# The Three-Question Death Sequence

## A Linguistic Bottleneck for Geometric Gravity

### The Sequence

Ask any proponent of GR these three questions in order. Do not allow evasion.

**Question 1:** Does gravity cause objects to change velocity?

*Expected answer:* Yes.

**Question 2:** Does a change in velocity require a transfer of momentum?

*Expected answer:* Yes. (Conservation of momentum is fundamental.)

**Question 3:** What physical entity receives the equal and opposite momentum from the falling object?

### The Trap

GR has no answer. The gravitational field (spacetime curvature) is not a physical entity. It does not possess momentum. The equations conserve momentum *covariantly*, meaning that the sum of matter and field momentum is constant—but the "field momentum" is a mathematical construct, not a physical substance.

### The Evasions

Proponents may attempt:

- "Momentum is conserved in GR." (But not in the Newtonian sense—it is covariant conservation, which allows apparent changes.)
- "The question assumes a Newtonian framework." (Which is precisely the point: without a medium, you cannot answer the question in any framework.)
- "You don't understand the equivalence principle." (The equivalence principle describes indistinguishability, not mechanism.)

### The Conclusion

If you cannot name the physical entity that receives momentum from a falling object, you do not have a causal theory of gravity. You have a predictive formalism. The Three-Question Death Sequence terminates in silence—not because the question is invalid, but because the framework cannot answer it.

### The Only Way Out

Name the medium. Specify the transfer. Provide the rate. Explain the direction. Show self-consistency.

This is what Phase 2 begins.