GRAVITY SCIENCE

FREE ENERGY AND ANTI-GRAVITY

                                 By Philip S. Ashburn,   Revision 2/1/2024    (original 1/7/2006)

                                                       Abstract     

        This paper talks about how to harness the force of gravity as a nearly free and extremely powerful energy source, how anti-gravity works, and how you (the reader) could help this related technology be brought to the public so that it could completely transform our world.  

The six gravity wave detectors across the world have all proven in unison that gravity waves (changes in gravitational force) reach the Earth at the same time and from the same direction as  light-speed gamma wave bursts from the same source events many light years away.  This proves that changes in gravitational force do propagate at light speed.  If gravity propagated as a force at light-speed this would pull astronomical bodies in the direction towards where the gravitational sources were the length of time ago that it took light to travel between those bodies, not in the direction towards the current real-time positions of those gravitational sources.   The phenomena of gravity pulling in the direction that light would approach from an astronomical body (and not towards their current locations) is called "gravitational aberration".    However, if gravitational aberration were happening this would continually add significant propulsion to orbits, as explained next. 

1.   Gravitational Aberration Must Add Significant Propulsion to Orbits

         The Earth and Moon are both traveling in opposite directions relative to each other, circling on opposite sides around their mutual orbital barycenter point, which is the point they mutually orbit around like the axel of a wheel (shown in the diagram below).  

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

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

  The lack of observation of orbital bodies continually speeding up and being spun out of their orbits (the fact that orbits can be stable) is the evidence that orthodox science uses to conclude (or "prove") that gravity therefore can not be propagating as a force at light-speed, or else it would necessarily have to destabilize orbits.    The only direction of gravitational force that would not continually add momentum (propulsion) to orbits is a direction straight between the current real-time centers of mass of those bodies.   Orthodox thinking continues with the reasoning that the only way to achieve a pull direction straight between the real-time position of bodies is for gravity to act instantaneously and thus not be a force that propagates at light speed, which leaves the only remaining possibility that gravity must be something inherent in space itself like "curved-space-time".   This is the actual logic chain that was used to determine these conclusions.  It is absolutely critical to understand this logic chain they have used to reach these conclusions. Take a look at this google search result, when asking what direction does gravity act.

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 they believe 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 this orthodox reasoning does not take something into account, and so is not necessarily the case.   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 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.

3. Orbital Drag

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

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).  

4.   A Candidate For EM Waves that Could Cause Gravity

All the different colors of visible light, Microwaves, radio waves, X-Rays, Gamma Rays, Infrared, etc. are all just different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves (EM waves).

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. 

         All EM wavelengths, without exception, carry a certain amount of momentum and push whatever they run into. 

Some of you might be concerned that if light or EM waves had mass (that's needed to convey momentum and push), it would take infinite energy to bring any mass up to light speed, (according to "E=mc2), so if light had mass wouldn't that make light not be able to reach light-speed?   But the "c" in "E=mc2"  stands for the speed of "Causality" not "the speed of light", which would have made the formula instead say "E=ml2".  The speed of light is actually not a constant, but rather can vary quite a bit, as explained in section 26 of this paper, "THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT, AND THE SPEED OF CAUSALITY".    Yes, it's usually quoted that "c" stands for the speed of light, but this is an over simplification, and is not technically accurate.  For now, just understand that all of the varying speeds of real light are always a number of decimal place percentages under the speed of Causality, which means all real light and other EM waves can have a tiny amount of mass without driving the energy required to infinity.  This is why all EM waves can have a tiny bit of mass, and do push what ever they run into.

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.  

The "wind" in this case is Orbital Drag, which leaves the aberrated direction of gravity (alone) slightly off from the "straight between bodies" direction. 

Together, aberrated gravity, added to by this second adjusting force of orbital drag, combine to pull/push (usually) in a direction very closely approximating the straight-between-bodies direction, and so NOT destabilize orbits.  This allows orbits to be calculated in the straight between bodies direction and have it usually work out.    A direction of straight between the current instantaneous position of bodies is what instantaneous gravity would look like if it existed, which is why it can appear as though gravitational effects were instantaneous even though they are not. 

  However, the precise direction of gravitational force is actually the direction that the lesser intensity of G-wave light approaches from and arrives (adjusted by blue & red-shifting factors), which can be a very slight bit different direction than the "straight between current centers of bodies of mass" approximation (in certain circumstances), but not different enough to destabilize orbits.  The differences are more thoroughly explained in later parts of this paper, which are actually evidence of the existence of G-waves.

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. 

It's easy to breeze right past this problem, but why would massive objects orbiting around each other cause fluctuations in the force of gravity from 144 light years away?   According to the standard "curved-space-time" model and the concept of a "gravitational constant", the only gravitational strength alteration there should be would be based on a percent of the changes in the distance those bodies are away from the Earth  (a million miles divided by 144 light years applied to the inverse square law) as those bodies spin around each other, with even that astronomically small amount almost entirely negated due to the distance of one body drawing away from us negating the difference of the other body approaching us as they spin around each other.  You might say their barrycenter point (center of gravity of the pair) is not altering in its distance away from us.  This is to say, according to the standard model and these correctly calculated astronomical percentages, the alteration in gravitational force felt by the Earth from these spinning bodies should be too small to be detected by this testing apparatus. However, according to the GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING effect explained above, when one massive object blocks or "shields" another massive object, the diminishing returns effect would lower the total gravitational strength only in the direction of the line of sight of the eclipse, but with a change in gravitational strength that is a million times (loosely speaking) greater than the standard model would predict, and thus would be a million times more detectable, and so actually detectable for this apparatus.   That's what these gravitational wave detectors are detecting.

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.

PRE-EXISTING GRAVITY IS USED TO EXPLAIN THE RESULT OF GRAVITY

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 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 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 instantaneous-steering-action and dual-speed requirements of this model, and so help avoid having to deal with these problems.   Astrophysics books use the tricky wording that "gravitational effects are to be taken as instantaneous" rather than saying "gravitational effects are instantaneous".       

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.  

While Isaac Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations  implied.  In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote:  

         "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

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 is that you can keep the same speed but change the direction of movement.  Velocity change includes a change in direction. 

But wait.  The moon is constantly changing its direction as it orbits the Earth, and the Earth is constantly changing its direction as it orbits the Sun.   Those are accelerations because they are constantly changing their direction of movement.    This means there has to be a force that is constantly redirecting (bumping to the side) the movements of the Earth and Moon.  You can't have redirections of the movements of bodies of mass without an 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 order to continually redirect the motions of these bodies of mass.  It's no different than if you were talking about bowling balls making these redirected motions.  That's what real physics requires, period. 

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 most 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".  

 Something related to this, via a different type of waves coming from all directions, is what I believe manifests itself as physical matter, but more like wave fronts "in" the water like sonar, not "on" the water like surface waves, in a sort of solid-state universe. What looks to us like EM waves (light and such) is just "non-standing waves".  The energy of these waves can also be translated into the movement of a standing wave.  When the standing wave of matter (a sub atomic particle) is transferred to energy (E=mc2), this is some portion of a wave that would otherwise contribute to manifest the standing wave of matter instead "slipping by", diminishing that standing wave amplitude, allowing some portion of the wave to instead continue on as just a wave, which then appears to us as just energy, either EM or movement.  This is saying there is not "matter" as a different substance in the first place, at least not as something different than being composed of only waves.  Matter is just standing waves that can look to us like matter.  So all there is is 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. 

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-betweens 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. 

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.   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".   Maybe.  But what we should know is that all these possibilities are still on the table, and that redshift alone does not give us the conclusive answers that were assumed.  

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.  

22.  The Energy Amount In Empty Space

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

 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.  

    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.

23. WHY HEAVY AND LIGHT THINGS ARE PROPELLED TO EQUAL SPEEDS BY GRAVITY 

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.  

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). 

24)   WHY GRAVITY (G-WAVES) PUSH THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN A JET ENGINE 

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 not only what falling looks like, it 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 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. 

You can't maintain a standing wave (with time passing) without continually incoming new waves to maintain it. That's what a standing wave is, continually incoming opposing waves pushing against each other.  The incoming waves from opposing sides that combine to make the standing waves that we perceive as physical "matter" basically replace the matter every micro-second of passing time (or keep time running for it).  Again, that's the way a standing wave works.  The more physical matter (mass) that's already present in a "sub-atomic" location, the more the incoming wave energy is converted to replace and re-manifest the mass, matching the previous amplitude of the previous standing wave.  When a standing wave (that is matter) absorbs the next series of background waves to continue to manifest itself, it absorbs new energy of new incoming waves in proportion to its current mass, like a sailboat's sail automatically absorbs wind energy in proportion to the size of it's sail.  

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 (in that and nearly all other same volumes of seemingly "empty" space).  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 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.  It's 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".  

Note how when two swinging balls of a Newton's Cradle collide with three balls sitting motionless, the result is that  only two of the three sitting balls propel upwards on the other side to about the height of the two balls that were dropped, instead of all three of the sitting balls being propelling upwards to two thirds the height of the two balls that were dropped.  Why?   How did the three sitting balls know that only two of them were supposed be propelled upwards instead of propelling all three sitting balls upwards to two thirds the height of the two balls that were dropped?  There is multiple kinds of information in pre-existing matter.  Very loosely speaking, the pre-existing standing waves contain the information necessary to convert the right amount of the new incoming waves into a re-creation of the previously existing standing waves, somewhat like the Newton's Cradle balls "know" what kind of energy they're supposed to absorb & transfer.  The previously existing standing wave acts like a sail the size of the pre-existing matter only catching exactly enough of the right kind of incoming wave energy to remanifest itself.  A standing wave must be continually re-manifested by 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.

As a side note, this also means it would have been impossible for the Universe to have started with a Big Bang from a single tiny starting point, because the creation causing waves need to come in from all directions in order to create the effect we perceive as physical matter and gravity.  It would really need to be something that looks like the opposite of a Big Bang, more like an implosion coming in from all directions, either once long ago from astronomical distances away, or in an ongoing manner. 

28.   THE INFINITELY VARIABLE NEAR-LIGHT-SPEEDS, AND THE SPEED OF CAUSALITY

IS LIGHT-SPEED A SPEED LIMIT?

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 and speed-conditions, so speed is not a single fixed measurement that is true from all observer's perspectives.   It depends on where you're looking from.  A measurement of speed can only be fully true if it also specifies which particular applicable time passage rate location is being considered for the speed measurement.  If only half as much time passes for you in the location where you're at, it would seem to you as you're going twice as fast.  For example, if a space ship was traveling near enough to the speed of light to cause it's occupants-time to pass at one/tenth the normal time passage rate (say 99.99% the speed of light), and that ship traveled for ten years of outside observer's time, that ship would have traveled nearly ten light-years of distance in one year of the ship occupant's time passage, making that a speed of TEN TIMES LIGHT-SPEED by the occupant's clock.  If that space ship was traveling near enough to light-speed (by an outside observer's clock) to have time to slow down to 1/100th the normal time passage rate (say 99.999% the speed of light), that ship would be traveling at 100 times light-speed by the ship occupants experience of time.   To an outside observer's clock, both ships would be traveling at nearly the same speed, barely below light-speed.   The ship's occupants time perspective speed is not "more true" than the observer's time perspective speed.   Both perspectives of speed are only a ratio over their own different time passage.    What would be misleading is to think of either the ship's perspective on "speed" or the observer's perspective on "speed", as though it's the only one single speed of the ship.  There is no such thing as a single speed by all time-passage perspectives.  Also, to an outside observer, the light-speed ship, the ten time's light-speed ship and the hundred times light-speed ship, would all three appear to outside observers to be traveling at just below the speed of light, with only tiny decimal place differences in the speed of light between them (99.99% vs. 99.9999% vs. 99.999999%).

THE SPEED OF CASUALITY VS LIGHT-SPEED

This exact same "perspective speed" duality phenomena is true for the speed of light.  Different light beams can travel at different speeds.  Light beam #1 might travel at 99.9999% "the speed of light" (loosely speaking), while light beam #2 might travel at 99.99999% the speed of light (loosely speaking).  Here is where it becomes necessary to define more clearly what is meant by "the speed of light".  You will notice that in the space ships example given above, where one ship travels at ten times light speed (by its own clock), and another ship travels at a hundred times light-speed (by its own clock), all these different faster than light speeds look to observers' clocks like speeds barely BELOW the speed of light (99.99999% etc).   Faster and faster ships just add more .99999s to any % number of the speed of light.  There's always a few more .99s that can be added on to these percentages of the speed of light, accounting for any multiples of the speed of light.  But no matter how many .99s that are added on, the percent can never reach 100%.   The 100% of the hypothetical fastest possible speed of light is what is being referred to by the speed of "Causality".   "Causality" means the potential fastest speed anything can travel from an observer's perspective clock, as though the .999999s went on to equal 100%.   But all real light can never reach this 100% potential speed.  The speed of Causality is a hypothetical fastest speed that nothing can reach, not even light, but it's still basically so near to the same speed of light (from our Earth perspective) that for normal purposes we can ball them all into the same "ballpark" speed, loosely calling all of the speeds near this speed "the speed of light". 

The speed of Causality is also not just "an arbitrary speed" that happens to be a certain number.   As time slows down for a thing as it approaches the speed of Causality, it takes a proportionally greater energy expenditure RATE (speed of expending energy) to make the thing go every little bit faster, and this exponentially greater energy expenditure curve shoots to infinity at the speed of Causality.  

E=mc2

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 as you can see from the space-ship examples, the seemingly negligible difference from the observer's perspective can make a million times light speed difference from the speeding thing's perspective, and make all the difference when trying to understand how all this works.   But that's why it's a "c" in this formula for the speed of "causality and not an "L" for the light-speed.   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"?    This is why.

RACING LIGHT BEAMS

Scientists normally think of "light-speed" as a single set constant speed because the 186,282 miles per second measurement that they found in various measurements and experiments were all within a very small decimal place variance difference of each other, and so they assumed that meant these tiny differences were only caused by variances in the accuracy of the test apparatus.  Yes, some of that variance is from imperfections of the test, but the tiny decimal place differences were also partly from an actual tiny difference in speed.   Normally you might think that such a tiny difference in the % speed-of-light result wouldn't mean much.  But if you will remember what the % speed difference meant for the perspective clocks of the ten-times-light-speed ship vs. the hundred times light-speed-ship ( 99.999% vs 99.9999%), which was all the difference in the world for the near light-speed things.

Let's say the ten time's light-speed ship had a head-light that shown a beam of light forward, which had photons traveling at exactly the speed-of-light faster than the ten-times-light-speed-ship.  How fast would those photons be traveling?  By the ship's clock those photons would be traveling eleven times light-speed.   Velocities are added, when considered in the same time-passage frame.  If the hundred-times-light-speed ship shown a light beam forward from it's head lights, how fast would those photons be traveling?  The answer is 101 times the speed of light, when considered in the time frame of that ship.    How about if we were to have a race between the head light beams of the 10x ship and the head light beams of the 100x ship.  That would be a speed of 11xC vs. 101xC, basically ten times faster light, as measured from the time passage of that light-beam. 

   Let's say you have a space ship that is going a hundred time's "the   

To an outside ovserver 

true if you understand them both to be true speeds ONLY from their own measure of time passage.  You can't accurately say the ship is going "X" speed, unless you also specify which time-passage frame you are measuring against.

 in about ten years of oit traveled

 For example, for common experience situations, both distance and time-passage are fairly fixed things, and so it can be easily understood that a car going 60 miles of distance in one hour of time passage is a speed of 60/mph.  However, if you will remember this paper's explanation of time-dilation, both extreme speed and extreme gravity slow the passage of time in the applicable areas, while not slowing time in the non applicable areas. The fact that time proceeds at a slower rate inside a speeding thing compared to the time passage outside the speeding thing means that there becomes TWO different ratio of speeds going on from the perspective of time-passage inside the ship compared to the perspective of time passage outside of the ship.  That means there are simultaneously TWO different speeds that the same ship is traveling at same time; one speed by the measure of the time passage inside the ship, and the other speed by the measure of time passage outside the ship.   Thus it is a mistake and an incorrect understanding to think that a near light-speed ship is going only one single speed at a particular moment in time.    It's going two different speeds; one speed from the time-passage perspective from inside the ship, and the other speed from the time-passage perspective of those outside the ship.  One perspective is not "more true" than the other.   They are only true if you acknowledge them both to be true speeds ONLY from their own measure of time passage.  You can't accurately say the ship is going "X" speed, unless you also specify which time-passage frame you are measuring against.

By this understanding, it would be incorrect to say something is traveling at "light-speed", unless referring 

For example, if a space ship traveled one light-year of distance in barely over one year of outside observer's time passage, to an outside observer that would be a speed of 99.9% the speed of light. "light speed".   But if that ship was g if you measured this same one light year of distance, i99.9% the speed of light.  At the same time, the same ship would have traveled the same distance of one light-year, but in maybe 1/10th the passage of the ship's time due to the time slowing effect, making the inside occupants of the ship experience a speed of TEN TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

traveling at a near enough speed to the speed of light that it caused time to pass inside the ship at a rate 1/10th the normal outside time rate, let's say 99.9% the speed of light, and that ship traveled for ten years of outside time at this speed, that would make that ship travel just barely short of ten light-years of distance in that ten years of time passage, making that a speed of just barely below the speed of light, or 99.9% the speed of light.  Simple.  But if we measure the speed of that same ship, going the same distance, applied to 1/10th the normal time passage rate of the inside of the ship, that would mame

speed of a thing going near light speed as though it is going a single speed from all perspectives.  And that applies infinitely so to all the infinitely different "near" light-speeds.

For example,

  The slowing down of time forIf time slowed down to "half speed" inside the same car that was going 60/mph,  

CAN YOU ADD VELOCITIES OF NEAR LIGHT SPEEDS?

Normally, in common-experience situations, if you are traveling in a car going 60 miles an hour, and then you throw a baseball forward at 40 miles an hour out of that car's sun roof, the baseball would then be traveling forward at 100 miles an hour.  This is to say that you would add the individual velocities to get the end resulting speed of the baseball.   However, if you will remember this paper's explanation of time dilation, the closer you get to "light-speed" the more time slows down for the speeding thing due to the redshifting of the G-waves.  So if a space ship is going 99% the speed of light, or close enough to 

ALSO

Light is actually a wave with a length, not a point location.  If we were to have a drag race between different wavelengths of waves, and all competing waves had their front ends reach the finish line at the same time, would the shortest wavelength be considered faster because its tail end crossed the finish line before the other wavelength tail ends?  What about a wavelength that was so long that its tail end didn't cross the finish line until three seconds after the first finisher's tail end?    Who makes the rules as to what wavelengths parts we count in crossing the finish line?  This isn't quite as simple as if we were talking about an inch worm race.  With light, the effects of waves are a probability spread out over the whole length of the wave and so the effect of a wave is not in a fixed location along the wave.   Without a fixed location of the thing at the finish line, how can you determine the thing's speed?   If we were to measure the speed of a wave by the probability of the timing of its effect, then we could say that shorter wavelengths are faster than longer wavelengths.  But then, by this measure, what's the fastest that light could potentially travel on the farthest end of the probability spectrum for a wavelength of zero?  The answer is "the speed of Causality".  That makes the speed of Causality a micro bit faster than all potential light speeds which are all actually variable.  It is this speed of Causality that is a constant speed meant by the "c" in the equation E=mc2.

  A key thing needed to understand "light-speed" is to understand that time slows down for a thing (including light) the closer it gets to the speed of Causality.   Speed is only a perspective relative to the observer's clock.  This means any time a question of speed is asked, it must be asked separately for the time elapsing of the person (or thing) traveling super-fast compared to the time elapsing for the outside observer.  If only half as much time has passed for you when you go a set distance, that makes it look to you as though you're going twice as fast.

 For example, a space ship going very near the speed of light (as an outside observer would measure it), but fast enough to slow time down to one/tenth of the normal time passage rate (as the space ship captain's clock would run), would look to the space ship captain like he's going ten times the speed of light as measured by his ten times slower clock. 

  It's only the difference in the amount of time that's passing for the experiencer that makes  the same distance traveled look like such different speeds to the observer compared to the captain.

This same "speed measurement" difference  occurs for light of different wave lengths.  From an observers time passage perspective, light will appear to travel at a constant "speed of light", or more specifically so very near the same speed that the difference is not easily measured. But this near constant speed only applies when measured by the non-speeding observer's clock.   But for either light or something traveling near enough to light-speed that their "clock" slows down significantly, a whole different perspective on speed occurs, turning "speed" into an unlimited speed according the slowing clock of the speeding thing.  In this way, light of different frequencies experience time in a very different way, allowing the light (and other speeding things) to go infinitely different speeds according to the clock rate of the speeding things.  So light-speed is only a near constant for light when measured by an observer of that light, and not for the light itself when measured by the clock of the light.   That makes it a provisional near constant, not an absolute near constant.

THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO GO MULTIPLES OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

The same total propulsion energy required for a trip of ten light years of distance would need to be applied as propulsion in only one year of a ship captain's time, but be applied as propulsion in ten years of the observer's time.   The ten times lesser passing time that the captain has to exert that same total propulsion energy makes it take ten times the energy expenditure RATE to make that same trip for the captain.  The faster the ship goes the less time the ship captain has passing to apply the same total energy, making the required energy expenditure RATE need to go up proportionally to the lesser time available to apply that same energy amount.  It's not that the total energy required to go ten light years of distance goes up for a near light speed ship, it's that when less time passes for that ship it makes the energy expenditure RATE need to go up.  This is the basis for the saying that the energy (expenditure rate) required to approach light speed goes up exponentially as the ship's speed approaches light speed (they mean the energy expenditure rate needed for the time slowed captain).

Fortunately, the kinds of energies available via the harnessing of G-waves can and does produce the energy levels that can meet the needs of energy expenditure RATES that can make ship captains experience apparent speeds of thousands of light-years of distance per hour. 

HOW CLOSE TO A CONSTANT IS A NEAR CONSTANT

But while the ship captain's speedometer goes up from ten times light speed to a hundred times light speed, the outside observer's radar speed detector aimed at the ship registers only the difference between 99.9% the speed of Causality to 99.999 the speed of Causality (loosely speaking).  This is to say that all multiples of the speed of light (as far as the ship captain perceives) appear to an outside observer as only minor decimal point differences of speed just below the speed of Causality (basically the high end potential possible speed of light), provided the observer had sensitive enough equipment to detect the extremely slight differences of these near light speeds.    

I'm just making up these demonstrative numbers, but the point is that what looks like all multiples of the speed of light to the fast traveler, looks to the outside observer like only the difference between decimal places just below the speed of Causuality (ballpark max speed light could potentially go).

Note that if the "light-speed" of a photon was really a "speed limit" or a "constant", how could a near light-speed space ship shine a head-light beam forward with those head-light photons going the speed of light faster than the near light-speed ship?   The photons from the headlights are definitely not going the same speed as the photons from the ship, or a planet that the ship just sped past, making the different photons definitely going different speeds, making them NOT all go a constant same speed.  This is how you can tell just from the logic of it that the speed of all light is NOT limited to only the same speed, a "constant".

  That's why E=mc2   is stated with the special provision that it applies only to a body at rest relative to your speed, and you'd need to add a gamma symbol in there (its speed relative to you) for it to apply to an object moving relative to you.

  These slight decimal place differences just below 100% the speed of Causuality look to an observer like only extremely slight (almost negligible) differences in the ball-park speed of light in his time reference, which mainly appears to an outside observers as differences in only the frequency of light, not more than tiny decimal place differences in the ballpark "speed" of light.  So light shining back to us on Earth from the captain's ship window zooming by at what appears to him is a speed of five times the speed of light looks to us on Earth like a simple "light speed" ship with only red-shifted (or blue-shifted) light that's still coming at us at the "ballpark" speed of light (extremely close to the same measurement of light-speed) in our observer time reference.   Real light-speed is not a speed limit because there's always a few more decimal places below but approaching the speed of causality that can always be added.

That means there is only a "speed limit" of light-speed (ball park) from an outside observer's perspective.  But this limit is speaking about what can be achieved by simple propulsion and acceleration, not addressing limits of other means (discussed later).   

Question. How old is a photon of light that has traveled to Earth from 144 light years away?  From the perspective of the photon, the answer is 0 seconds old (loosely speaking), because anything traveling at light speed does not have time pass for it (loosely speaking). That photon is frozen in time for itself, and to it, it would appear as though it instantaneously traveled 144 light-years away.  That's a lot faster than light-speed from the perspective of the photon.  For an observer not traveling along with the photon, the answer is 144 years old.

29.  THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT

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

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 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 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, he 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, but the public story is that he failed in his attempt to figure this out.  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 (etc.) 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, although I can't be sure.

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

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, and is likely standard physics in the super-secret compartmentalized black-ops world.  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 is impossible to really keep a secret.  But the secret-keepers can certainly try.

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.  

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

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

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

  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. 

THERE IS A DANGER TO BRINGING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC THAT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED.

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter has things that could have come only from a pre-existing planet that was blown apart, such as huge concentrations of salt deposits that could only have come from ancient oceans, and huge accumulations of heavy metals that can be concentrated only from the interiors of planets. There is also an orbital spacing pattern between planets that dictates there should have been a planet between Mars and Jupiter.  That means there used to be a planet in the orbit currently occupied by the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

According to astrophysics models, the simple collision of astronomical bodies is not likely to account for there being nothing left but the asteroid belt, because models of this scenario would likely leave a more significant body remaining. There is a planetoid there, Ceres, which has a salty water layer deep underground, and it composes about 40% of the mass of the asteroid belt, but it has a diameter of only about 600 miles, smaller than our moon, and so doesn't have the mass needed to fit would be expected there.   The computer model that results in the complete obliteration of the planet, leaving nothing but the asteroid belt, requires an explosion of the magnitude only possible to be generated by the G-wave technology talked about in this paper.   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 (men in black) that are trying to keep this technology a secret.  The many accounts of the "men in black" burying this technology go back many decades before the movies of that title were made.

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 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 

 These videos show how to make an asymmetric capacitor produce a relatively minor propulsion force in a complete vacuum without doing anything else but what is shown in these videos. 

This technique is basically 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.

         The other comments of this paragraph will likely be more fully appreciated by someone who has watched these video basics.  And yes, this does work in a complete vacuum, it is definitely not ionic wind as is commonly claimed.  One way to amplify the propulsion effect in an asymmetric capacitor shown in these videos is to use a dielectric material with a much higher K factor, like titanium oxide (just white spray paint), barium titanate, or (best K factor of all) Rochelle salt crystals that you can grow from cream of tartar and baking soda.  The propulsion effect can be amplified even more by shaping the electrodes & dielectrics, and aligning and polarizing the crystal matrix of the dielectric crystals in the right way (having a major effect on the K factor).  Another way to amplify the effect shown in these videos is to take advantage of the aspect that it is not the size of the component parts that are the most effective determiner of force, it is the number of "sets" of these asymmetric capacitors layered on top of each other that can be a much more major contributor of force.  

         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 that interactable set, then this means there are many other different "sets" of matter that have wavelengths too far apart to interact with other sets, and so don't interact with each other (their wavelengths are too far apart), establishing multiple "universes", all occupying the same overlapping co-existing space, in the same place.    If this is the case, by simply altering a certain kind of special vibration rate of a thing ("phasing") that thing would seem to disappear from one interaction set universe and appear in another interaction set universe, without needing to travel 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 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 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.

         By you "phase shifting" out of this particular universe (interaction set of matter), and into a higher or lower vibration rate universe, you could also then travel to the inside of the co-existing location of a Black Hole (that's in your home universe) and 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.  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 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 faster 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.  If you set up an advanced enough telescope array, you could look down on the Earth like a magnified Google Maps Satellite view and see events unfolding that happened 2,000 years ago.  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 the roof.  You could see Roman gladiator games, watch the real Braveheart, see how the Great Pyramid was built, 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.  

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

That's the way I feel about myself.   It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I'm just passionately curious and so stay with riddles longer.   Passionate curiosity is a door opener because it makes a person take the time to ask "why is this", and stay with it long enough to question and puzzle out the riddles instead of just accepting what the experts say as "gospel" and moving on to something else.  It's an interest and deep enough curiosity that creates the willingness to question what you are being told.  Passionate curiosity also opens doors because those kind of eyes also see curious anomalies in other fields that, when also explored, helps or is sometimes key to progressing in the understanding of another field.  In this way, isolated expertise is self limiting, as is too strong of a belief in the infallibility of the current public science community.  In a thousand years the scientists of that time are going to consider a lot of what is believed today as way off base and abandoned long ago, having found a much better understanding.  So don't be so sure of the current science belief trend of today.  If the maverick scientists of a couple hundred years ago had done that, we'd still be driving a horse and buggy lit by candles.

  No matter how intelligent and passionately curious a mind is, it's going to get stuck in a circular logic loop if it excludes avenues of thought exploration based on the belief that "if I don't understand how a claim could be possible, it must be impossible, and so it's not worth investigating".  This belief causes an elimination of all evidence that could show the believer that his model of reality needs to be expanded, and so further entrenches the believer in their sureness of their currently believed model of reality: "See, there's no evidence I am wrong, so I am even more right, so I don't need to explore all the obviously wrong evidence, and so... see there's no evidence I am wrong".  This is circular logic.  To avoid circular logic, you can't conclude that something is impossible just because YOU don't understand how it could be possible.  If your lack of understanding of how something could be possible is what you use to exclude your exploration of evidence, that's circular logic, and it will only further support and entrench you in your world view, and it will blind you to the greater reality you could have explored. 

 The most intelligent of minds are intelligent enough to have figured out that you don't know what you are not aware of, and what you are not aware of might change your opinion, and so it is therefore impossible to correctly be certain.  The smartest people have figured out they can not correctly be absolutely positively sure of anything.  Thus, humility and not being absolutely positively sure is a sign of greater intelligence and wisdom, and a more simply correct perspective.  Being absolutely positively sure without room for doubt is a sure sign that there's been a fallacy of logic. It is wise to know there's at least a slim chance you might be wrong, about anything.  Being absolutely positively sure also closes the doors to many possible avenues of thought exploration.  Of these things I'm absolutely positively sure. ..........

If you can drop the belief that "this doesn't fit the cause and effect model of reality I understand, so it's got to be hogwash", this will open up new avenues of understanding that are necessary to far more deeply understand reality.  If you apply this principle, you can't out-of-hand dismiss all the seemingly non-physical phenomena and seemingly ridiculous claims such as UFO's, aliens, anti-gravity, free energy, remote viewing, reincarnation, astral projection, out-of-body experience, telepathy, ghosts, spiritual things, thought effecting matter, conspiracies, life after death, vastly ancient civilizations and "God".  The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner cartoon being obviously ridiculous and impossible does not therefore prove or mean that there's not at least something to the existence of rabbits and road-runners.  If something is "hogwash", then it can't withstand actual scientific inquiry, and so you shouldn't be afraid to do deep research, open-mindedly examine, and put it to the real test regardless of your expectations.  But having other people of authority tell you it didn't pass scientific inquiry is not scientific inquiry, that would be "believing the church's dictates".   Actual scientific inquiry is YOU looking deeply into these things, and this process has shown there is some reality to (something behind) all these above named subject matters, although they are not necessarily as they are commonly conceived.  

What do these other subjects have to do with mastering gravity and the biggest power source in the universe?  A balance of curiosity about "anomalies" in these other fields leads to a shocking realization that the world is not just made up of only atoms bumping into separated atoms.  That model is insufficient to explain all the real world phenomena.  Those other paths of exploration, if you are passionately curious enough to examine deeply and to put them to the scientific test yourself, can prove a different reality that explains how and why we are all connected in a miraculous way, not because any religious book or person says so, but because actual real scientific inquiry shows this to be true reality.  If you knew how we were all connected, it would put a whole new light on how and why this technology should and shouldn't be used.  The "what" should not be disconnected from the "why".  It alters one's view of things in a way that makes us all not only allies but dear loved ones. With this knowledge you would do things differently.  In short, wisdom, love, family and connection to nature and our spiritual side should be worked on and increased in balance with increase of knowledge of apparatus development.  A child should not pick up and figure out how to use a loaded gun without also learning what's really going on around him and learning care, concern and love for others.  Learning to love, and learning to see the world differently so that you can expand that love to the whole world around you can be a more important thing to learn than all other learning.

   But also, just as increased material knowledge helps with increased apparatus/invention capability, so to does there become an increase of the potential understanding of physical forces with an increase of appreciation and ability to love. They are related and can help each other in a way that's difficult to explain.   In a fascinating way, limited wisdom and limited love actually hinders understanding of extreme physical forces, and so acts as a sort of safety rail for the universe. 

Those who say to themselves "this doesn't fit the cause and effect model of reality I understand, so it's got to be hogwash, so I won't bother to look in that direction" automatically eliminate their exposure to the evidence that's necessary to show the original model inadequate and lead to a deeper understanding of reality.  Science is not an adherence to the atom-bumping-into-atom model of reality, it's THE PROCESS of questioning, being curious, and putting beliefs to the test and going with the test results OVER your beliefs no matter how uncomfortable or disturbing that may be to your world view.  Being sure you "know" (and so don't have to look) does not get you there.  This is to say, it would serve you to have a willingness to question your beliefs and have a passionate curiosity about these other disciplines (& deep connection with people & nature) not too far out of balance with your willingness to question and have a passionate curiosity about physical forces.   They are not truly isolated subjects.   

35.  Occam's Razor     

         The principle of Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is more likely to be the correct one. All gravitational effects can be explained by the simple shadow effect of certain EM waves, without inventing "curved-space-time, instantaneous action at infinite distance, dual gravity speed (Delta Gravity) & non-periodic-table Dark Matter".  The Push-gravity theory also predicts many anomalies that are not predicted with a cause by orthodox theory.   Only the push-gravity theory explains why the strength of gravity decreases with distance at the same rate that a shadow does, why light bends near the sun, and an actual cause of why clocks slow down when being under a greater gravitational force (a lesser G-waves impact rate from one side).   So the Push-gravity theory is the one that the scientific process dictates to be more likely correct.

36.  So What Can We Do About It

         Knowing that there's at least a real possibility that gravity is caused by EM waves gives big reason to investigate the manipulation and harnessing of those EM waves.  Without the awareness of this possibility there's little reason to investigate in this direction.

I believe this technology is currently being suppressed and mishandled by a low-moral cabal of the extremely rich and powerful, to keep themselves rich and powerful.  This keeps everyone else in needless need while causing great harm to the world.  All the efforts to address global warming, pollution, poverty, "green" stuff, rockets to Mars, etc are all a drop in the bucket doing next to nothing compared to the thousand times greater effect that could be achieved with free energy and antigravity.  This is what would transform our world. The other stuff is more of just a relative distraction wasting time, effort and attention in comparison, which actually helps hide the real answers.  

I'm hoping that this paper will be passed along, and that these ideas will reach enough of the right people to help put "free energy", low-level material anti-gravity, and our future with the galactic community back in the hands of "we the people".  For example, if someone could get Elon Musk to read this paper, that by itself could launch the start of a brand new world.  And if not Elon Musk, how about one of the people he works with that could tell Elon about this.  Or if this paper reached any one of a thousand other key people that could finance or otherwise peruse this technology in a way that would make it available to the public, this could do it.   In order to get this information out to the right key people, it would make that much more likely to happen if it was passed along to as many people as possible, enough to go "viral" in the physics community.  I will tell you from experience that there is a seeming "firewall" in getting physics people to read this.  In order for the viral spreading to happen, I need just regular people to help get the spreading started.  You, yes you, could help get things started by getting two other people to read this and pass it on again, preferably physics associated people, but anything helps to get the viral spreading started.  If enough people become aware of this, the right people will become aware of this and be able to help turn this into technology that will transform this world.   You could be the person that tipped the right domino that led to the branch that went viral.   You can be the person that made it happen for the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your interest.

Philip Ashburn       

solidstateuniverse@yahoo.com

37.  WHAT  PHYSICISTS  SAID  ABOUT AN EARLY VERSION OF THIS  PAPER     

     Back in 2006 I had been corresponding with a few physicists from around the world.  After having sent them an earlier version of this paper (sent in 2006), I received some interesting responses.  Some were to the effect of "Very interesting. Please keep me on your mailing list", but a few of the more interesting responses are included here, next.  Keep in mind I have updated this paper much since then, so they did not have the benefit of my much better explanations I now have in this current 2024 version.

HAL PUTHOFF, Ph.D. from Stanford University, specializing in gravitational physics:

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

       I responded to him:  "The smaller the orbit the greater the orbital speed, which would cause a greater blue-shift force to counter act the similarly increasing greater aberration angle from the faster change of direction in a smaller orbit (sharper turn) at closer orbital distances.  This would cause these forces to at least generally increase and decrease in unison, and so potentially balance out at different orbital distances.   It would be good to have some astrophysicists crunch the actual math on this one."

           Note the speeds of the planets circling the sun:  Mercury 170,505 mph; Earth 67,000 mph; Jupiter 29,236; Saturn 21,637; Pluto 10,623; all definitely going faster the closer they are to the Sun, in direct proportion to the closeness to the Sun.   Hal did send me a Russian paper on the subject of light to light interaction, and it was most interesting.

DR. ROBERFROID,  from the Particle Physics dept. of Oxford University:

         "Dear Phil, I indeed found a paper talking about photon-photon interaction and even how to detect them : http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9308293   But as you can see the cross section is very low, and especially if the energy of the photon is low (the cross section is already negligible for visible light). So, if the photon responsible of gravitation have very long waves, their density should be huge!  Remark that very low energy photon can be detected, as an example the *cosmic microwave background radiation* (It has a thermal 2.725 kelvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin black body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body spectrum which peaks in the microwave <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave> range at a frequency of 160.4 GHz <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz>, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm). And if the energy of the photon is high they should be directly converted to electron-positron pairs and so they should be observed in particle detectors. So, I think maybe that the particle responsible of gravitation such as in your hypothesis have to be 'virtual'.  I mean, maybe we bathe in a sea of virtual particles (call them virtual photons) and the observed photons (or other particles), considered as real because observable, would be the manifestation of a

local perturbation in this sea. So, as an example, a local region with high density would be considered as particle and a local region with an absence of virtual photon would be considered as anti-particles. Concerning the formula for calculating gravitation, you should give anyway numbers, which is the most difficult task to be done, and explain what is the gravitational constant. I would be interested to know your investigations. Regards, Vincent"

    Vincent's observation that "if the photon responsible of gravitation have very long waves, their density should be huge!" is correct, Crazy Huge.   According to this "G-wave theory, the strength of gravity is dependent on the concentration of G-waves, and different areas in the universe over different vast periods of time could have different concentrations of ambient G-waves, like high and low pressure zones in weather fronts across the Earth, making there be no single gravitational constant that applies everywhere across the universe or across vast time.  It would be like assuming there is an air pressure "constant" because our frame of reference of experience only covers a few square yards over a few minutes.  There could be an Earth sized planet somewhere (or some when) that has or had half our Earth gravity.

TOM VAN FLANDERN, Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University:

               "We see that all relevant characteristics except possibly field propagation speed are common for the two types of force. Therefore their physical propagation behavior ought to be the same if field propagation speed is the same, or different if field propagation speed is different, because there is nothing else relevant that might distinguish the two types of force.  Experiments show without ambiguity that the resulting accelerations are applied in different directions which implies different field propagation speeds."

     But, in my opinion, Mr. Van Flandern's statement that all relevant characteristics are the same (comparing light-speed "G-waves" and photons from the Sun) is incorrect in the key respect that, in the photons-from-the-Sun example, the rays he is considering come only from the direction of the Sun, where G-waves rays would come from all other directions, some of which which would be "blue-shifted" when running head-on against (counter to) the orbital movement of the Earth, thus causing blue-shift, and thus an increased force counter to the orbit of the Earth, as opposed to rays coming only from the Sun's direction & approaching the Earth from a perpendicular direction relative to the Earth's orbit around the Sun, which would therefore not be blue or red-shifted and so not increase or decrease their push with or against the Earth's orbital direction.  This would throw off the apparent acceleration directions, all with only light-speed forces.  I therefore respectfully disagree with Professor Van Flandern on this point.  He goes on to explain:

"That lack of orbital acceleration supports the "no gravitational aberration" conclusion. But the most basic observation is a direct measure of zero gravitational aberration. Observations show that the Sun's light arrives from the Sun's retarded position (where it was on the sky 8.3 minutes ago), whereas

the Sun's gravity accelerates the Earth toward the Sun's true, instantaneous direction, 20" to the east of the aberrated position."

         My reply was as follows: The "direct measure" of zero gravitational aberration that

has been "observed" is only speaking of the deduced END RESULTING force direction of a force that is attributed to only gravity, and this end resulting force direction (straight towards the true instantaneous direction of objects of mass) is not in dispute.  However, this end resulting force direction is wrongly assumed to be caused by only the single force of gravity, and could instead be the end resulting force direction from two or three force vectors that simply ADD UP to that same end resulting “gravitational” force vector (direction). In other words, just because an airplane is flying along a certain known path does not mean that the plane's propellers are the only force that could possibly be at work.  The plane could really be self-propelled in a strongly shifted direction (pointed many degrees to the left or right) while at the same time a strong wind current could be adding it's push in a different direction, causing the end resulting airplane path to be the result of a combination of the two different forces.  In this same way, the  "aberrated force+drag force" model can account for the  end result of the Sun's gravity accelerating the Earth straight towards the Sun's true instantaneous direction.  So the end result of the Suns gravity accelerating the Earth directly towards the Sun does not prove that gravity aberration is not happening as one of the contributing forces.   Thus, I disagree that the end result of the "direct measure" disproves the aberrated+drag model.  He did go on to say:   

        "You are obviously a bright and forward-thinking individual. I urge you to get up-to-speed with these more recent publications, and others like them on our web site's gravity pages: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/   gravity.asp.   Then we can have a look at any areas of disagreement that might remain.  Best Wishes.  

-|Tom|-"  

DR. MICHAEL IBISON,  Senior Research Physicist at I.A.S. at Austin:

     *LIGHT BENDING BY MASSIVE BODIES

         Mr. Ibison is a Senior Research Physicist with the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, who had this to say to me:    "Dear Philip    How would such a theory accommodate light bending by massive bodies?   Cheers,   Michael"

      The answer I sent back to him I have since added to my paper on an earlier version, similiar to my explanation of point #13, under the section titled LIGHT BEING  BENT BY MASSIVE BODIES.     He then responded with: 

       "Dear Phil I cannot see how photon-photon interactions can do the job. Light bending is independent of frequency. Take the extreme example of the field lines of a static electric charge which are bent in a gravitational field. If you wish to cast this in a photon picture, the energy of the virtual photons is each zero (so-called infrared-catastrophe). Such photons will not interact at all with other photons. Yet the required bending is the same as that of ordinary light.   Cheers,"

         My response:   Light bending might seem independent of frequency because the light-bending effect is so very small for the normal spectrum of frequencies.  However, each different frequency has its own unique "specialty" effects, and the specialty effect of G-waves is that they push everything equally, including rocks, all the different frequencies light, electrons and everything else.  G-waves have the special property of being able to push everything much better than the other EM frequencies.  "Field lines" are only a border area where similar forces are expected to be exerted  if some actual thing was there.   Gravity can change field lines because the G-waves strike and push objects (& electrons) that would be in those field line areas. Field lines are only areas where it's expected for certain forces to be exerted on things, not an observable thing in itself.   There are so many other supporting factors of evidence of G-waves causing gravity that, once we think that's likely the case, we can then conclude that G-waves must be able to push light since that's what we see happening.

  JAMES R. ISPER,  physics professor at the university of Florida:

                      *THE REQUIREMENT OF A "PREFERRED SPOT"

       "This would require that 1 specific point in the Universe is preferred, namely, the center of the Earth. Yet it is known that the other objects in the Universe at large do not revolve in uniform fashion about Earth, even seen from the perspective of Earth. Hence we need an agent that continually redirects the incoming beams so that they have picked out, out of billions and billions of other significant objects in the Universe, the center of Earth as their target, and are able to adjust continually their sighting as the Earth meanders throughout the Universe.  One can always come up with an explanation. Please let it have some degree of universality in that it is not specific precisely to us! Are we to accept the  hypothesis that we, and our Earth, are preferred by Nature. Such  a hypothesis trivially includes  the needed explanation. This is not objective science." 

         I disagree with Professor Ispen's opinion that a "preferred spot" is needed in order to have G-waves come in towards the Earth (or towards any location) from all directions. What does he think starlight does at any location in space throughout the universe? Yes, come in from all directions regardless of where you are in the universe.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation  also comes in from all directions wherever you are in the universe.   He is thinking that the "push" theory requires G-waves to be pointed  ONLY at the Earth, when the theory actually states that the G-waves would be coming and going in all directions everywhere across the universe, the same as starlight does or the cosmic microwave background.  If you could see the G-waves visually this would make the night-sky (& space everywhere) across the universe look like a white background of brilliant light with black points only where the stars & planets blocked the background light.  These small black points would then be the direction of less push, thus appearing to "pull" towards those black dots, making interstellar gravity.    Mr. Isper's "required preferred spot" objection is obviously wrong, but the more interesting and useful thing to note from this is that even a tenured professor who is considered a top expert in his field can be wrong about his understanding of physics, even on the simple stuff.

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

1. Gravitational Aberration Does Add Significant Propulsion to Orbits

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

3. Orbital Drag

4.   A Candidate For EM Waves that Could Cause Gravity

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

6.  Zero Point Energy

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

8.  A Direct Measure of Zero Gravitational Aberration

9.  Gravitational Shielding

10.  Gravity Wave Detectors Prove Gravitational Aberration

11.  Light Being Bent Without Curved Space Time

12.  Why did they come up with the idea of Curved-Space-Time?

13.  Several Big Problems With Curved Space Time  

14.  Dark Matter Effect Without Dark Matter

15.   No Free Lunch

16.   Potential Energy Without Potential Energy

17.  Physical Matter is Standing Waves

18.  Quantum Mechanics and Standing Waves

19.   Universal Redshift and The Big Bang

20.  Time Dilation

21.  Black Holes Are A Time Frozen Star

22.  The Energy Amount In Empty Space

23.  Why Heavy And Light Things Are Propelled To Equal Speeds By G-waves

24. Why Gravity (G-waves) Push Things Differently Than A Jet Engine

25. The Electric Strong Force

26.  The Grand Unification Theory

27.  A Different Kind of Conservation Of Energy

28.  The Variable Speed Of Light, And The Speed Of Causality

29.  The Michelson-Morley Experiment

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

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

32.  Coexisting Universes, & Faster Than Light Speed Travel

33.   A New Branch Of Physics

34.  Passionate Curiosity And Circular Logic

35.  Occam's Razor

36.  So What Can We Do About It

37.  What physicists said about an early version of this paper

SOME OTHER INTERESTING VIDEOS TO WATCH

I don't think all the information in these videos is correct, but there is some useful and interesting information contained in them.