation of energy principal between empty and "matter filled" space is exactly what he was talking about. 

However, an area of space with more mass and/or more apparent energy can't telegraph out to the universe to "ask" for more incoming waves to manifest its greater apparent energy or greater mass amount.  That means the only way for more apparent energy or more mass to ever exist anywhere (in any one place) is for there to already be at least that much or more wave energy already coming in and existing (passing through) at all places, everywhere (loosely speaking).  This is to say that, loosely speaking, in order for the standing wave model of matter to work, there must already be "more than enough" incoming wave energy passing through everywhere, (whether there is physical matter in a location or not) to be available to re-manifest the most possible mass that could possibly exist, with the only difference between one area and another area being how much of the background waves are tapped into and drawn from to re-manifest the previously existing matter.  That means the biggest possible manifested energy that can or could possibly exist most anywhere (to where we could notice it in any one place) is still only a tiny fraction of the "full background energy" that must already exist most everywhere.  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.

THE PATTERN OF THE UNIVERSE

The pattern of the way genetics work in living organisms is that every cell in your body has the full gene information of your whole body existing in the background in each and every little cell in your entire body, while each cell only draws from and expresses a tiny fraction of the whole body information it contains to manifest its separated cell in a unique way in its particular location.  That's what makes a finger cell different than an eyeball cell, even though they each contain all of the complete gene information of the whole body.  You might say that the pattern of life itself is that "all is in each little part, with only a tiny bit of it all manifesting in each part".   It's interesting to note that the pattern of the functioning that is being described above for the manifestation of physical matter and energy is that  "maximum energy is already in each and every little part, with only a tiny bit of it manifesting in each area".  This repeated pattern of the way the universe works is the same pattern that unifies all physical forces with the same pattern of life itself.  This is the base pattern of the functioning of the universe.  It's interesting to note that certain ancient spiritual texts also speak of the idea that "all is in each little part, with only a tiny bit of the whole manifesting in each part".  Here's that pattern again.

28.   THE SPEED OF LIGHT, AND THE SPEED OF CAUSALITY

Any time a question of speed is asked about near light-speeds, it is critical to keep in mind that speed is a ratio of distance over time passage; i.e. "60 miles/hr".   But time passes at a different rate at different locations, gravity and speed-conditions, so the speed measurement of a thing is not a single fixed measurement that is true from all observer's clocks simultaneously.   It depends on where you're measuring time from.   If only half as much time passes for you in the location where you're at, it would seem to you as though you're going twice as fast.  For instance, if a space ship was traveling at 99.5% the speed of light as measured by Earth clocks it would cause the space ship's occupant's time to pass at a rate 1/10th as fast as on Earth, and so if that ship traveled ten light-years of distance at that speed,  only one year of time would have passed for the ship's occupants during that ten-Earth-year trip, making that a speed of TEN TIMES LIGHT-SPEED as measured by the ship occupant's clock.

What doesn't vary is that while the clock speeds of light can look very different to different observers, no mater what your observer perspective is, things aren't going to be traveling faster than light beams.   The more time slows down for an observer, due to speed or gravity, the proportionally faster you (and light) appears to be able to go.  For example, if time appears to be going at half speed for you, the speed limit of light (or how fast you could potentially go) appears to double, to twice light-speed.  If your space ship is going fast enough to slow time to one one-hundredth normal time-rate, meaning you could potentially go a hundred light years of distance in one year of your ship time, that means the outside light beams are also going to be going a hundred times the speed of light by your clock.   What's happening at multiples of the speed of light is just that time is slowing down for you, making it look to you like you're going faster, not that you're ever actually going faster than the light beams around you, at least not via regular propulsion means. 

There's also another complication to the speed of light.  When you're measuring the winner of a normal kind of race, or measuring the clock-speed-time click out time for a normal thing passing a finish line, you have a definite position of the racing-thing as it crosses the finish line.  With light, you don't have that definite position to be able to measure.  This is because all light ( all EM waves) have a probability of its "photon" being in any one particular place spread out over the length of the wave.  So if a wave is a hundred feet long, you can't just count the front of the wave as the position of the "photon", it's more likely to be somewhere back along a bell curve over that wave length.  Picture one runner of a race being a ghostly thing spread out over a hundred feet long without an exact position.   So if you count the most likely location for a "photon" to be along the length of that wave, you'd be counting the position mid-way along the length of the wave, which alters the speed-measurement of that wave, and makes longer wavelengths of EM waves calculated as being "slower" than shorter wavelengths of light.  That means there would be "different" speeds of light.

However, this "mid position" odds measurement isn't always the case and isn't exactly accurate.   There's also real-world "things" that can slow the speed of a passing light beam, such as the medium it's passing through.  And different wavelengths are slowed differently by a medium that slows light.  That's what makes a prism make different wavelengths shoot out from a prism at different angles.  What you could say accurately is that the fastest possible position measurement for a photon of light would be the position right at the farthest front of its wavelength, and if this "fastest possible" position and ideal non-interfered medium was used for speed measurement, that would be the same for all wavelengths of light.  It is this fastest possible speed & position & non-slowed measurement for light that Einstein gave the special term "the speed of Causality", and considered a "constant" because it is a fastest "potential" speed.   As you can see, the speed of real light can not be a constant because real light never reaches it's fastest potential speed, and real light has many potential variables to its speed.   

In terms of miles per second, both light speed and the "speed of Causality" would both look nearly indistinguishable to an Earth observer, and so could loosely be thought of as the same speed for most purposes.   That "ball-park" speed is 186,282 miles per second. But the closer a thing gets to going the speed of light the more this tiny difference in actual speed shows a different real-world result.  

  However, the head-light beam as seen and judged by Earth clocks, would look like it was going regular light-speed, the same as all other light, but would instead  have its wavelength look shortened (blue-shifted) to us.

In the famous formula E=mc2  the letter "c" is commonly said to stand for "the speed of light".  But what the "c" actually stands for is the speed of "causality".  The "c" is only commonly explained as "the speed of light" because this "speed of light" terminology  is going to get the basic idea across with a whole lot less explaining than is needed for "the speed of causality" (as explained above), and in most situations the distinction isn't going to make a meaningful difference.   But the distinction does make the speed of Causality always a little faster than the speed of light, or rather the highest potential speed that light could go if it had infinite energy and an infinitely short wavelength.

The distinctions that are described in this section for light-speed and the speed of causality might seem trivial to most people and of no consequence to "our real world".   However, if the speed of real light was not slower than the speed of Causality, then the formula E=mc2 would require "photons" of light (which all have mass) to need to use infinite energy to accelerate to light-speed, which would actually prevent light itself from ever being able to reach light-speed. And wouldn't that be silly, that light couldn't go light-speed.   But that's why it's a "c" in the famous formula E=mc2 , for the speed of "causality" and not an "L" for the speed of light.   When you first heard that the "c" in this formula stood for "light", didn't you wonder why they didn't use an "l" for "light", rather than a "c" for "light"?    This is why.

This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against some aether theories, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which is interpreted as evidence that there is not motion against an aether. Of this experiment, Albert Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption."

This would make the Michelson-Morley experiment not able to detect any motion of the instrument through an aether, and so make the test results NOT mean there is no aether. 

So one might wonder, is this "luminiferous aether" the same thing as the background radiation of G-waves?  The answer is NO.  The background radiation of G-waves is fundamentally no different that the background radiation of starlight, microwaves, cosmic rays, or any other electromagnetic waves that naturally permeate space.  They are all just "invisible" electromagnetic waves of various types & wavelengths, going in all directions in space, they are not a "carrier medium".   The question of if these waves have a carrier medium they are vibrating in is a separate question for which the answer either way does not alter the existence or action of G-waves or any other EM wave type, and is a subject for a different paper. 

30.   If This Is So Simple, Why Didn't Einstein Figure This Out?

         Of course Einstein figured this out.   As did Tesla, and likely for the most part Oppenheimer, Teller, Wheeler, and many of the other top physicists of that time period.  However, the physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project (nuclear bomb) in the 1940's worked under a "gag" order on their top secret research, and so were not allowed to publish the real science of how those top secret weapons worked while those weapons remained top secret and classified.  The power potential of harnessing G-waves is vastly more powerful than any possible nuclear bomb and so would obviously be considered "above" top secret by the national security establishment, and any scientist working on those projects would not be allowed to publish books or papers about it, nor reveal certain key classified information.  In fact, there would be no greater national security secret to keep.  With G-waves being able to produce a weapon that could blow up the entire Earth with a single button, the black ops military department trying to keep this a secret would certainly encourage the famous scientists working on these projects to release only public statements that would act as a red-herring cover story on this subject that would lead the Soviet Union and the rest of the world down a dead end path.  In this case, the red-herring would be the idea of curved-space-time being the mechanism that causes gravity.

For many years Einstein was earnest in his presentation of his curved-space-time theory as a demonstration of the relation of mass to motion type, even though most people lost the distinction that this was not supposed to be a mechanism of cause, but there is strong evidence to suggest that Einstein did eventually figure out the other answer of EM waves being the actual mechanism that causes gravity.  But by this time the gag order was in effect, and Einstein couldn't reveal this publically.  After figuring out the real solution of EM waves, and being unable to talk about it publically, I believe Einstein was actually disappointed in all the publically free-to-speak physicists around the world who just kept going along with the "bent-space" idea as a cause of gravity, just because those other physicists weren't catching all the problems with this theory or figuring out the actual solution. But again, Einstein couldn't say so publically because of the national security gag order.  

This is not to be confused with Einstein's formulas themselves, because the cat was already out of the bag on these amazing formulas, which were correct, and not actually associated with the curved space idea.  The publically declared story was then that Einstein spent all the rest of the years of his life unsuccessfully trying to figure out a Grand Unification Theory, how all the different forces were connected and caused by the same single underlying force, but the public story is that he failed in his attempt to figure this out.  I believe the real story is that he did figure this out about the time of him figuring out how EM waves cause gravity, and Einstein worked on the whole anti-gravity and radar-invisibility projects (the Philadelphia Experiment) but the same national security gag order applied for the rest of his life, and so his even more amazing accomplishments are just not known publically.   At least this is what I surmise happened based on a lot of clues of the history of physics during this era.

Just take a look at some of these old time newspapers and documents.

In the 1950's, up to 1955, and a little bit up to 1957, many of the newspaper headlines across American were covering the huge new revolution in Gravity drive research being done by many university departments and military contractor corporations.  It was bigger news than Artificial Intelligence breakthroughs are in the modern world today.   In black and white print it blasted to the world how the inventor of the atom bomb Oppenheimer, and the majority of the other biggest names in physics like Teller, and Wheeler were all devoted to be researching the leading edge of artificial Gravity drive technology, with announcements of advancements and success stories. Princeton had it's own special physics department called the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study, devoted to only gravity propulsion research. These were not fringe "crack" physicists, they were the top physicists in the world who were certain enough of this being real to make it their career paths.  

    Then, suddenly, in 1955, as if a giant hand came down and squashed it all,  all public mention of any research stopped, and all university departments devoted to specifically Gravity Drive research were defunded and shut down.  All at the same time.  As if they were all told this has now become a national security risk, so stop talking.  The only research allowed to continue was under jurisdiction of the "black ops" departments of the military-industrial-complex.   So, yes much of what is talked about in this paper was figured out long ago by many of the top name physicists of Einstein's era.  Most of what is talked about in this paper is basic math and angles, all pretty straight forward stuff.  It's the concealing of these basics from the civilian physics community that has been the impressive feat.  The well funded "black" departments that supress this technology encourage and fund university research and university books that lead down dead end paths, specifically to protect the real since and real technology that they don't want released to the public. 

           In 1951 the United States passed the "Invention Secrecy Act" which allows certain branches of the government to confiscate and suppress inventions that they deem better for the public not to have, and better for those agencies to be the only ones to have them.

There's a document from the Federation of American Scientists which revealed that in the year 2010 alone, there had been  5,135 patents seized under authority of the national security act.  President Jimmy Carter was asked "What was it like being the most powerful man in the world?"  Mr. Carter replied "I don't think I was that person". When asked why by the interviewer, Mr. Carter said "There were things that as president I wasn't allowed to know about."  The interviewer jokingly said "Oh, you mean UFO's?"  Carter replied in a somber tone "Yes, that and more". 

So it's not that many scientists haven't figured this out, or some related aspect of this.  It's that this and many truly revealing scientific findings have been kept under wraps and shut down for national security reasons.  

To be fair, I do have the advantage of knowing that antigravity is real, as I have personally seen a ship up in the air, floating, silently, obviously using only antigravity propulsion.  Knowing it's real does make it much easier to question the whole line of thought of how antigravity might work.  So I do understand and appreciate there's a difference between the group of people examining this subject who have seen these ships in action compared to those who haven't. 

The physics material I am talking about here in this paper is partly a new perspective using pieces of publically available physics material, but it's also partly what I believe to be OLD NEWS that that has been suppressed and kept hidden from the public (and from you and me) for many decades. I think I have just re-figured out on my own the majority of what I think is likely to have been figured out before.  There's only a little bit here and there that I think might be original, but mostly this paper is just my perspective on this subject.  I'm mostly just adding only a few new ideas, perspectives and filling in the blanks.  So, I think I am mostly just catching you up to speed on the basics of what I suspect to be THE REAL PHYSICS OF GRAVITY that has likely been known by the "Deep State" for many decades.  This is as opposed to the "red-herring" false-trail gravity physics that has been encouraged and fed to the public.  Have you ever noticed how little the common person understands of physics, yet it's literally advertised to the world with great regularity that gravity is caused by "curved-space-time", and even children can repeat the words "curved-space-time" back to you since they have been so indoctrinated through the media saturation of this idea, as has everyone.  Curved Space is a safe red-herring idea because space can't be "bent" no matter what is ever done, but electro-magnetic fields can be manipulated to effect other electromagnetic fields, and so gravity can be easily manipulated via the right electromagnetic field manipulations.

There is a recent You Tube video that explains much of this alternative energy and tech suppression subject from a historical perspective that I highly recommend you watch to catch you up to speed on a lot of this. It's part of the Why Files under the title "FORBIDDEN TECH, FREE ENERGY & ANTI GRAVITY" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRwlYtAMps&t=1446s). Or click the link below.   If you want to understand this subject, watch this video (and forgive the slow start of the video and all the advertisements), because the gems of information it contains makes it worth it.

In addition to this, the agencies that are suppressing this technology use their vast funding to flood the internet with fake stories of free energy devices and fake anti-gravity claims in such quantity that most anyone looking for answers on the internet would likely tire of all the fake before ever coming across the needle in the haystack of the real thing.   My estimate is that well over 99% of what you might find on the internet about antigravity is disinformation created and funded with at least some involvement of the "black ops" departments that are trying to keep this all a secret.  That's their full time job, and they have vast resources and funding to do their job. Donald Rumsfeld said on television, just before 9-11, that 2.3 trillion dollars (that's two and a third TRILLION dollars) was not accounted for in our defense budget at that time, and couldn't be tracked.  Even the people who manage the black budget aren't read in on what's going on. Unfortunately, the huge flood of discrediting disinformation works perfectly to keep most civilian physicist from taking a closer look at any of this. 

         But even if you have no knowledge of the history of antigravity, there's still something you can check out directly by just looking in your own local library or university physics books. The orbits-speeding-up problem from gravitational aberration is mentioned all over in university physics books, and so is the orbits-slowing-down problem from the blue-shift of "push rays", but it's never mentioned in any of the publically available physics books through the ages that the orbits speeding up factor might counter the slowing down factor, even to say that the counteracting wouldn't work for some reason. Is it not conspicuously suspicious that there is no mention of this counteracting possibility in any university physics book, ever?  Can you really believe no physicist has ever thought of this before?  How likely is that?  This is some of the main basic premise stuff of physics.  If there wasn't purposeful censorship in some physics books contents this foundation subject would be addressed somewhere.  Instead you get this glaring blank spot because real physics (in this subject matter) is deemed far too dangerous to be available to the public.   

The blueshift-counteracting-aberration idea is just something that occurred to me.  I've never seen it suggested anywhere, but I can't believe no one has ever thought of it before. The same goes for this papers description of time-dilation, black holes, dark matter, quantum mechanics, and a lot of the rest of it, but I'm also fairly sure this has all been figured out before by "black ops" physicists, because the logic trail is fairly obvious.   However, a beautiful aspect of real physics is that it's something that can potentially be figured out by anyone, again and again, and so it's impossible to really keep a secret forever.  But the secret-keepers can certainly keep trying their best.

For the subject of gravity and anti-gravity research, or "electro-gravitics", history has been re-written for the modern physics student, removing the past's huge movement of electro-gravitic research from the modern awareness.  In the 1950's many of the big military industrial complex corporations were making newspaper announcements about the advancements they were making in electro-gravitics, referring to the imminent completion of that ability in the form of what they called "G-Engines".  One major newspaper headline read "The G-Engines Are Coming!". All the biggest physics names were participating in this very popular line of research.  It was all over, everywhere.   Then, it all suddenly disappeared from the public eye, all at the same time.  Programs where shut down. People were threatened.  

 But you not being aware of the wind does not make the functioning of a windmill impossible.

The real "free energy" devices do the same thing as a windmill, tap into the already existing energy field (wind) of G-waves, that is hinted at by what we detect as "zero point energy".   There are numerous ways of diverting, deflecting, refracting, or otherwise extracting energy from the various known electro-magnetic wavelengths, like visible light, radio waves, microwaves, etc, and this includes the EM wavelength of G-waves.  The particular effective methods of tapping into already existing EM waves are dependent on the particular wavelength, and dependent on the properties of the materials used in the manipulation.  But all already existing EM wave flows can potentially be harnessed and manipulated.  For example, look at how the path of an electron beam shot out of an electron gun can be bent by the magnetic field of simple deflecting coils. This is how they used to deflect electron beams to hit the desired part of the fluorescent screen of old style TVs in order to create pictures on the screen.   

Along similar lines, the belief that a space ship can't be propelled forwards without ejecting mass in the opposite direction is also wrong in the aspect that it ignores the fact that a space ship can increase its ability to catch the "wind" of the G-waves that are already traveling in the direction you'd want the ship to go.  If that already existing wind is strong enough, that could allow the ship to be propelled forward without ejecting mass in the opposite direction.  This alternative propulsion concept is not unknown, it's just that this idea is normally ignored because the current standard thinking is unaware that there is a huge volume of EM waves already existing and going in all directions that could be harnessed like the sail of a boat harnesses the wind.  A good first step in learning how to use this alternative propulsion method is to become aware of the existence of the vast pre-existing ocean of these G-wave EM waves.

Now, remember back about how section 24 talked about why gravity pushes differently than a jet engine.   G-waves push directly on individual atoms and sub-atomic particles, and so spread the propulsion force evenly on everything inside the field, making there be no "G-forces" while accelerating.  This is why UFO's have been seen to move with acceleration that would crush a person if that propulsion were applied only to the engine of the ship.  The propulsion is not applied to only the engine of the ship, the propulsion is applied to all atoms of the ship individually and directly, equally and simultaneously, so the ship and occupants experience no compression or sense of movement at all.  Within a G-wave-drive ship it would feel as though there were no propulsion at all, even if you were standing in the middle of a ship that took off faster than a bullet.  That is, other than the artificial gravity that is created in the floor direction to give the desired amount adherence to the floor.

With the right electronic device currently available for purchase today you can hold that device only near an electrical power line (many feet away for major power lines), 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 an 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 you find. 

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 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. 

 That makes the cause of the obliteration of this planet a mystery.  The computer model that does result in the complete obliteration of the planet, leaving the asteroid belt as debris from the explosion, is a model involving an explosion of the magnitude possible to be generated by the G-wave technology talked about in this paper.  There are also ancient writings talking about a celestial war that destroyed a planet in our solar system, demonstrating knowledge of the planets in our solar system.  Whether the destruction of this planet was or wasn't caused by G-wave technology,  G-wave technology could easily obliterate any planet just like this missing planet, making the asteroid belt a real world example of how destructive this technology could be to the Earth. 

 Due to the planet-vaporizing weaponization danger of a full G-wave deflection gravity drive, that's as much as I want to explain about that particular sub-branch of physics here in this paper.  And with this in mind, we should have a little more sympathy and understanding for the black ops organizations (and "men in black") that have been suppressing this technology over the decades.  

HOWEVER, SOME OF THIS TECHNOLOGY COULD BE SAFE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION

 However, the simple "free energy" electricity generation aspect is not unreasonably dangerous.   And the much less capable variation of making a material have an anti-gravity propulsion force induced by an electric current is within an acceptable level of safety risk in my opinion, relative to all the good this technology could do.  There are many ways of generating an artificial gravity force but one of the simplest at-home, cheap and easily verifiable ways of making a material be propelled by an "antigravity" force  is via using an "asymmetric capacitor", along the lines you might have heard about concerning T Townsend Brown's work on electromagnetics and electro-gravitics.  You just need to ignore all the disinformation the internet has been flooded with to try to discredit and dissuade this line of inquiry.

A good explanation and demonstration of this general technique with asymmetric capacitors is shown on several videos on YouTube.  Watch https://youtu.be/HpDeFtAtqF4?si=Ce21-2BHem3mbU4X  (in pursuit of Antigravity pt 1), and https://youtu.be/6uvYSmEngg8?si=RqoEA9ITdh8E4cP7.   Also you can see what some other people are doing at: http:jnaudin.free.fr 

        Now imagine applying this anti-gravity material effect to make a five pound piston push a hundred pounds in the up direction while it's going up, and then add an artificial extra hundred pounds in the down direction while it is going down, in order to drive the piston of a generator.  Or imagine the G-wave pressure differential put on a water wheel. What would actually be happening here is that the piston or wheel (anti-gravity material) would be extracting the energy from the wind of ambient G-waves.  This mental model serves to demonstrate in an easy to imagine way that anti-gravity can be made to generate electricity.  However, electricity can be extracted directly from G-waves in a solid-state manner without using a mechanical method.  

There are 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.

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 mathemetician 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.  

This is not just some unverified claim.  The congressional act is real, and you can look it up. This situation was also publically announced by a verified high-up patent office employee on a mainstream news interview.  And if you try to take it to market or go public with this without full and significant public disclosure putting it out on the internet "open source", you will likely go down the same road as your hundreds of predecessors who had their patents seized or who were silenced in other ways.  Your safety is in having no secrets that could be successfully kept hidden by stopping or ending you.  Your safety is also in sharing this and your information with as many people as possible.  The more it's shared, the harder it is for those wishing to keep this a secret to put it back in the bottle.   Talk with those of like mind about this.  You need to think in terms of "us", and for the purpose of helping everyone, not your pocket book by keeping it to yourself.      

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 liht, 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.

         HOWEVER...  Imagine how a hundred foot long super-smooth-surface giant swell in the ocean is not effected at all by centimeter long ripples, and vice verse, but other ripples near the same wave-length of those little ripples could affect each other.   If the universe we interact with is simply one set of matter that is vibrating at a close enough wave length range (vibration rate) to be able to interact with the other waves of this interactable set, then this means there are many other different "sets" of matter that each have wavelengths too far apart to interact with the other sets, and so don't interact with the other sets of matter (their wavelengths are too far apart), establishing multiple "universes", each occupying the same space, just simply not interacting with each other.  That means one of these other universe-sets of matter could have an object existing right where you are at right now, but that other object is vibrating at a wavelength to far away from your matter's wavelength to be able to interact with the matter of you, and so it's the same as though it doesn't exist to you.  But that other object could still be right there, occupying your same space.  It would be a bit like a "ghost" to you, and you would be a bit like a "ghost" to it, except with even less interaction than a ghost, in fact zero interaction. 

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.  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" 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.

While there, you could partially phase back only just enough to electro-magnetically change the vibration rate of something that had fallen into the (time frozen) Black Hole, phasing the vibration rate of the thing back with you into your out-of-phase universe, returning the retrieved thing to having time restart for it there in your space ship.  After traveling far away from that area, you could then phase shift back to interacting with your home universe.  This means you could pluck out someone that had fallen into the Black Hole 10 billion years ago, who had been frozen in time since then.  What stories they could tell!

       You could phase shift out of this universe set into a higher vibration rate universe where time passes faster, then travel in a near light-speed spaceship to a distance of 2,000 light-years out, and then phase back into your home universe.  Since time passes faster in the higher vibration-rate universe, it might only take a week of your home universe time to do it, while only a few hours pass for you (since you were going near light-speed).   At 2,000 light-years distance from the Earth, you'd be looking back at light that left the Earth 2,000 years ago.  

   Or, detectives could go a few light-months out to solve crime mysteries.  You could go a few light-hours out to find your lost keys, although your super-telescope would need to be set on the x-ray mode to see through your roof.  You could see Roman gladiator games, watch the real Braveheart, or watch your mom as a teenager. 

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 should expect this social/psychological phenomena when dealing with this subject and most of your peers.

34.  PASSIONATE CURIOSITY, CIRCULAR LOGIC, AND EXPLORING MULTI DISCIPLINES