## Experiment 21 (13/02/09)- Attempt at measuring gravitational shielding

© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research 14/02/09

The aim of this experiment is to create a direct conflict between EMRP push gravity and Newton's pull gravity.

What is gravityis the question that has intrigued many scientists and philosophers alike, but for lack of any experimental evidence has never been satisfactorily answered. All we presently find in mainstream physics is no more than a vote of confidence in favour of the pull type gravity innate within all matter, which surprisingly enough, is a concept specifically denied by Newton himself to whom the concept is most often erroneously ascribed. For we find that about fourteen years after his culminating work in gravity, this topic is addressed by Newton in four letters he sent to Doctor Bentley. In his second letter, dated January 17, 1692-3, he says in reply to one from Bentley :You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter.In his third letter, dated February 25,1692-3, he expresses himself somewhat less guardedly :Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason whyAnd again, in the conclusion of the third book of his Principia, Newton remarks :I desired you would not ascribe 'innate gravity' to me.That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another,is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis ; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis...As soon as one frees himself from the innate force concept, it becomes obvious that the most obvious way for an external agent to move two bodies towards each other is for it to PUSH them towards each other. EMRP defines this agent simply as the poynting vector of highly energetic ultra cosmic radiation, thus finally unifying gravity with electromagnetism using a simple concept.

Following my arguments mentioned in the EMRP theory section one can immediately spot a difference in the behaviour of the dynamic centre of gravity between the two theories. Unlike other methods tried in the past, such method will give opposite results for either a pull or a push type gravity. For those who do not follow the activities in our Yahoo group, or my maths on the EMRP gravity section, this is a description of the experiment in layman terms. We are going to setup an elongated metal body (equivalent to a long rod) having a cross section of a long bar, to rotate freely on low friction bearings about its centre of mass. This body is balanced with small external weights in the same manner one balances his car's tires by attaching such weights on its rim. In a uniform gravity field, when perfectly balanced, the object should stay still at any arbitrary initial position....but there is no place on the surface of the earth where one can find a uniform gravity field.

Under Newton's pull concept, the gravity field between a body and earth, is non linear, with its intensity decreasing at higher positions from the Earth's centre. Thus the lower half of the body is very slightly heavier than the top half, which brings the center of gravity of the object slightly lower than its center of mass, which is the point about which the object can rotate. The longer the object is, the bigger is the CG shift downwards and away from its CM. So, according to such a pull concept, the CG downshift and hence the potential energy in the vertical position, is much lower than the CG downshift in the horizontal position. This makes the vertical position slightly more stable, and if the object is set at any angle other than H or V, it will tend to rotate and oscillate until it finally settles in its vertical position, with its CG at the lowest possible location. Well, this is what the pull concept tells us and here you can find the mathematical derivation for the calculation of the CG downshift for a long rod.

Under the EMRP push concept, any object is permeable to a great extent to the incoming ultra cosmic radiation energy whose intensity gets only slightly weaker after travelling through matter. Thus if such radiation travels across the earth's core, a body on the other side will get radiated by a much higher intensity from above than from below, since the radiation coming from below has been attenuated by the earth's body, and so feels a net push downward. As a wave travels through any body, its intensity decreases, and so does its push, or its weight effect over a mass. Note the importance of discriminating between mass and weight. Weight is an effect which is shown by the forces acting on matter. In such concept the top half of the body will see a higher wave intensity than its lower half, thus shifting its centre of weight to a higher position than its centre of mass. Therefore EMRP predicts that the lowest energy orientation is when the rod is horizontal, because this is the position in which the CG has the lowest elevation and thus its lowest potential energy. So, if left to rotate freely from any angular position other than H or V, the object will oscillate until it settles in a horizontal position, in contrary to the pull gravity case.

Recapitulating from the EMRP theory section, the gravitational force between two bodies, taking into account the wave attenuation along each body is given by:

F = k {M_{1}e^{-μx1}M_{2}e^{-μx2}}/r^{2}

which can be approximated to a relationship analogous to Newton's derivation: F = k {M_{1}M_{2}}/r^{2}... if μx is very small. In practice, μ is so small, that it takes a very large penetration depth for the product μx to give any measureable discrepancy in the force of gravity.

One can easily understand why the constant 'G' assumed constant in present mainstream theory can in practice vary between k and k * e^{-μx1}* e^{-μx2}, and why it's presently the worst defined constant in physics.

So basically, on one hand we have Newton's law, which by its inverse square function makes a long vertical rod bottom heavy, since it would act like a non uniform rod having a diameter which increases from top to bottom as a function of 1/r^{2}. On the other hand we have EMRP that with its exponential attenuation function can make the rod top heavy, effectively changing it into a non-uniform rod having a diameter which decreases from top to bottom as the inverse exponential function of distance from its upper end. Note that with EMRP, the pressure is a function of the product of the inverse square of distance from the earth's core and the inverse exponential function with distance from the top end. So, for low attenuation coefficients, the exponential function gets closer to e^{0}which is unity, and therefore for very low attenuation coefficients, EMRP reduces to Newton's law. In order to show a conflict between the two theories we will therefore need to carefully select the material for our test body. We chose lead (Pb), well known for its good shielding properties at Gamma frequencies. So, depending on the outcome of this experiment, we shall finally answer the question which science has been dragging along for the past hundreds of years. If the body settles in a position close to vertical, then, gravity is a pull innate within matter, but if it settles close to horizontal, then the gravity is an external push, driven by the momentum transfer of highly energetic waves as predicted by EMRP. The final outcome will highly depend on the attenuation coefficient of lead (Pb) at the ultracosmic radiation frequency which I propose to be close to Planck's frequency, many times higher than the Gamma rays we are presently limited to detect by the most technologically advanced sensors.

Throwing in a few numbers

Taking an elongated cross section body of 6kg and 20cm long, we find Newtonian CG acts at about 0.1-(6.4e6*(√(1+.2/6.4e6)-1))= 7.8E-10m below CM. When tilted at 45° this becomes about half its value = 3.9E-10m, generating a torque about its CM of 6000gF*3.9E-8cm = 0.2mgFcm trying to align it to the vertical. Apologies for not using the standard Newton metres, but I feel this way gives a better understanding of the torques we are talking about. The frictional torque of an UNLOADED bearing is at best 0.11gFcm which is over 500 times greater than Newtonian torque. The frictional torque of a loaded bearing will be about 6000*.001*.4=2.4gFcm (0.001 is its coefficient of friction, 0.4cm its inner ring radius) which is 18000 times more than the expected Newtonian gravitational torque. This means that there is no way we can measure such a torque with a common bearing set-up. Luckily, we do not need to, since EMRP's torque will be in the opposite direction, and hence, any torque measured in the opposite direction will be only due to another non-Newtonian gravitational torque. In order to be measurable, such a torque should however be made to exceed the opposing frictional force of 2.4gFcm. The minute opposing Newtonian torque of 0.2mgFcm is negligible and can be ignored. So, the challenge is to get the absolute maximum value for the exponential function by choosing the highest linear attenuation coefficient in order to exceed the 2.4gFcm of opposing torque. If EMRP torque is less than the bearing torque, then we cannot conclude anything.

Pictured below is a diagram showing the two totally different situations as predicted by the two opposing theories.In both diagrams the CG location is dynamic, and its distance from CM is exaggerated for the sake of clarity. You have a very small change in location, but the whole weight is acting at that point. For Newton's case, the CG is

always belowthe pivot point, whilst for the EMRP case, the CG isalways abovethe pivot point, and this holds true for any angular position of the rod about its pivot point. I've run a couple of simulations to determine the limit case for our required linear attenuation coefficient, and to confirm that the attenuation coefficient required to produce enough torque is not greater than the known attenuation coefficient at the upper gamma frequencies. Lead (Pb) has a linear attenuation coefficient μ=1.64/cm at 500keV gamma, and air has μ=112e-6/cm. The program uses the iteration derived on the EMRP section, and we manually adjusted the required μ for different output torques. There is no way to find the real value of μ at such high frequency cosmic radiation, other than with such a setup.

A linear attenuation coefficient of ~1.6e-6/cm gives the lower limit for the experiment to just fail:

..and a linear attenuation coefficient of ~3.4e-6/cm should give us enough torque to give absolute positive results:

So, at an attenuation coefficient of 1.6e-6/cm we have got a limiting case, and at 3.4e-6/cm we should have a good outcome in favour of EMRP. Note that according to this scenario, in the latter case with a linear coefficient of attenuation of 3.4e-6/cm, our solid piece of metal will be about 33 times more transparent than is air for a 500keV gamma ray. No surprise given that these energetic waves must be able to travel right through Earth's core without much loss. Too much losses and earth becomes a sun, too little and earth's core cools down. In order to be able to simulate various materials, the simulator bases its calculation on the mass attenuation coefficient μ

_{m}, which is related to the linear attenuation coefficient μ as: μ_{m}= μ/ρ. The EMRP pushing force can therefore be written as:

F = k {M_{1}e^{-μmρ1x1}M_{2}e^{-μmρ2x2}}/r^{2}.... where μ_{m}is the same for any material

Experimental setup

As one might presume, since the test will involve the detection of small amounts of torque, we first need to suspend our test object over a shaft able to rotate with minimum friction, and sturdy enough to eliminate any flexing of either the shaft, or bearing housings. The bearing housings will greatly affect the final bearing friction and overall reliability of our measurements, and are to be preferably milled to precision using a good quality CNC machine. This is a photo of two such housings:

Their dimensions are 100mm by 45mm by 50mm (depth) machined from an aluminium block. Four holes are drilled vertically to serve as mounting points to a proper stand by use of 4 x M10 bolts. A hole is drilled right through, having diameter 15mm and milled on the centre of one face at a diameter of 22mm and a depth of 8mm to accept a good quality 608-2RS oil-lubricated or dry ceramic bearings. The final bearing seating diameter should be brought down for proper bearing fitting using grade 400 sand paper or small Dremel tool. The bearings should be just tight enough in place that one can push them out of the housing without excessive force. Do not make them loose enough to fall out. This way, a very low static friction can be achieved.

Choosing the best bearings

Testing your bearing for static friction: in order to make sure you have got bearings that will be good enough for our purpose, insert the bearing on an 8mm horizontal shaft, measure and stick a small piece of Blu-Tack weighing 0.2gF on its outer ring and make sure the bearing turns around smoothly until the Blu-Tack is at its lowest position. Good hybrid bearings turn with as little as 0.1g, that is, they offer a static (unloaded) torque of less than 0.11gFcm (gF=gravitational force acting on a mass of 1 gramme = 1 gramme x g). Some lateral play between the inner and outer rings is also preferable in order to better tolerate any small shaft misalignment, and most full-ceramic bearing types are too tight. I found that making up your own bearings is the best way to achieve the ideal conditions but off the shelf good ones, such as ABEC7 oil lubricated skate bearings should work fine.

The test core

As EMRP cores, we shall use a pair of circular flat lead (Pb) disks, 200mm in diameter, 8.4mm thick. These assure that the torque generated parallel to the axis of rotation is zero, even though this should not make any difference. In practice, you can imagine these units as a set of parallel thin rods mounted next to each other on the same shaft. We will thus multiply the effect of each such rod by the number of rods acting in parallel. The two plates are mounted over an aluminium sleeve which fits snugly over an 8mm hardened steel shaft. Two pairs of 64HRC hardened steel rods tightly clamp each disk in order to totally eliminate the possibility of any flexing during the tests, making the rotating body act as one rigid piece. The bearing housings are mounted on a rigid grounded stand, which can be rotated at any orientation on its wheeled base. This is used to check that no effect is due to the alignment with earth's rotation or magnetic field.

The above is a close up photo of the test setup. The balancing disk is used for two different purposes. It is mainly used in order to obtain perfect balance at both horizontal and vertical positions before performing the experiment, and it is also conveniently used to measure the output torque by measuring how much extra weight one has to add to its rim to stop the core from moving when at an angle of 45°. If w is the extra weight required at the disk rim, which is 10cm in radius, then output torque is equal to 10w gFcm.

Results

A movie of part of the test is shown by clicking on the above photo. As one can observe from the movie, the torque is obviously tending to bring the cores to their horizontal position fromboth45° and 225°. Such movement may only be generated by a dynamic movement of the centre of gravity. The extra mass at the disk rim required to stop the movement at these angles was measured to be 0.16g at the disk rim, which equates to a measurable output torque of 1.6gFcm. The real generated torque must therefore be equal to this value added to the frictional torque of the bearing, given by T_{f}= μ_{f}W*r, where W=weight over the bearings=6000g, μ_{f}= bearing coefficient of friction=0.001, and r=shaft radius=0.4cm, thus T_{f}= 2.4gFcm. So, the total torque due to the CG shift at these angles is 1.6+2.4 = 4gFcm in the direction predicted by EMRP.

Running the iteration program with our measured experimental value, we find that the upper limit for the linear attenuation coefficient for lead (Pb) at the gravitational wavelength must be close to μ=2.67E-6/cm, making lead roughly 0.6 million times more transparent to EMRP frequencies than it is to 500keV Gamma rays, and about 42 times more transparent to EMRP frequencies than thin air is to 500keV gamma radiation!

Estimating torque generated due to core flexing

It has been correctly argued that such an effect could be produced by flexing of the cores due to their own wieght. This would indeed produce a similar effect since the CG would always be in its lowest position when the disks are in the horizontal position. However, since the hardened steel rods are bolted to the lead disks, flexing of the cores would require these rods to contract and extend along their length, which requires a tremendous amount of force. Calculating the flexing in this configuration is not an easy task, however, we can calculate the worse case, in which we shall assume the cores to be totally elastic, and model the four steel rod elements hanging from each arm to act simply in parallel, and not in a framework configuration. The cores' mass will be modeled as two point weights, one on each arm, hanging down from the steel rods at a distance of 3.927cm from the centre. This distance is the centre of mass of each semicircular pair of cores measured from the bearing. The static flexing of each rod can be calculated by applying Schaum's equation for the static deflection of a solid rod with an overhanging weight:

Deflection δz (cm)= 64FL^{3}/(3Eπd^{4})

δz = The amount in cm of reinforcing rod bending in the z direction

F = The total load on each of the reinforcing shaft in kg

L = The length from the bearing to the center of mass of the core in cm.

E = The modulus of elasticity. For our 64HRC shaft E=2.09 million kgF per square cm)

d = The shaft diameter in cm.

The output torque in gFcm from such bending at the core angular position of 45° is given by δz*cos(45)*6000, and each arm is handling the vertical component of a 3kg of load at 45° distributed over four steel rods, so such a torque would total to: [64*3/4*cos(45)*3.927^{3}/(3*2090000*π*.8^{4})]*cos(45)*6000

=1.08gFcm (torque from experiment is ~4gFcm)

This does not even generate enough torque to counteract the bearing friction which is equal to 2.4gFcm for the best bearings. Hence even though core flexing may to some extent help to get the cores into a stable horizontal position, this effect alone is not enough to produce the measured effect, not even if the cores were as flexible as rubber.

Unsupported core flexing simulation by Ryan Westafer

The maximum displacement δz at the centre of mass of each semicircular section being at 3.9cm on each side of the shaft support is found to be about 1.1e-6m. The output torque in gFcm from the simulated bending at the core angular position of 45° is therefore given by δz*cos(45)*6000, so such a torque would total to:

Torque in gFcm due to bending of unsupported cores = 1.1E-6*100*6000*cos(45) = 0.467gFcm

Again this torque is much less than the measured value of 4gFcm, almost by one order of magnitude.

Test for change in weight with orientation

The simple EMRP model on which the above experiment was based, predicts a weight gradient along the vertical length of the test weight. Apart from the gradient, this would obviously result in a change of the overall weight of the test mass, which should be in the order of milligrammes for a test weight of a few hundreds of grammes. We have thus setup a long pure Lead bar having dimensions 145x10x10mm and weighed it on an analytical balance, in both horizontal and vertical positions. The analytical balance has full internal temperature compensation with resolution of 0.1mg. As seen in the above two photos, both cases gave the same stable measurement of 166.9359g and thus unfortunately show, that the proposed gravitational shielding effect is not the mechanism generating the torque generated in the gravitational torque experiment.

From the gravitational attenuation equation, we would expect that:

Mg = Mo*g*(1 -λρx), that is a loss of mass measurement of Mo(λρx), x=1cm for horizontal, and x=14.5cm for vertical orientation

Since the measured change between the two extreme positions is less than 0.1mg for a test mass of 166.9359g, the change in mass must be less than 5.99e-7Mo, therefore we can write:

λρδx < 5.99E-7, where δx=13.5cm, and ρ=density of Pb= 11.35g/cm^{3}

λ<3.91E-9 cm^{2}/g or <3.91E-10 m^{2}/kg which is about 60 times smaller than the mass attenuation coefficient required to produce the measured torque.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the electronic balance test clearly indicates that although the method described in the above experiment is indeed a clever way to discriminate between a push and pull type of gravity, the experimental positive results we got for EMRP push type gravity are likely to be due to other physical effects, with sagging of the lead plates being the most plausible cause. If this is the case, as it seems to be, gravitational shielding and its control cannot be practically implemented to perform useful work since the shield size required would be totally impractical.