Surprise! Nuclear decay rates seem to be dependent on Earth's orbitalposition

Hi Yousuf,
I've posted on neutrino flux for a few years,
below you will find a recent one...

On Aug 30, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283


Well, as a brat I'm reading along studying mean
lifetimes of meson and hyperons seeing 10^-10 secs,
and my brain screeches to a halt at the (n) life of
15 minutes, which is like a relative eternity!

Next, how can a tiny thing like a (n) contain some
sort of clock that ticks off to explode in ~15 minutes??
If anyone wishes to explain how that sort of timer
can be contained within the (n)'s structure I'd be
happy to read about it.

So Tucker goes over to causality theory using
neutrino flux to explain the (n) decay rate, it's
obviously a fringe notion due to lack of data.
Let's begin with a quiki wifi, for ref,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
and see the (n) decay as,

n = p+e+v'

and do a causal reversal to

n+v = p+e

with the neutrino (v) being of the appropriate
energy to intiate the (n) decay, thereby laying
radioactive decay rates on the (v) flux.

That was all conjecture until Super Nova 1987a.

Reports came in of a large amount of (v) flux from
terrestrial detectors and a star nearby SN1987a
brightend.
I'm sorry I cannot find an immediate ref to that
nearby star, the phenomena was fleeting,
however, if the observation was true, then the
(v) flux accelerated the *rate of fusion* within the
nearby star, and so to the rate of radioactivity,
that resulted from the (v) pulse from SN1987a.

That provided the 1st evidence that decay rates
are proportional to neutrino flux, hence providing
a causal basis for neutron decay life times.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Aug 31, 5:21*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Yousuf,
I've posted on neutrino flux for a few years,
below you will find a recent one...

On Aug 30, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:





Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick..
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

Well, as a brat I'm reading along studying mean
lifetimes of meson and hyperons seeing 10^-10 secs,
and my brain screeches to a halt at the (n) life of
15 minutes, which is like a relative eternity!

Next, how can a tiny thing like a (n) contain some
sort of clock that ticks off to explode in ~15 minutes??
If anyone wishes to explain how that sort of timer
can be contained within the (n)'s structure I'd be
happy to read about it.

So Tucker goes over to causality theory using
neutrino flux to explain the (n) decay rate, it's
obviously a fringe notion due to lack of data.
Let's begin with a quiki wifi, for ref,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
and see the (n) decay as,

n = p+e+v'

and do a causal reversal to

n+v = p+e

with the neutrino (v) being of the appropriate
energy to intiate the (n) decay, thereby laying
radioactive decay rates on the (v) flux.

That was all conjecture until Super Nova 1987a.

Reports came in of a large amount of (v) flux from
terrestrial detectors and a star nearby SN1987a
brightend.
I'm sorry I cannot find an immediate ref to that
nearby star, the phenomena was fleeting,
however, if the observation was true, then the
(v) flux accelerated the *rate of fusion* within the
nearby star, and so to the rate of radioactivity,
that resulted from the (v) pulse from SN1987a.

That provided the 1st evidence that decay rates
are proportional to neutrino flux, hence providing
a causal basis for neutron decay life times.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am in agreement with your assesment that it is an incoming neutrino
that CAUSES beta decay. I have written an article which also claims
this:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/quarks.html

A recent concern of mine was that if the neutrino supplies a variable
amount of energy, then you might think that the amount of energy
avaliable to the exiting beta particle would also vary and since there
might not be a limit on the neutrino energy, there shouldn't be a
limit on the beta particle energy either. But it seems that there is a
hard limit which I am assuming matches the E=mc^2 for missing mass.
How do you handle this?

I also do not have a model for alpha decay using incoming neutrinos.
Do you have one of those?

The experiments I have suggested include putting a beta decay source
right next to a neutrino detector. If beta decay does not emit anti-
neutrinos, we should be able to see this in the detector and then
conclude that the neutrinos belong on left side of the equation and
not the right.

-fhuneutrino

On Sep 1, 12:57*am, wrote:
On Aug 31, 5:21*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:





Hi Yousuf,
I've posted on neutrino flux for a few years,
below you will find a recent one...

On Aug 30, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

Well, as a brat I'm reading along studying mean
lifetimes of meson and hyperons seeing 10^-10 secs,
and my brain screeches to a halt at the (n) life of
15 minutes, which is like a relative eternity!

Next, how can a tiny thing like a (n) contain some
sort of clock that ticks off to explode in ~15 minutes??
If anyone wishes to explain how that sort of timer
can be contained within the (n)'s structure I'd be
happy to read about it.

So Tucker goes over to causality theory using
neutrino flux to explain the (n) decay rate, it's
obviously a fringe notion due to lack of data.
Let's begin with a quiki wifi, for ref,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
and see the (n) decay as,

n = p+e+v'

and do a causal reversal to

n+v = p+e

with the neutrino (v) being of the appropriate
energy to intiate the (n) decay, thereby laying
radioactive decay rates on the (v) flux.

That was all conjecture until Super Nova 1987a.

Reports came in of a large amount of (v) flux from
terrestrial detectors and a star nearby SN1987a
brightend.
I'm sorry I cannot find an immediate ref to that
nearby star, the phenomena was fleeting,
however, if the observation was true, then the
(v) flux accelerated the *rate of fusion* within the
nearby star, and so to the rate of radioactivity,
that resulted from the (v) pulse from SN1987a.

That provided the 1st evidence that decay rates
are proportional to neutrino flux, hence providing
a causal basis for neutron decay life times.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am in agreement with your assesment that it is an incoming neutrino
that CAUSES beta decay. I have written an article which also claims
this:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/quarks.html

A recent concern of mine was that if the neutrino supplies a variable
amount of energy, then you might think that the amount of energy
avaliable to the exiting beta particle would also vary and since there
might not be a limit on the neutrino energy, there shouldn't be a
limit on the beta particle energy either. But it seems that there is a
hard limit which I am assuming matches the E=mc^2 for missing mass.
How do you handle this?

I also do not have a model for alpha decay using incoming neutrinos.
Do you have one of those?

The experiments I have suggested include putting a beta decay source
right next to a neutrino detector. If beta decay does not emit anti-
neutrinos, we should be able to see this in the detector and then
conclude that the neutrinos belong on left side of the equation and
not the right.

-fhuneutrino- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure that the energy of the incoming neutrino matters if it's
above some threshold. Much like in fission by a slow neutron. If the
neutron doubles in energy the affect on the fission rate is small.
The extra energy appears as kinetic energy of one of the fission
products. One can set off a mouse trap with a toothpick or a hammer.

At a fundamental level, a model has an incoming neutrino interacting
with a quark. The result of that interaction may trigger beta decay -
or, through some internal multiparticle nuclear dynamics - alpha
decay, if the energetics were close to begin with.

Neutrino detectors are terribly inefficient. To do your experiment
with a beta source would require decades, I'm guessing.

Hi Guys.

On Sep 1, 7:47 am, Raphanus wrote:
On Sep 1, 12:57 am, wrote:



On Aug 31, 5:21 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Hi Yousuf,
I've posted on neutrino flux for a few years,
below you will find a recent one...

On Aug 30, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

Well, as a brat I'm reading along studying mean
lifetimes of meson and hyperons seeing 10^-10 secs,
and my brain screeches to a halt at the (n) life of
15 minutes, which is like a relative eternity!

Next, how can a tiny thing like a (n) contain some
sort of clock that ticks off to explode in ~15 minutes??
If anyone wishes to explain how that sort of timer
can be contained within the (n)'s structure I'd be
happy to read about it.

So Tucker goes over to causality theory using
neutrino flux to explain the (n) decay rate, it's
obviously a fringe notion due to lack of data.
Let's begin with a quiki wifi, for ref,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
and see the (n) decay as,

n = p+e+v'

and do a causal reversal to

n+v = p+e

with the neutrino (v) being of the appropriate
energy to intiate the (n) decay, thereby laying
radioactive decay rates on the (v) flux.

That was all conjecture until Super Nova 1987a.

Reports came in of a large amount of (v) flux from
terrestrial detectors and a star nearby SN1987a
brightend.
I'm sorry I cannot find an immediate ref to that
nearby star, the phenomena was fleeting,
however, if the observation was true, then the
(v) flux accelerated the *rate of fusion* within the
nearby star, and so to the rate of radioactivity,
that resulted from the (v) pulse from SN1987a.

That provided the 1st evidence that decay rates
are proportional to neutrino flux, hence providing
a causal basis for neutron decay life times.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am in agreement with your assesment that it is an incoming neutrino
that CAUSES beta decay. I have written an article which also claims
this:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/quarks.html

A recent concern of mine was that if the neutrino supplies a variable
amount of energy, then you might think that the amount of energy
avaliable to the exiting beta particle would also vary and since there
might not be a limit on the neutrino energy, there shouldn't be a
limit on the beta particle energy either. But it seems that there is a
hard limit which I am assuming matches the E=mc^2 for missing mass.
How do you handle this?

Raphanus explains that below.

I also do not have a model for alpha decay using incoming neutrinos.
Do you have one of those?

It has to do with spin conservation, the (v) conveys
spin, likely within a spectrum of energy. There are
adjustable unknowns, such as frequency.
The reported observations are encouraging and
may move the notion of a "neutrino radioactivity
time base" to respectability.

The experiments I have suggested include putting a beta decay source
right next to a neutrino detector. If beta decay does not emit anti-
neutrinos, we should be able to see this in the detector and then
conclude that the neutrinos belong on left side of the equation and
not the right.

-fhuneutrino- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure that the energy of the incoming neutrino matters if it's
above some threshold. Much like in fission by a slow neutron. If the
neutron doubles in energy the affect on the fission rate is small.
The extra energy appears as kinetic energy of one of the fission
products. One can set off a mouse trap with a toothpick or a hammer.

At a fundamental level, a model has an incoming neutrino interacting
with a quark. The result of that interaction may trigger beta decay -
or, through some internal multiparticle nuclear dynamics - alpha
decay, if the energetics were close to begin with.

Neutrino detectors are terribly inefficient. To do your experiment
with a beta source would require decades, I'm guessing.

Particle physicists are pretty ingenious fella's,
they may come with something.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Aug 30, 4:51*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

The paper by Jenkins, et al., is interesting.

The charts show a significant annual variation in the decay rates.
They also show a significant phase difference between the cycle in
decay rates and the anomalistic year. Unfortunately the anomalistic
year, the sidereal year, and the tropical year are close enough in
duration that the difference between them will not be seen in a
display with this resolution and duration.

The cycle of the anomalistic year appears to lead the decay rate cycle
by about 1-2 months - the uncertainty in the decay rate data prohibits
a more precise guess.

There are also many phenomena which vary with the same periodicity.
For example, annual cycles in electrical usage on Long Island will
contribute to variabilities in transient background magnetic fields.
A magnetic field is one of the few things we have which is capable of
'reaching through' the electronic shells of an atom and affecting the
nucleus directly.

Considering the size of the system being studied (0.1 nm per atom) I
would expect a much shorter hysteresis time than a month or two
between putative cause and effect.

I would like to see spreadsheets of the raw data for the purpose of
examining the amplitude, period, and phase of the variability with
least-square numerical techniques.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Aug 31, 8:57*am, tadchem wrote:

There are also many phenomena which vary with the same periodicity.
For example, annual cycles in electrical usage on Long Island will
contribute to variabilities in transient background magnetic fields.
A magnetic field is one of the few things we have which is capable of
'reaching through' the electronic shells of an atom and affecting the
nucleus directly.

Considering the size of the system being studied (0.1 nm per atom) I
would expect a much shorter hysteresis time than a month or two
between putative cause and effect.

Very nice observation, sir, IMHO.

That would seem to be a serious objection to a direct causal relation
with something varying as directly as 1/R^2, and a good argument for
a third, confounding, variable.

On Aug 30, 1:51*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

ANYWHERE GRAVITY CHANGES MEANS TIME CHANGES.

A decay rate on the mountaintop is slower than the coastline because
relativity is a true effect.

It is interesting it was so visible.

Dear Douglas Eagleson:

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message
...
....
ANYWHERE GRAVITY CHANGES MEANS
TIME CHANGES.

A decay rate on the mountaintop is slower than
the coastline because relativity is a true effect.

It is interesting it was so visible.

Especially since it is two different clocks *in the same place*.
If this is not an artifact of some sort, there should not have
been a detectable difference between these processes (time
passage on Earth clock, and time passage for a population of
nuclear material).

David A. Smith

On Aug 31, 8:55*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear DouglasEagleson:

"DouglasEagleson" wrote in message

...
...

ANYWHERE GRAVITY CHANGES MEANS
TIME CHANGES.

A decay rate on the mountaintop is slower than
the coastline because relativity is a true effect.

It is interesting it was so visible.

Especially since it is two different clocks *in the same place*.
If this is not an artifact of some sort, there should not have
been a detectable difference between these processes (time
passage on Earth clock, and time passage for a population of
nuclear material).

David A. Smith

Yeah. It would depend on the exact clock used for the comparision,
you are correct. Normalizing data to orbits was not examined by me.
I was just surmizing. Maybe the data is opposite of gravity effect
even.

On Aug 30, 9:51 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Slashdot | Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance
""We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of
ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can
be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to
explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic
variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and
radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the
decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance
from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to
explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists
think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine
structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That
would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that
the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux
from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years
physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such
as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data
at different times of the year?""http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/1227239

More details he
the physics arXiv blog » Blog Archive » Do nuclear decay rates depend on
our distance from the sun?http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

Most details he
[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and
Earth-Sun Distancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

The neutrino flux capacitance?
Are you guys playing Barbies or are you doing physics?

We are in the sun's gravity well. The ambient pressure in that well,
determines the decay rate.
In order to understand how that works, you have to understand what
radiation is.

Put away your Barbies and forget about particle physics for one
second.

The universe is expanding.
You are standing on an expanding balloon, and it has a ruler painted
on it, that is also expanding, and you are standing on that balloon,
and you are expanding.

So where are you expanding into?

Hyperspace.

So what do you feel beneath your feet?

Gravity.

So then you have two balloons, and both are expanding at the same
time, both have rulers on them.

You look at the other guy on the other balloon, and you say to him,
you are not expanding.

He looks at you, and says likewise.

But you know you both are expanding, it is just that there is nothing
to measure against, that is not expanding.

But, wouldn't the distance between the two balloons be shrinking?

Yes.

If you fall out of an airplane, the distance between you and the
ground will shrink very quickly.

You will not feel pulled though. You will feel weightless. You will
not feel pulled, because you are not being pulled. Gravity is not a
magnetic force.

So ok then why is it that the distance doesn't shrink between the
earth and the sun?
There is a balancing force, dark energy, which pushes things away from
each other.
It is just that when you fall out of a plane, you haven't got much to
push with, you are not giving off much dark energy, compared to the
earth.
(Dark energy the cosmological constant portion of GR)

So then what you are left with, is curved space-time. More curved
around massive bodies and so the sun has a gravity well.

You take a rubber sheet, a ball bearing, it goes around, but doesn't
spiral into the sun, because the dark energy is pushing it away, as it
wants to fall into the well.
So instead it goes around.

As it is farther from the sun, the dark energy is less strong a force.
The ambient pressure is less.

What makes radiation?

Feedback.

When there is less pressure, there is less feedback and the energy can
bleed off faster.

As a nucleus is expanding, it is getting bombarded on all sides by
energy waves, that prevent it from expanding freely. And also the
nucleus has a skin, that resists expansion.

So as it tries to expand, it hesitates and vibrates and sends out
waves itself.

A heavy atom, like uranium, resists expansion better than hydrogen.

The feedback happens when it gets into a rhythm, between expansion and
resistance to expansion.

And that rhythm, depends on the surrounding pressure of space-time.

If you take, a torch, HHO , you can neutralize radiation.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread366861/pg1

So how would that work?

It destroys the feedback loop.

It greatly reduces the ambient pressure in the immediate surroundings.