Jim:

I won't dignify any of your comment that's in line with “in general it’s too dark to tell red from blue”. Your going way too far off the mark with such comments.

Again, just as on Scruffy's blog, you appear to have a problem recognizing that there is a distinction between gravitational waves and tidal effects. While they have some relations, there are significant differences.

Burt did a rather good job of pointing out that "In a way, tidal gravity, with its short range, sets up a 'near field antenna' that radiates away long range gravitational waves." Tidal effects decrease as the inverse third power of the distance (in terms of "potentials"), while the waves propagate (at least in the weak field, small amplitude, perturbation approximation, where we can treat them as linear waves) with amplitudes that decrease as 1/r. So when talking about gravitational waves we are taking about effects that are far from the "near field" tidal effects. (Generally more than one wavelength away from the source, so for the Earth-Sun system we're talking more than about a light-year, while for the Earth-Moon system we are talking 1/13 th of that, which is still far outside our solar system.)

You say that

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.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "such variations are entirely relative between the system and the universe." Are you calling upon Mach? But once again you rely upon aspersions on any concept that uses anything like “gravitational energy.”

I pointed out, in my post, that the gravitational waves do not rely upon any concept of “gravitational energy.” They come about simply as "ripples" in spacetime itself—from General Relativity itself! That's "how a gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion can" give rise to gravitational waves. Of course, an important feature of this particular "gravitational model based on curvature and geodesic motion" is that curvature is dynamic, it depends upon the locations and motions of the particles/fields/etc. within the universe. It's not static and immovable. (If spacetime were static and immovable, you would be correct that there would be no way for such to "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.")

Admittedly, since gravitational waves do "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" it does beg the question of where is the energy that "went from" the source system until it "reaches" the receiving system? It's this question, really, that I believe lead to the desire to obtain some kind of "localizable" "gravitational" energy-momentum-stress (tensor-like) "something" that can be used in such an accounting, not some "gravity as force" concept held over from Newtonian mechanics. (Unfortunately, as I pointed out so many times before, such attempts have failed. However, we are able to obtain something reasonably satisfactory in the weak field, small amplitude, perturbation approximation, where we can treat gravitational waves as linear.)

There is no need for "gravitational energy" or "gravity as a force like electromagnetism" or anything besides curvature and geodesics (and a metric, so we can actually make measurements like distances) that dynamically depends upon the distribution and motion of particles/fields/etc. within the universe.

One place you may wish to look for a potentially accessible explanation is in Wikipedia's "Gravitational wave" or the reference Burt gave in Scruffy's blog. If you wish to delve into greater detain, feel free to follow the references these references provide. (Burt's reference refers directly to Misner, Thorn, and Wheeler's Gravitation, which can be quite difficult for the layman. However, I may be able to help you, if you are willing.)

You do end with "I'd love to learn", but I have to question whether you mean actually learning what General Relativity has to say on this matter, or whether you are referring to something else. If you are willing to learn what General Relativity has to say on this issue, I may be able to help you.

'Til then.

David