Kelvin,
The ARRL Editor-in-Chief, and the two different IEEE Editors-in-Chief understood exactly what my papers were presenting, they could not get a consensus from their associate editors, their technical staff and/or those that participated in the peer review. If a paper tries to describe gravity as an EM phenomena versus the Einstein manifestation, it will be very difficult to get a consensus, and this is what editors-in-chiefs try to achieve before they publish an article. My papers have passed through a lot of hands, and I almost expect to see my material published with another person's name on it.
Your Fig_27.17, "Action at a Distance" is representing exactly the same field configuration alignment as my Fig. 4, "Cut and flattened cylindrical surface depicting two complete cycles of an electric field having longitudinal polarization" when another Fig.4 field of the same type is at 180 degrees. Make a copy of Fig. 4, cut it out and turn it 180 degrees to the original Fig. 4. The plus and minus fields from a source must be displaced laterally, just as they are in the transverse configuration. I show the plus and minus fields being displaced laterally around a cylinder.
An EM wave will consist of both plus and minus E-fields. Your Fig_27.17 is showing a single plus field at the top and a single minus field at the bottom, and the center show them coupling. Your figure will be equivalent to my Fig. 4 when you have both a plus and minus field set at the top, from one source, and then a minus and plus field set at the bottom from another source. Then you will need two field coupling lines in the center, one with plus at the left side and minus at the right side, with the second line have a minus at the left side and a plus at the right side. We are then presenting precisely the same coupling concept; you using a flat surface and mine using a cylindrical surface.
Also, in my paper, I state the instantaneous influence-at-a-distance is required for solar system distances. The influence action is fast, but it is not infinite, which is why we have spiral galaxies. The EM fields propagate at the nominal speed of light, but once the field has propagated the influence is not limited to that velocity. The coupled longitudinal fields from two sources provides a perfect match to explain Newtonian instantaneous influence-at-a-distance and providing an attractant only force.
I had used the railway carriage coupling analogy in some of my earlier papers, but decided it was too "provincial" for my formal paper submissions.
"Why has this been overlooked by the Science community for so long? - the wave equations for both are identical, only their sources and E-field polarisations are different [another sad case of doing Maths without physical Models]."
Because everyone has been taught that EM fields are propagated as transverse waves. In the second section of my paper, "Transverse Only", first sentence, I stated, "At the time Einstein formulated his gravity theory, the only EM field configuration known was where both the electric and magnetic fields were transverse to the axis of propagation."
When I first realized a helical EM field configuration would produce an attractant field to another field of the same configuration at 180 degrees, I built a helical model so I could have a three dimensional depiction of the EM fields.
I have a few other technical issues I need to discuss with you. I have read a few articles about Tesla, and I built a Tesla coil with a vacuum tube oscillator when I was in high school, in the late 1940s. I started building transmitters shortly thereafter, when I acquired my General Class Amateur Radio license in 1948.
"Once this 'rigid rod' of Energy momenta is established any momenta added at one end of it will 'instantaneously' cause the momenta at the other to respond - just like pushing the end of a stick." That statement is not quite true, it is not rigid laterally. See reference [6] in my paper. I suspect the EM gravity wave field is not rigid angularly either, and I note this in my paper.