EM-Geometric Harmonics (EMGH) versus General Relativity (GR)

by Frank Hoogerbeets — 16 January 2026, revised 17 January 2026

The standard ΛCDM model (Lambda Cold Dark Matter, built on General Relativity + particle physics) has been extraordinarily successful at explaining a huge range of observations — from the cosmic microwave background to large-scale structure formation and galaxy clustering. Yet it relies on two major "placeholders" that remain undetected despite decades of dedicated searches:

Dark matter (~27% of the universe's energy budget): Inferred from gravitational effects like flat galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing excesses, and cluster dynamics, but no direct particle detection (e.g., WIMPs, axions) has succeeded at LHC, direct-detection experiments (Xenon, LUX-ZEPLIN), or indirect signals. Small-scale issues (cuspy halos vs. observed cores, too many dwarf satellites) persist, and alternatives like modified gravity (MOND) struggle at cluster/cosmic scales.
Dark energy (68%): Modeled as a cosmological constant (Λ) to drive late-time acceleration, but its tiny value (10^{-120} in Planck units) is the worst fine-tuning problem in physics. No quantum field theory naturally produces such a vacuum energy without enormous cancellations.

These components are added by hand to make GR fit the data — they're not predicted by the theory itself. After 30+ years of intense effort (supercomputers, billion-dollar experiments like Euclid, DESI, JWST, Rubin Observatory ramping up in 2025–2026), the lack of direct evidence or a natural origin has fueled growing skepticism. Recent 2025–2026 developments highlight this tension even more:

DESI and JWST data suggest possible time-variation in dark energy's equation of state (not constant Λ), hinting it might evolve or be emergent.
New theoretical proposals (e.g., Finsler gravity extensions of GR, evolving constants in CCC+TL models, or generalized spacetime geometries) claim to reproduce cosmic acceleration and extra gravity at galactic scales without invoking dark energy or dark matter at all, treating them as illusions from modified dynamics or weakening forces over cosmic time.
Emergent gravity ideas (building on Verlinde's entropic framework) continue to inspire work, with papers exploring how information/entropy or quantum effects could generate apparent dark components.

In contrast, the geometric harmonic framework positions electromagnetism as the dominant force at solar-system scales, with gravity as a secondary, geometric/mass-resultant effect (≤5% in orbits, emergent from mass-energy coupling to EM). This approach:

Avoids ad-hoc additions entirely—no need for undetected particles or exotic vacuum energy.
Stays compatible with core observations (planetary orbits, seismic clustering via SSGI peaks at conjunctions/right-angles/semi-right-angles, especially involving Mercury/Venus/Moon).
Builds on quantized EM (already handled perfectly by QFT/QED), potentially sidestepping GR's quantization woes by subordinating gravity.
Offers predictive power in a testable domain (earthquake temporal clusters, with statistical significance in datasets like 1940–2025 conjunction analyses showing low p-values and high hit rates).

In the table below I outline the differences between GR and EMGH.

Aspect	General Relativity (GR)	EM-Geometric Harmonics (EMGH)
Fundamental Force	Gravity as spacetime curvature	EM as primary; gravity emergent/secondary
Quantization Compatibility	Struggles (non-renormalizable, gravitons hypothetical)	Builds on quantized QED/EM — no separate quantization needed
Dark Components	Requires dark matter + dark energy (undetected after decades of searches)	None required; explains observations parsimoniously
Orbital Dynamics	Kepler/Newton + relativistic corrections	Kepler/Geometry + EM-geometric harmonics
Predictive Power (Testable Domain)	Excellent at large/cosmic scales; weak short-term geophysics	Strong in geometry-based seismic pattern predictions (SSGI)
Empirical Anomalies Addressed	Needs ad-hoc fixes (e.g., dark halos, fine-tuning)	Matches solar system structure and SSGI-predicted seismic behavior without fixes
Philosophical Stance	Fundamental geometry of spacetime (monopolar)	Emerging geometry from fundamental polarity interaction (dipolar)

Table 1: GR — EMGH comparison

The "Gravity Dominates on Large Scales" Argument

A common argument in defense of gravity's dominance on large scales stems from a direct comparison between Newton's law of gravitation (F_g = G m₁ m₂ / r²) and Coulomb's law for electrostatic forces (F_e = k q₁ q₂ / r²). Proponents claim that while electromagnetism is intrinsically far stronger (~10^^36–42 times for elementary particles like protons or electrons), it "cancels out" over macroscopic distances due to charge neutrality in atoms, planets, and galaxies. With equal positive and negative charges balancing, net electrostatic effects vanish, leaving gravity — always attractive and additive due to positive-only mass — as the sole long-range organizer of cosmic structure.

This reasoning, however, is overly simplified. It reduces electromagnetism to its electrostatic component only, ignoring the magnetic field (B) entirely, dismissing the dynamic, persistent role of magnetism generated by spin, rotation, and motion in plasmas (which comprise ~99% of the visible universe's baryonic matter). Standard comparisons treat cosmic bodies as inert, static masses, not as spinning, dynamo-driven systems embedded in vast magnetic field structures. In reality, charges don't "cancel out", but rather neutralize to generate stable magnetic fields, which persist, shield, enforce cohesion, stability, and resonant order without the indiscriminate clumping that a stronger gravity would induce.

Simply put, the gravitational force G and the electromagnetic force EM cannot be compared directly, as the first is inherently monopolar and always attractive, acting between masses with no equivalent to "positive" and "negative" charges. In contrast, the electromagnetic force is fundamentally rooted in polarity: electric charges come in positive/negative pairs (enabling attraction/repulsion and net neutrality in balanced systems), and magnetic fields exhibit north/south poles (dipoles) that can align, oppose, or superpose dynamically. The gravitational force is a one-directional force (monopole), while EM waves interact, resonate and amplify (dipole). While local planetary magnetic fields are considered too weak to dominate, EM resonance and interaction make a huge difference.

A key limitation in current astrophysical measurements is the lack of routine searches for EM-resonance anomalies — such as harmonic wave patterns or feedback loops — that could lock planets into specific orbital distances via dynamic polarity or harmonic resonance coupling (HRC), specifically the 15-based harmonics 45, 90 and 135 as tracked by SSGI to predict seismic temporal clustering. While magnetospheric studies capture IMF polarity effects, they prioritize local plasma processes over potential long-range geometric resonances.

Fundamentally, GR describes how mass interacts, not how mass or spacetime are created. Given its monopolar nature, there is no mechanism how G can form mass or spacetime (they're simply assumed to exist). In contrast, EM as fundamentally dipolar, explains charge and interaction of energy, whereby energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc²). If the forming and existence of mass and spacetime requires polarity, then EM ranks higher than G, even if at some scales G appears to dominate EM.