> What you are both saying seems incompatible not just merely the title but also with the text of the article I would not trust the text of the article. Pop sc

> What you are both saying seems incompatible not just merely the title but also with the text of the article I would not trust the text of the article. Pop science articles are often untrustworthy even on much simpler topics. Actual papers are much better sources. > are objects really completely restored back to their former position in spacetime? Of course not; that's impossible. Any talk about restoring objects to their original position can only mean position in space. (And since "position in space" depends on a particular choice of reference frame, one then needs to ask what reference frame.) > the constituent subatomic particles would feel a stronger gravitational force and age more slowly than the particles at the troughs of oscillation? The "rate of aging" does not depend on "gravitational force". In situations where such concepts as "gravitational force" and "gravitational potential" are even applicable (which will not include very strong gravitational waves in any case), the "rate of aging" depends on gravitational potential. (For example, in the vicinity of the Earth, one's altitude above the Earth affects "rate of aging".) However, one can still assess differential aging in more general situations, just not with the rule of thumb you gave. > after the wave had passed, you'd be left with an object that has areas of divergent age? This is possible, but, as noted above, it cannot be assessed with the rule of thumb you gave. You would have to know the details of the spacetime geometry of the gravitational wave (and you would have to be prepared for some pretty heavy duty numerical computations).