Page 1 of 1

Radioactive Decay

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:16 pm
by SoverT
bperet wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:12 pm
I keep going back to Gustave LeBon's book, The Evolution of Matter, where he discovered a way to change radioactive decay rates but never really described the process in detail. Given it was published in 1907, it must be a relatively simple process. The answer is probably in there, but I just missed it.
From what I recall of my partial reading, didn't he describe more of a channeling than a decaying process? Channeling might narrow down the possibilities of what's going on

Radioactive Decay

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:06 am
by bperet
SoverT wrote:
Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:16 pm
From what I recall of my partial reading, didn't he describe more of a channeling than a decaying process? Channeling might narrow down the possibilities of what's going on
Yes, LeBon considered radiation to be a "renewable" resource as it is not from the atom, itself, but from the environment the atom exists in (3D time).

Larson considers radiation to be a temporal explosion, where the explosion occurs in one shot in time, but it takes clock time to run across all the pieces in our material environment.

I am finding a little of both... beta and gamma decay appear to be from linear motion within the time region, most likely from solar flares pushing material to FTL speeds. It can be thought of as a "cosmic solar flare" where the CCME (Cosmic Coronal Mass Ejection) moves through 3D time in clock space that we see as instantaneous and emitting from atoms, versus the material CME that moves through 3D space and clock time, taking a few days to get here.

Alpha decay appears to be age-limit disintegration of a part of the atom's rotating system, to try to make it stable in the environment.

Re: Radioactive Decay

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:50 am
by bperet
While doing some research on FTL propulsion, I got to wondering why Promethium is missing from the table of naturally occurring elements. Given Larson's premises, it should be there, so why isn't it?

Looking at the displacements for the magnetic series:
Z=atomic number, Ab=Abbreviation, Disp=RS displacement,
Mass=amu, Rot=rotational mass, Iso=isotopic/vibrational mass:

Code: Select all

  Z Ab   Disp  Mass Rot Iso
 25 Mn  3-2-7    55  50   5 stable
 43 Tc  3-3-7    98  86  12 no stable isotopes
 61 Pm  4-3-7   145 122  23 not found in Nature (assumed very short half-life)
 93 Np  4-4-7   237 186  51 no stable isotopes
Neptunium is over the 236 mass limit, so should be radioactive in the RS. The others, however, should exist as naturally-occurring elements with at least one stable isotope. Only manganese does.

Elements that surround Tc and Pm all have 5 stable isotopes, so it is unlikely that there is some kind of "zone of instability" to account for this behavior. They actually appear to be in a zone of very stable isotopes.

If the +7 electric displacement was an oddity in Nature, then manganese would also be radioactive, which it is not.

Promethium is an odd atom, as it does not emit gamma rays... but does emit X-rays with beta decay. Using the astronomical data collected by Larson, X-rays are emitted when matter that is moving faster-than-light drops below unit speed. This is leading me to the conclusion that promethium DOES exist in Nature, but has its atomic structure moving in the intermediate speed range (2-x), faster-than-light. As such, the element would exhibit an negative isotopic mass (2Z-G, rather than 2Z+G). When at 2-x speed, promethium would have a mass of: 2(61)-23 = 99 amu. Curiously, this is the mass of one of the isotopes of technetium.

My conclusion to this point would be that, for a reason yet to be determined, natural promethium is exhibiting intermediate speed motion (FTL) and is being misidentified as technetium, which then breaks down into other, stable elements. (And that's how FTL propulsion got connected with promethium.)