electromass vs. radioactive decay

[KickLaBuka]

There has been some disagreement about radioactive decay changing in Silicon 32 with sunspot cycles. Silicon 32 is a lightweight dielectric, whose nucleus configuration may change due to a forced flow. This forced decay is similar to a boater being thrown from a turning boat.

However, Polonium 244 is a much heavier, much stronger element. It is a suggestion that this decay is impervious to generalized temperature swings and sunspot activity; that its 1s bounding electrons are only broken (and such a nucleus is only created) during such an event as a supernova event. The sunspot activities do not alter its decay rates, therefore signifying the event to have happened 5 billion years ago.

Uranium 238 also has a very stable decay, but it looks to only date 4.5 billion years ago.

I know this opens up a can of worms (partially uniform decay rates), and I'm not looking to say definitely uniformitarianism or any other -ism; but this is my impression given my crude knowledge of decay, and my very limited reading of such.

In any event, I don't think the topic even ventures to disprove electromass; but rather to understand electromass in terms of partially uniform radioactive decay.

[junglelord]

My crude understanding of the Weak Force *aka* radioactive decay, is a proper relationship between EM charge Geometry and ES charge geometry. The atomic balancing act of aether and angular momentum are a relationship b/t charge and mass.

I agree with the identification of charge and mass as elemental dimensions. The re-stablization of a nucleus via a alpha (helium nucleus) "particle" is clearly a situation of charge geometry re-organization, more then it is a force...

[KickLaBuka]

Junglelord,

I am very grateful to have an expert like you on my side; one willing to think beyond the accepted. I'm not sure about Thomson's proposed drawing of the atom, but I definitely thought up electromass on my own. If his is in any way similar by discarding extraneous forces one-by-one, then he is a credit to the cause of truth. My perception of your mathematical prous is not unnoticed either.

But there will be a time when I challenge the aether as a necessary vocabulary word, and I hope to remain friends after that point. If (for now) you can divert your attention to my proposed structure of galaxies and the addition of proposed field vectors, we may get through this folding problem by manipulating differentials of the emission spectrum. I have some proposed equations to start with, but lack the mathematical agility.

Yours,
Justin

[junglelord]

Yes I read your work and I agree with many concepts. We can indeed be friends and indeed allies, dispite our personal divergences.

[KickLaBuka]

All,

I have decided to throw two equations into the fray, asking that the principles or required mathematics be disproven. This constitutes the electromass hypothesis, a theoretical concept that (until now) was only described metaphysically.

The equations are found on page 38.

-Justin