What is the source of gravitational energy?

What is the source of gravitational energy?

Is see no solid answer to this question, at least in terms of physics.
So, yes we could answer 'God', but that would imply that God has
placed no physics prior to gravity. So Theistically, you would still
need to consider why and how this occurs one way or another.
If Newton had decided that God made the apple fall from a tree,
then we would still be writing letters to one another using quills.

Now gravity is a fantastic source of energy, from hydroelectric
sources, most especially. But that is an indirect effect. If we can
find the source of gravity in physical terms, we could do wondrous
things, from energy supply to even anti-gravity devices.

So we also need to see how all conventional theory has not only
been unable to give a categorical answer, but in fact often gives 
contrary answers. So before I point out all the errors that the 
atheists are making in their thinking, I need to first show where
there is agreement in the question.

Dark energy is an unknown, and is theoretically the force or energy
which counters gravity. So conventional theory at least has a vague
place-marker for an unknown source-energy which can counter gravity
intrinsically. So as dark energy separated the objects in the early
universe, those objects attained gravitational potential from each other.

But we still cannot explain what dark energy actually is!
So to unravel dark energy, we need to first properly understand
gravity itself. Now here is where it all gets very murky.

This article here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/source-gravitational-energy.htm

shows how the relativists have muddied the entire study when
they alternatively claim that the energy source for gravity is either
the velocity of the body, or the mass of the body.

Now the historical narrative of relativity differs greatly from the
www narrative, whereby recent developments consider that objects
actually lose mass as they emit 'gravitational waves', whereas
Hawking had it that the source energy of 'gravitational waves' 
was the motion of a body. So historically they suggested that
a body slightly slows down in order to emit the energy of gravity.
Nowadays they have it that a body loses mass to emit gravity.
For Newton, neither would have been valid.

We have to be very careful not to confuse the source energy
for gravity, with the energy of the gravity itself. They are quite
different ideas; regardless of their validity and connection.

So where does an object get its gravity-energy from before it
emits that gravity to be felt as a force?
(Perhaps a clearer way to ask this slippery question)

The real problem in the history of the theory, is that both the modern
theory, and Hawking, do not mention the other side's answer.
Hawking does not mention mass being lost to emit gravitational energy,
and the more modern LIGO theorists do not mention velocity being
lost to emit this energy. If some of them do this, then they do not
explain why mass is also said to be the source of their 'gravitational waves'.
How can it be both?

They like to believe they are saying the same thing, but both
Hawking and the LIGO theorists have interpreted relativity quite
differently in this regard. This is not surprising because relativity
is certainly full of endless contradictions masquerading as logic,
via goalpost shifting, and circular reasoning.

The 'science of the gaps' is at the core of most relativistic physics.
Its implicit psychological purpose seems to be to convince you
that you 'do not understand' so as to subvert you into an inferiority
complex, and then accept their 'authority'. This is the method of
all con-artists. But do not allow them to filibuster their contradictions!
Satan poisons the minds of so many with such lies!

Logic is your greatest ally. 
There are no contradictions in Newtonian theory. But it is incomplete.

So let us look at Newton. Here mass is the cause of gravity, but
there is no energy-source for gravity in his physics (from what
I have ascertained). It seems later developments gave us the idea
of 'potential energy', which is fairly vague, but mathematically useful.

So if you throw an object in the air, your energy is absorbed as 
'potential energy' as the object reaches its zenith. And then it is
released again as the object descends. That works ok in this example.
But its not really explaining matters as to where the gravity energy
of all the objects in the universe comes from initially: Dark energy.
Before you throw the object, the gravity of the Earth is still pulling
on it, so the energy source always seems to be implicitly hidden.

If you want to know why I ask this question, then start your reading
at this article here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htm

If you are asking me to further back up my claims as to the 
contradictions in relativistic physics, start at this article:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/gravitational-waves%2Bgeneral-relativity.htm

Any comments welcome.
May I suggest that placing many points in one comment is clumsy
and if you have numerous points to make, perhaps make one
separate comment for each point? (Just a suggestion)