David,

I apologize. I’ve just discovered your commentary from long ago:

“What you appear not to be able to grasp is that the ‘absolutes’ of ‘mathematical statements that are absolute’ such as the ‘tenets of special and general relativity’ or the ‘fundamental tenets of quantum physics’ are all model dependent. Hence, they are never absolutes unless one "absolutely" adheres to their respective models. So long as one is trying to understand what is ‘actually’ the nature of this universe in which we reside one must recognize that any model is tentative, and, hence, not absolute.”

Well, sure. But how is a statement that gravitational waves can carry energy any less absolute, or any more tentative, than a statement that they can’t? Could it be you find my statements objectionable because you disagree with them, or disagree with their worth?

“there are multiple choices available for defining what is meant by the ‘existence’ of a ‘gravitational field’. Unfortunately, you have yet to make your choice.”

I’ve expressed my preference for assuming a gravitational field exists everywhere, but it makes no difference to my distinction between gravitation and force whether it exists in any particular region. For my purpose, it suffices to say if there is a detectible curvature, the effects of the curvature (gravitation) can be distinguished from force. If there is no detectible field, the distinction is, of course, problematic, and in such a region, irrelevant.

“there is the matter of distinguishing the effects of gravity from those of other inertial (pseudo,’false’) ‘forces’ (those that result from observing particle motions from any sort of non-inertial "reference frame"). With regard to this issue there is the little ‘problem’ that if spacetime is curved there are no inertial reference frames definable.”

In demonstrating the difference between gravitation and force I have sought to construct experiments that allow for their distinction to be made. It is certainly possible to construct an experiment that makes it impossible to make the distinction. But 1) why would we want to do so and 2) how would that refute the distinction, or make it problematic in any meaningful way? An inertial reference frame is definable within an enclosure where neutral test particles indicate an inertial reference frame. It’s impossible to distinguish red from blue if we turn out the light, but darkness doesn’t render the distinction insoluble. Let’s turn on the light.

“This is why I've maintained that, in general, there is no theoretical way (let alone any practical way) one can uniquely distinguish between geodesics that are gravitational vs. ‘other’ geodesics caused by non-inertial motion.”

Are you saying something more than an analog of “in general it’s too dark to tell red from blue”? Inertial or non-inertial motion from my planet may look inertial or non-inertial from yours, or from your free-moving spacecraft. Let’s work together and find away around the problem, and see if gravitation and force are equivalent. Then it’ll be no problem.

“You have expressed incredulity at the idea of geodesics due to inertial "forces". You appear to have the supposition that all inertial ‘forces’ are actually manifestations of an application of "true" forces upon something. May I suggest you simply consider rotations: No more an imposition of external ‘true’ forces as non-rotation.”

What sort of rotation are you thinking of? The rotation of a planetary body? Any body that is bound to a planet by gravity (actually by the resistance to its gravitation) will be forced to participate in the planet’s rotation by its consolidation with the planetary mass, which rotates due to the curvature of the geodesics that originally formed the planet, making for a rotation of inertially accelerating bodies. Do you mean a small-scale rotation, where gravitation is not a factor in the rotation? A body that is part of a rotation will be affected by a centrifugal “force” attributable to the actual force producing the rotation. Do you mean the rotation of a container in an experiment with test particles? A test particle inside a box or sphere will be unaffected by the rotation of the box or sphere unless it comes in contact with the box or sphere.

“your assertion that even if there are gravitational waves predicted by General Relativity, that such can, in no way, be ‘a carrier of energy’… is what is most untenable of all your assertions. You admit that gravitational waves (as predicted by the fundamental equations of General Relativity) may exist and travel, but you appear to refuse to allow that they may, in any way, cause or allow a source system to lose or decrease in energy, while causing or facilitating a receiving system to gain or increase in energy. (I hope you do recognize that General Relativity conserves energy… within the universe, in an absolute way, just as with all prior classical theories.”

I don’t deny that gravitational waves can produce variations in the distribution of kinetic and potential energy between, e.g., a binary star system and the rest of the universe. But I believe such variations are entirely relative between the system and the universe. It’s no different than the relationship between the earth and moon, where the moon’s orbit produces immense tidal dislocations without an exchange of “gravitational energy.” If you can explain how a gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion can do otherwise, I’d love to learn.