(Below is a very slightly edited clone of an OP posting at another forum):

Previously I had dropped tentative support for Carver Mead's G4v vector gravity theory. Partly on the basis of the apparently definitive positive finding for GR-type tensor gravity GW's, and against vector gravity GW's, as mentioned under 'VIII. CONCLUSION' in the jointly authored article https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09660 linked to in another forum.

That and a similar negative finding here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03794 is now strongly challenged by A. Svidzinsky with his reanalysis that evidently dramatically turns the tables in favour of his Vector Theory of Gravity:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07181

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03520

The theory itself:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... a93a8/meta

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... aa93a8/pdf

With an interesting Editorial piece that probably should be read first:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 896/aa93a9

Some novel features - gravitons are not fundamental but composite objects formed of massless fermion/anti-fermion pairs. Similar proposal for photons.

Has the imo absolutely essential feature that for a spherically symmetric mass the metric has exponential form just as in Yilmaz theory. No horizons thus no BH's.

And just as Stan Robertson showed for Yilmaz theory, the current theory automatically predicts accelerated expansion for universe of the correct magnitude - without requiring any free parameter.

The one thing not to my liking is it assumes a prior background Euclidean/Minkowski metric.

The final arbiter though will hinge on whether his finding that LIGO/Virgo etc. GW signatures actually rules out GR-type GW's and rules in vector GW's continues to hold up. There is certain to be savage criticism from GR community, at least for quite some time.

Will be very interesting to follow developments.