and I quote



criticism

helps

Thank you for noticing blatant errors I made quite late at night.

Where did I said knowledge/technology anywhere? If not then it was pointless to point that out.

because I need to paraphrase this for you.

Accord(ing) to wikipedia the only thing needed to keep neutronium stable in this point (in time) is sufficient pressure, which can easily be done (with our current technology)

Your assuming things Schem, its very difficult to assume things with a person like him.

I never assume with "current technology/current knowledge". I was speculation which is not difficult to see from that sentence and comment earlier lack of how to gather/make degenerate matter.

assumed

speculating

odd, it reads more like a confident statement rather than a questionable postulation.
and regardless, creation (although an issue) is not THE issue. keeping neutronium stable is near impossible, ESPECIALLY with our materials.

damn straight... he always has an excuse

I am still amazed your trying.

How would you know that because I question your sanity as a metaphysical. Another reason is wikipedia also contradict the above statement of how difficult it can be to create "degenerate matter". They create Metallic Hydrogens without much difficulty as you claimed.

Metallic Hydrogen that could exist

Just give up Ninja because you just been shotting in your feet all this times.

from your lovely wikipedia

now, seeing as space is mighty cold and mighty depressurized, what the hell are you getting at.

degenerate matter is something that is only repelling itself because of the pauli exclusion principle. I know we can make those, cooling an electron gas is enough.

but neutronium is not simply a "degenerate mass", its quantum mechanics make it highly unstable.

Neutron stars are not capable of making more than a minute (comparative to itself) mass of this stuff, and that is all concentrated at the core and is constantly degenerating and spontaneously reforming. how the hell do you propose that we, who cannot even get close to the sun without damaging every type of material we have, propose to create conditions hotter and more compressed than stars several times the sun's mass and emag production potential?
I dont think so. if you do know somehow to do that, tell NASA or any other space agency, your name will go down for eons as the man who discovered the absolutely-fricking-impossible.

your arguement is incoherent and constantly jumping to unrelated tangents. oh, also forgot that its largely wrong.

Sigh, your negative pressure is somewhat low then eh? I never said achieve a degenerate matter stat was impossible. Please actually take the time to read, not flame.



Notice the "metastable", Enough said.

its not "stable" its "metastable"

meaning that it has a significant halflife, not meaning that its a good defensive shield. and remember, its a metallic lattice. we already have metallic lattices with far more stable elements, its relative density would mean its not useful.

second, as per your arguement, its theoretical. theoretics dont always pan out in applied.

finally; thats useful as a fuel source, but really not much else. Its halflife would probably be too short (even in its "metastable" state) to be of much contemporary use.

oh, this is a laugh.

Sigh... I will give you love birds some time to kiss and make up

Gasp I didn't knew we was bird! with hand to type this.-Final of Sarcasmo

I shall take the liberty of calling victory in this debate, seeing as you two love to do nothing but talk about love birds.

I have only talk about bird for one post which meant I did more than talk about love birds.(Notice I said bird !=Love Bird)

and yet, I claim victory anyhow.

Okay, Schem okay.

Your claim of victory is just as justified as the US claim of victory in Iraq and Afghanastan.

technically correct, but phyric, yes.

My comment make your Victory over me completely nullified.(However you can for TGE, not to insult you TGE)

Wikipedia-Metastable as Nuclear Isomer:
A nuclear isomer is a metastable state of an atomic nucleus caused by the excitation of one or more of its protons or neutrons or both. A nuclear isomer occupies a higher energy state than the corresponding non-excited nucleus, called the ground state. The nuclear isomer will sooner or later release the extra energy and decay into the ground state.

Accord to this it is merely "version"(metastable element) that will degrade to ground state(stable element). Bottom line it is extreme radioactive that will quickly become something that is less radioactive. Metallic Hydrogen has excitation of primely proton(since it don't need a neutron) which can give off energy in form of radioactive energy. Thus become a regular atom that can remain in that form until it is used. From your above statement are you saying metal-crystal hybrid material make better shield?

seeing as there is one person who even voted as to who won the arguement, and that person voted in my favor, your comment is irrelevant.
TGE is just a wishy washy bastard who wont vote for me because I dominate him in too many debates.

its because of metastability that metal-crystals would make better shields. metastability is a persistant dual state that decays slowly. a great example is a rock on the perch of a hill.

the thing is that excitation will cause rapid decay, symmetry collapse would cause your metastable hydrogen to collapse from its metal form into a gas rapidly. as a result you really could not find a worse object for radiation shielding; something that evaporates and radiates energy when its been bombarded with: radiation.

additionally, metallic hydrogen is metallic because it creates a delocalized sharing of electrons between protons, thats not useful when you're trying to block hard radiation. again, you are better off with a heavy metal element.

now, do you have any more questions as to why metallic hydrogen is a shitty shield? because after this many times, I'd expect my pet bird to understand it by now.

You are a very arrogant person, I dont like you at all



Have you ever thought that it might not be the debating, it just might be your personality?

And please, any non-scientific(sorry I am not a space nerd) debate we are farely matched, even you have to admit that.

Symmetry collapse of a single proton ::glare::
My pet bird just don't know that crystal aren't anything like a metal at all.
Hydrogen with shared electron I can understand. Where the hell the electron come from?(Hydrogen has only one proton, several has electron but that is whole another issues which is better know as ions)
Heavy metal element isn't exactly plenty. Hence we have to use radiation to make Heavy metal element beyond Uranium.(The problem can be better describe as needing Heavy shield before making Heavy metal elemental. Since lack of elemental beyond Uranium result in gathering/making Heavy metal elemental more trivial than you think.)
My pet bird don't understand I never meant that I was a bird typing this message to post it up.

Quote Wikipedia-Metallic Hydrgoen:The electrons are unbound and behave like the conduction electrons in a metal.
The reason I disrupt your claim that Hydrogen does share the electron at all.

I would never deny it.

yes, but then I realized that this is a board.

you are talking about multiple protons bound together by electromagnetic force, you cannot create metallic hydrogen with ONE proton.

who ever said they were...

hydrogen has an electron. please tell me you knew that, for gods sake PLEASE tell me you knew that.

an ion would be if it had more or less electrons than protons, not if it has electrons in the first place.

heavy metal for this means any metal cuprum or beyond. earlier than that most of your metals are still too reactive.

was the sarcasm really that hard to understand?

this is insane.
metallic bonds
I'm starting to doubt you know elementary chem. metallic bonds are indeed the sharing of electrons between atoms, the definition of this case of "unbound" means not held in the orbital of any one atom, instead passing back and forth between the orbitals of many like atoms.
for the love of god, my gerbil could tell you that.

Wait a moment if hydrogen(Single Atom) has more than one proton then it would certainly be reclassify as a helium. If you are talking hydrogen"s" then it wasn't clear. You know that change the amount of proton in atom also change the element right?

Wikipedia-Hydrogen:The most common naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen, known as protium, has a single proton and no neutrons. In ionic compounds it can take on either a positive charge (becoming a cation composed of a bare proton) or a negative charge (becoming an anion known as a hydride). Hydrogen can form compounds with most elements and is present in water and most organic compounds. It plays a particularly important role in acid-base chemistry, in which many reactions involve the exchange of protons between soluble molecules. As the only neutral atom for which the Schrödinger equation can be solved analytically, study of the energetics and bonding of the hydrogen atom has played a key role in the development of quantum mechanics.



Notice the metal-crystal. If you are talking metal"lic"-crystal then I have no problem.



A Cation of Bare proton has no electron. Otherwise Ground state and Anion both has electron. You are kinda wrong on that because hydrogen is name of the element that also is named the anion and cation. If only hydrogen then yes.



If you meant copper for cuprum. I think that kinda contradiction because earlier you said the heavier the better.



The part that it being a joke, nope. Just showing that you was "rude".

Hmm if I don't understand how metallic bond work then how the frell can I maintain my own PC desktop? Well if Metallic bond make metal useless for radiation shield then how a metal cover the x-ray machines keep the radiation in?(Bottom Line: Are you saying a tool for cutting can tell me something? Referring to Gerbil Wikipedia.)