In GR there is no force being applied to the object, the object is being potential influenced in the curved space-time geometry. The curves are supplying potential energy (not force) or influencing the objects motion into orbit by the curved space-time environment.

Just a layman trying to understand this... did I get GR gravity correct?

A major problem I've got understanding what I said.

lets compare curve space-time to a ball on a hill, the ball rolls down the hill if theres no obstruction... the hills geometry released the potential energy of the ball gradually depending on the hills slope angle, right? But, if there was no gravitational force the ball would not roll down the hill! GR curves in space-time cant supply any energy/motion to anything without there still being a gravitational force. Experiment: Lets go to a region of space where there is no gravity, we place a wooden plank there at the angle of the slope of the hill, we put the ball on the plank, what do you think will happen? I think nothing will happen! the ball wont roll down the plank, because there is no gravity to force it down the plank...

The GR space-time curved geometry wont work without there still being a gravitational force to force the objects down the space-time curves. Without there being a gravitational force the object would just sit on the curve and not move.

I just dont understand GR gravity, probably because of something Im misunderstanding... where am I going wrong?

The way I understand it......

Gravity in the GR model is space/time....It is exhibited in the presence of mass/energy, when that mass/energy curves the space/time.

You say let's go to a region of space/time where there is no gravity.....but the act of going to that region, with a wooden plank, immediately creates the gravity by warping/curving the space/time.

So your scenario is invalid.

I think it was John Archibald Wheeler who said,

" mass/energy tells space/time how to curve: space/time tells mass/energy how to move" :

Also In saying the above, we do have two models of gravity...Newtonian and GR.

These both describe gravity in the following two methods, [1] The attraction between two masses, that falls off as the inverse square of the distance between them. and [2] The warping/curving of space/time in the presence of mass/energy.

The GR method is the more realistic model, due to the higher precision obtained near very dense objects such as BHs.

But it also has its shortcomings which become obvious at the Planck/quantum scale.

So even though it is the better model, a model is all it is, as distinct from an exact reality as to the nature of gravity.

In essence then, we don't really know what gravity is.