The EMRP Gravity Theory

© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Gravitational Shielding

The notion of gravitational shielding was first proposed by Laplace in 1880 and experimentally investigated in the 1920s by the Italian physicist Quirino Majorana. This shielding was (and is still) considered to be a hypothetical effect by which large masses (such as the moon) can partially block the gravitational force from more distant objects (such as the sun). This might explain the unusual and highly controversial efforts observed by some researchers in the behavior of pendulums during solar eclipses. The resulting shielding function for particulate models and electromagnetic absorption models gives the same exponential function.

The origins of the idea of gravitational shielding go back to Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss mathematician and one-time close friend of Isaac Newton. When Newton admitted he didn’t know how gravity really worked, de Duillier suggested, in 1690, that it arose as a shadowing effect associated with the absorption by material bodies of minute particles. This “push” theory of gravity was then developed further, in the eighteenth century, by another Swiss mathematician, George-Louis LeSage, also remembered for building and patenting the first electric telegraph. LeSage believed there was some kind of pressure in space. Masses, he thought, shielded one another from this space pressure and are thus pushed together by the unshielded pressure on their opposite sides. Although LeSage’s theory never won much support in the wider scientific community, it did strongly influence John Herapath, an English amateur scientist, in developing an early version of the kinetic theory of gases. It also came back into play when attempts were made to explain some anomalies in the motion of the moon that had been detected in the first decade of the twentieth century by Simon Newcomb.

In 1912 the German astronomer Kurt Bottlinger calculated the effects that would occur if the gravitational force between the sun and the moon decreased during lunar eclipses. What he found was a fluctuation in the moon’s longitude that agreed with Newcomb’s observations. Subsequently, Bottlinger’s results were criticized by the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, and Einstein tried to supply an alternative explanation in terms of changes of the Earth’s rotation due to tidal effects. However, Einstein’s analysis was soon proved to be wrong, and for many years the moon‘s anomalous movements went unexplained. In the 1930s the mystery disappeared from view when astronomers began to use so-called ephemeris time, which was defined in a way that assumed the motion of the moon to be regular. Even before this, the widespread acceptance of general relativity undermined belief that an effect involving gravitational absorption could exist, pulling the rug from any further experimental and astronomical studies of this hypothesis. But it didn’t stop Majorona. In the 1920s, the decade in which general relativity came of age, he did a series of lab experiments, involving lead and mercury shields, in which he reported a small gravitational absorption effect. Unfortunately, it seems that to this day, no other researchers have bothered to replicate these important experiments.

Macroscopic mass defect

Galileo free fall experiment Galileo found that the acceleration due to gravity of a falling light object is equal to that of a heavy object. Since F=ma, this means that for the acceleration to remain a constant, the gravitational force has to be directly proportional to the mass of the object, that is proportional to the product of its density and volume. Low density material, with a lower number of material targets, will provide a light shadow because incoming waves (or photons if you like) mostly pass straight through and are neither reflected nor absorbed, so the radiation imbalance on a light object will be small. Denser material suffer more collisions with incoming photons, or more radiation pressure imbalance and cast a darker shadow, so radiation imbalance increases with density (proportional to the number of matter targets per unit volume), as does gravity. This is why, all objects fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of their masses. The 'darkness' of this shadowing effect depends on the density of the mass responsible for the shadowing effect. The denser the substance is, higher the number of matter targets, and the bigger is the chance of an EM wave to collide with the atom's constituent targets and be reflected. The more reflected waves, the less will emerge from the opposite face, and the object will thus cast a darker shadow on any mass in its vicinity. Therefore as material density increases, the chances of the radiation reaching deeper matter targets will decrease, and therefore weigh less, appearing as a lower density material to the external world. This is what we call mass defect in nuclear physics. This means that as the electromagnetic radiation travels deeper in matter, the force of gravity due to its poynting vector, is no longer proportional to the product of density and volume but to the product of an exponentially reduced density and volume of the target. If we take a long rod as our target, both gravitational and inertial masses will be lower than the sum of those belonging to the same cylinder sliced in small pieces. The consequences are that huge bodies, like for example our sun, will shadow a big part of their mass as the waves travel radially towards its core. The sun will effectively have the mass of a sphere whose density decreases exponentially with its radial distance from the centre. So, if one could split the sun in two, the sum of masses of the two sections will exceed that of the original mass.

Matter whose mass does not offer enough shadowing to make the exponential decay noticeable, will thus give closer results to Newton's law, with mass defined as the product of the 'inert' density and volume. Matter whose mass creates dark shadowing, will still obey Newton's law, but the mass has to be defined as the product of a modified denstiy function and volume.

Electromagnetic radiation attenuation

For those who never studied either radiology or electronic communications the attenuation function of a wave as it penetrates through any material medium is given by:

φtransmitted = φo e-μx..... φo=external flux, μ= attenuation coefficient, x= depth

exponential transmittance

The term μ/ρ is called the mass attenuation coefficient λ, frequently used in radiology, and is the one we are going to use here in order to easily generalise the effect for all elements.

Hence, the above equation can be re-written as:

φtransmitted = φo e-λρx..... φo=external flux, &rho= material density, λ= μ/ρ = mass attenuation coefficient of target material and x= depth along the direction of wave travel

If one applies the attenuation function of electromagnetic waves to the cosmic gamma rays pushing things against each other, we would get a modified law of gravity in the form:

F= n*(M1')(M2')/R2
where M1'=M1*e-λρx, M2'=M2*e-λρx and n is a true constant.

So you can now finally see what the stupid 'constant' G is really made up of, and why no experiment can ever give the same value for it. M1' and M2' will be the effective masses, that is, the portion of mass that is available for interaction with external force fields. M1 and M2 are their maximum effective masses which are shown when body M1 or M2 are pressed into a thin sheet form and placed face to face like two capacitor plates.
λ is the mass attenuation coefficient at the EM frequency causing gravity, which can be experimentally measured.

So, if one knows this mass attenuation value for λ, it is possible to find the effective mass of a body as follows:

Effective weight M*g= Mo * g * e-λρx.....Equation 1

Since x is the distance travelled in the direction of the force, it should be evident, that a rod shaped mass will offer two different weights for its horizontal and vertical orientations. This has been experimentally proven by researchers who were quite suprised with such anomalies. Presently, science is happily dumping the work of many researchers, which cumulatively support EMRP, in its rubbish dump, tagged 'anomalies & experimental errors'.
Once one experimentally finds the value for λ, it can be used to work out the effective mass of the object in all orientations, by plugging values for x. You can also work out the various positions of its dynamic CG. Any material will obey this law. Different materials and configurations can enhance the shielding property.

Fallback to Newton's law

Using the linear approximation ex=1+x, valid for small x, we can simplify equation (1) as:

Effective weight Mg = Mo*g*(1 -λρx),

therefore for very small λ, which is well justified from experimental work, we get Newtonian weight:

Dynamic centre of gravity

An interesting point which identifies EMRP from the present classical theories of gravity is that in the classical 'pull type' gravity, there is no exponetial decay function, and so, the bottom part of a long rod would weigh more than the top part due to the inverse square function. Therefore the CG would shift downward, while in EMRP theory the CG would follow a completely different movement depending upon the magnitude of its exponential shielding factor. For the case of negligible exponential function, EMRP reduces itself to a purely inverse square law, but for higher magnitudes of the exponential factor, the CG will move upwards. In both theories the rod would weigh less in a vertical orientation than in the horizontal, but for the vertical position, equilibrium gets more stable for the classical gravity and more unstable for EMRP gravity. The dynamic position for the CG (do not confuse this with centre of mass) according to Newtons law, ie. taking only into account the inverse square law is shown here, whilst the CG of a rod in the vertical position for high exponential factors can be worked out by solving:

(Mo/2)*e-λρ= Mo*x*e-λρx where x= fraction of rod's length of CG point from top of rod, that is x=0.5 gives half rod length measured from top. This can be solved by setting x(0)=0.5 and iterating for n steps, which in most cases gives an accurate result in just two iterations steps:

fx(n) = 2*x(n)*e(-λρ*x(n))-e-λρ
f'x(n) = 2*x(n)*[-λρ*e(-λρ*x(n))+2e(-λρ*x(n))]
x(n+1) = x(n) - fx(n)/f'x(n)

Alternatively, one can use the linear approximation ex~1+x to avoid the iteration and solve for x using the standard quadratic equation solution as follows:

Mo/2 (1-λρ) = Mox(1-λρx)
2λρx2 - 2x - λρ + 1 = 0

x= (1/4λρ)(2-√(4-8λρ(1-λρ)))

EM wave attenuation mechanisms in matter

So, what's happening to the attenuated waves? When incident radiation is directed towards an object, some of the waves will bounce back upon hitting a basic matter structure, some will get absorbed and released in other forms of energy, including kinetic energy to sustain the same matter structure standing wave and translational KE, some will be deviated from their original path, while others will continue their transmission deeper into the material. The net change between the transmitted flux and the original flux due to all these mechanisms is referred to attenuation, even if not all the energy is being absorbed by the material. These waves travel different depths within the material based upon the probability of their encounter with a basic particle of matter. All atoms are known to consist of over 99.999% space, the rest being the interesting massive entities (the constructive interference matter wave patterns) which our travelling waves are targeting. Since the probability of encounter increases with distance travelled, the number of waves reaching a specific point in matter decreases exponentially with depth travelled. If for example 100 wave fronts approach a material, whose density result in 10% of the incoming waves to be reflected, deflected or absorbed per cm depth, then, 90 wave fronts will continue their journey upon passing the first 1cm. In the next cm, 10% of 90 will be reflected, leaving 81 wavefronts passing to the next stage. By continuing this progression, the exponential shape of the transmission function becomes obvious.

Unlike the linear attenuation coefficient μ, the mass absorption coefficient λ is independent of the physical state of matter, being it a solid, a liquid or a gas, but still varies from one element to another. As we have already mentioned, the attenuation of EM waves travelling through matter is due to the combined effects which are defined by the photoelectric absorption coefficient (τ/ρ) which dominates at low energies, incoherent Compton scattering coefficient (σ/ρ), and pair production which dominates at high energies. So μ/ρ can be written in terms of these two mechanisms as follows:

λ = τ/ρ + σ/ρ + τp

The mass absorption coefficient μ/ρ can be written in terms of atomic cross section σ as:

λ ~ (NA/A) x (σphotoelectric + σCompton + σpair)

where NA is Avogadro's number and A is the atomic weight of the target material. The dependence of the cross sections on atomic number Z can be approximately defined as follows:

σphotoelectric ∝ Z5, so τ/ρ ∝ Z5/A (approximation valid for high energy levels - see plot below)

σCompton ∝ Z, so σ/ρ ∝ Z/A ~ a constant

σpair production ∝ Z2, so τp/ρ ∝ Z2/A

exponent variation

The scattering coefficient contributes a relatively small amount to the total mass attenuation coefficient for elements of higher atomic number than iron (Fe26) and high energies. Compton cross section does not vary much with changes in EM frequency or atomic number. The dominant absorption mechanism at extremely high gamma frequency is thus the photoelectric absorption, which is known to vary as Z5/A, so the total effective absorption coefficient μ/ρ at EMRP frequencies varies with the atomic number of the target material as:

λ = k (aZ5/A).... a = constant

Thus, the contribution of absorption coefficient to the total mass attenuation coefficient would definitely be expected to play an important role in the amount of shielding using high atomic number (Z) materials.

Thus, assuming EMRP acts at a quantum level, at which the constituents of all electrons, and nucleons are of the same size, a huge number of photons may impart their kinetic energy on all constituents of each atom at the same time, moving them as a whole and causing no relative motion between the atoms or their components, and thus no internal heat. Therefore equation (1) can be generalised for all elements and be written in terms of their atomic and mass numbers as:

Effective weight M*g= Mo * g * e-(ξρx(aZ5/A))..where ξ is the EMRP shielding constant.....Equation 2

If we experimentally find the value of μ/ρ for one particular element having atomic number Z and mass number A, we may easily find the value for the EMRP shielding constant ξ, since:

λ= ξ (aZ5/A), or ξ= λ/(aZ5/A) ..... Eq.3

Substituting the experimental value we have got for λ from experiment 21 in equation 3, we get:

ξ = 2.36e-8/(825/208) = 1.324e-15

This value can be used in equation 2, to predict the effective weight of any material.

As an example we shall use this equation to predict the change in mass with orientation for the Titanium rod used in the Russian experiment [1]. The rod used was a Titanium rod, Z=22, A=48, ρ=4550kg/m2, dimensions 15cm x 3 cm, mass of 500g. Substituting these values in equation (2) for both horizontal and vertical orientations, we get:

Mv = 500*e-(1.324e-15*4550*225*0.15/48)
Mh = 500*e-(1.324e-15*4550*225*0.03/48)
Change in mass measurement dM = Mh - Mv ~ 39 µg, dM/M= 0.77e-7

This agrees with their experimental result which gave dM~49 µg at a deviation of 10 µg as shown below:

titanium change of weight

Gravitational shielding gives false measurements for planet's mass

We can work out the net intensity or radiation reaching a point close to a large shadowing body by integrating the intensity of all rays reaching the point. For the strong solution, in which either the shadowing body is very large, or the distance to the shodowed point is very small, we get :

φnet = φoμoA/R2

φo = external flux density
φnet = Net flux density
μo = maximum attenuation coefficient = 100%
A = cross sectional area of a spherical body
Note the flux density for the strong solution depends on the cross sectional area, rather than the volume. A study on the mass per unit cross sectional area of the planets in our solar system confirms this, and shows that the mass of planets of the size of Earth and above, start deviating from their normal mass=density*volume to one which is more like that of the surface of a disk, having mass=density*cross sectional area. The missing mass effect is not abrupt but increases inverse exponentialy with depth. From present knowledge about planet formation, we know that all planets forming around a star should more or less made up of the same material, and so have approximately the same density. The chart below clearly shows that planets with a radius greater than that of earth show a mass which is no longer proportional to their volume but more to their cross sectional area. The exception is only with Jupiter (not plotted) due to the fact that this planet radiates its own radiation, and so has an effect over its total radiation pressure, and makes its present data unreliable for such a study. See how this concept may experimentally show that gravity is in fact background radiation pressure. The difference between the mass proportional to volume and reduced mass due to severe shadowing, perfectly explains the mass defect enigma in the nuclear structure of matter, usually associated with some form of internal binding energy. It also explains the non linearity of mass increase with increasing atomic number. The more neutrons and protons packed inside the nucleus core, the more shadowed and invisible the central parts become. These effects, would no longer be enigmas, but evidence that this theory is correct.

Solar System Parameters

MercuryVenusEarthMarsJupiterSaturn UranusNeptunePluto
Mass (1024 kg)
0.33024.8695.9750.64191,898.6568.4686.83 102.430.0125
Equatorial Radius (km)
243960526378339371,49260,26825,559 24,7661137
Mass/Cross sectional area (1010kg/m3)

Stanley V. Byers, was the first researcher to my knowledge to notice this characteristic in our solar system. In fact, within his excellent work on this subject he shares many common ideas to gravity being radiation energy pressure. The only major but important difference, being that the radiant energy in Byers' theory is not electromagnetic in nature but some yet undiscovered type of radiant energy. Quoting Byers, one of the reasons for which he excludes EM energy for being the responsible for the gravity pressure is that "If the spectrum causing gravity were EM radiation, the Earth would soon be turned to toast". He says "EM radiation causes the manifestation of heat energy, Prime radiation does not." This is in fact one of the major pitfalls of push gravity and LeSage variant theories. But the solution is not to run away from electromagnetic radiation. Heat is generated by relative motion of particles. If all EM momentum is transferred equally amongst neighbouring particles and in the same direction, we can transfer huge amounts of kinetic energy without generating heat. So, electromagnetic radiation at such high frequency (and energy) need not turn everything into toast, and we do not need any other form of unknown radiant energy to explain gravity.

Why is our sun so light?

Another prediction of the EMRP theory is the macroscopic mass defect, which results as a direct consequence of shadowing of the incoming ultra cosmic radiation. As waves penetrate through a large spherical mass, such as a planet, they get slowly attenuated in a radial direction towards its core. Since weight depends on the interaction between mass and radiation, the deeper spherical shells of such a mass will be perceived as having a lower density. This can leave the central core of matter virtually inexistent for external electromagnetic fields, and thus almost completely isolated from any inertial or gravitational effects. In other words, the massive spherical centre will behave more like an empty sphere to the exterior, and most matter within it no longer communicates its weight to external force fields.

sun cross section

This has great implications in the way we think planets, stars and our own sun are composed. We would of course expect to find evidence of this macroscopic mass defect in the biggest bodies of our solar system, in which the sun gets its first place. This theory in fact supports the main issue that Professor Oliver K.Manuel, now long time member of Blaze Labs Yahoo team, has been pushing forward for the past years about the origin of the solar system with Iron-rich Sun. The main problem with Oliver's issue was that although he has all the physical evidence that a lot of iron is present in our sun, the gravitational force of the sun shows that its total mass is that of a ball of the same radius as the sun but with a density slightly greater than water! Would you believe that? The present accepted density for our sun is just 1.41g/cm3, yet we know it contains a vast quantity of metals which one cannot account for in its mass. How can we explain this? Simply by taking into account the massive shadowed spherical core within the sun's volume of matter, acting like a spherical void. As shown in the diagram above, the macroscopic mass defect of our sun is far from negligible. From the planet data density curve, we find out that Earth is just in the limit of the curve in which the total body mass is proportional the product of its inert density and volume, that is it's core is just starting to modify its effective density. This means that the earth's radius is the limiting depth for a mostly iron planet, beyond which its density increasingly shadows external ultra cosmic radiation from penetrating any deeper. For the same reason, assuming all of the planets in our solar system must be composed more or less of the same composition, those planets of bigger diameter show mass anomalies which cannot be explained by current theories, since they will look lighter than they should. We find that the bigger the planet, the lighter or less dense it has to be to conform with Newton's laws. So, the only way out for present theorists is to assume these are planets of light density material or mostly composed of gases. However, from the way planets are presumably formed, one would expect to find similar kind of matter, and hence densities within all components of our solar system, including the sun. Thus, it becomes evident, that all planets having bigger radius than Earth, have an internal mass defect core, which gets larger with their radius. If one assumes that this false apparent mass, belongs to a solid spherical body of uniform density, then it is obvious that when the density is calculated as density= false mass/volume of sphere, this will result into a ridiculously low apparent density. Armed with this concept, we can even calculate the size of such void for all planets, and know their respective missing mass and also their 'inert' mass, that is, the true mass that would reappear if one had to split each planet into many pieces.

EMRP Gravity Theory eliminates dark matter

If one applies Newton's law of gravity, or even the latest refined theory of Einstein's laws of gravity, to the way galaxies spin, one will quickly stumble into a big problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because according to the known laws of gravity, its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces which exactly balance the centifugal forces. But here is a hunch : there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin, and we're not off by a small percentage, there should be about nine times the existing matter.
It was in the late 1970's when, Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly for the first time. This missing mass was termed dark matter. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was, and nobody could find any trace of it anywhere. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is yet no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, even at the expense of invalidating some of the currently most established theories. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90% of the mass in the universe. The missing 90% of dark matter is obviously a direct consequence of a false assumption which has been dragging along for many many years, the assumption of the existence of true universal constants, like c anf G. That ALL constants are a function of the local intensity of background EM radiation is yet another prediction that comes straight forward from EMRP. The density of vacuum together with all its parameters, such as its refractive index, are variable on a universal scale, and are simply playing tricks on astronomers who rely on the false assumption. There is simply no missing mass at all!

[1] Influence of orientation of bar on its mass - Measurement Techniques, Vol.41, No.5, 1998

previous home next