The following list is of atomic elements that are safe to use in the building of crafts for traveling the galaxy,

Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Boron, Carbon, Nitorgen, Oxygen, Flourine, Neon, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminum, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur

Other atoms in the periodic chart or heavy atoms could be used, but not with the same reliablity as the ones above.
of the above named elements the following are the best suit for structual tasks,
Hydrogen, Helium, Beryllium, Carbon, Nitorgen, Silicon, and Sulfur

Some may think that this seems rather easy with such structual materials such as boron carbide or silicon carbide, however in galaxtic filght chemical compounds are not recommened, the least ratio of chemical elements is best suited, plainly pure subsatnces such as maybe diamond, a miniumal tolerance of chemical compounds is diatomic chemicals, such as SiC, or Si1/C1 chemicals invoving more than two different elements, are not a suggested.

of the heavier elements those which are most reliable are Potassium, Calcium, Rubidium, Platinum, Thorium, Uranium
the heavier the atom the greater possiblity of instabltity.

Key also to the structrual building of galaxtic space craft for humans is the element Silicon, which should line all living spaces or containment areas of humans..


Just a few structual notes for those intreseted in the nessacary or safe materials for building space traveling crafts.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

How do you use hydrogen and helium in the structure?

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
The following list is of atomic elements that are safe to use in the building of crafts for traveling the galaxy,

Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Boron, Carbon, Nitorgen, Oxygen, Flourine, Neon, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminum, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur


Just a few structual notes for those intreseted in the nessacary or safe materials for building space traveling crafts.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Safe? Isn't Beryllium toxic? Or am I thinking of another material that begins with the letter B?

As far as I know it is. But you havnt met Dwayne D L Rabon much have you?

Just how are you traveling? The mode of transportation will affect the chioces, please tell me why these particular materials would be used. Carbon's a given, interstellar starships and the facilities to support them will dwarf the ISS. Asteriods are the easiest way to get materials into orbit(you don't have to ship them up a gravity well), and most of them are not high in metals. The structure, and as many parts as can be, will be made from composite materials to free up the metal for more important things.

Thanks!
I was just about to build a spaceship in my kitchen. I was planning to use flour for construction.
Silly me.
:rolleyes:

Geee! Now we just wait for Dwayne's tips on propulsion systems, and off we go........:m:

Hans

The elements given above are those that will allow structual stablity when traveling through our galaxy. As a galaxtic traveler travels through the galaxy atomic stablity changes, as well chemical stablity, because of these changes as a traveler passes through the galaxy the craft,spaceship,capsule,satilite ect.. must be built of structual materials that will remain constant. If a craft where built of say copper it would remain stable only in one region of the galaxy, upon arriving in another part of the galaxy the copper craft would atomatically begin radioactive decay, transmutaion in to another material such as calcium, if the craft made of copper where to gradually travel through the galaxy say at earths speed of travel like a satilite the copper craft would gradually become calcium, this means that the structual material copper used to construct the craft would develope fissures, and cracks, and structual distortion making support of the craft and breaches in its atomsphere comtainment, comprimising the entire craft and its occupants.
Example: you had a space ship that could travel the galaxy at super light speed becaue you invented a new propulsion system, and so you could travel 500 light years in one hour, your ship was built of iron, what would happen is that you would take off one hour later some 500 light years way your space craft stops in another part of the galaxy, upon arrival your iron space ship would begin to fall apart, your ship would become radoactive,and become more radioactive with time as the iron(Fe) used to build the ship decayed into aluminum and sulfur. in addtion the chemicals that you brought with you would seperate into their basic elements, those that contained heavy elements would become radioactive.

here are some solutions
1.) do not use elements above sulfur
2.) do not use complexed cehemical, or chemical molecules with more that two element in a diaatomic bond. ie. 1part carbon 1 part silicon ect....
3.) use pure elements, such as aluminium, berllyium silicon ect... purity in structual matertials.
4.) use spectrum energy to stablize atomic stability and chemical stablity.
5.) design the craft with the feature of transmutaion, so that on arrival the craft built of lead would transmutate in to tungsten, and then in your next point of arrival it would transmutate in to silver and at you next destination into titainium, arriving back in our solar system as aluminum.

Note
1.)useing lithium as a electrical conductor of wiring would be the best bet for circuits, a computer and navigation system, would be composed of say lithium and carbon with the conductive unit lithium, you could take a look into the development of lithum computers and batteries,

2.)no matter where you go you are going to need silicon to line your space suit, and where you live inside of the craft. silicon is very inprortant to human stablity and normal function in background spectrum emmissions.

3.) the safest structual form is the ball,


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

MMm, so can you demosntraste that elemental transmutation occurs in the way you propose in different areas of the galaxy?

oh its gurthie again!!

Well in dealing with the event of atomic decompotion and the development of atoms.
The basic uint of a atom is a proton, the addtion of addtional protons results in various atoms depending on the number of atoms.
As many consider than a nucleous of a atom is one unit created at one time rather than independant protons compriseing a atom, view point has to be changed to recongize that a atom is composed of different parts that are independant, called protons. variation in energies of proton make the binding of protons possible forming the atom depending on the type of atom.
once this is considered it can be seen that atoms are are different than protons, I.E protons contain quarks, ect.... atoms contain protons. it is the binding of prortons that form the atom.
the binding of protons is one that is due to energy difference, that energy difference is due to enviroment of the protons which in binding consume and emit energy of their immediate enviorment the ablity of a given proton to gain a lower energy state or a higher energy states determines the the state of the bond. The enviroment of protons is detemined by the regional background constant of the galaxy, solar system, or cosmos. the backgorund constant is the residing energy in a area where atoms take form or deteriate and determine the energy at which protons balnce energy.
example protons are stable at excessive speeds and high energys there is no know limit on protons stablity in high energy, and it is speculated given the high stablity of protons at high speeds that such protons may be able to achive stablity at light speed. protons at high energy have thier energy needs meet, this means that the balcance of energy emitted and absrobed remains constant, given the minute reactions of quarks its a given that the energy to maintain stablity of a proton is abundant, providing the observed stablity at high energy and speed. the atomic life span of hydrogen the basic atom is infinte, meaing it is not subject to atomic decay, hydrogen is simply a proton and a electron.
it is seen here why protons make the base unit of atoms, the binding of protons is therfore dependant on energy of enviroment, given the protons stablity.
this is also demonstated by the event of neutron decay, wherein the event of neutron decay is one that invovles a disbalance of energy. the neutron can not maintain stablity with out the ptoton and so disapates in to various particles and radations, leaving a free travleing proton (atomic decay).
when electron are striped of atoms in earth space past 7 electrons a distrubance of the atoms energy balance occurs resulting in eratic motion of its protons and neutrons, where in the neutons being sepration from protons, this is avoid in most atoms be a change in electron denstiy or wave form of the electron, resulting in the electron dispating energy to two protons, or a random action of electrons to exchange in turn energy with the lacking protons.
neutrons are from in the enregy difference when protons bind, one proton becomes a neutron. this reaction is one that is dependant on enviroment, energy of the protons enviroment, which is determined by the background constant of the galaxy, solar system, or cosmos.
the background constant of a given area of a galaxy is deterimeind by the gravity of that regional area, and the emissions of solar bodies in that area.

why gurthie did you not know this? it would seem that you question to find out what i know as if you knew more, so why did you not know this simple fact that atoms will become radioactive(decay) as they travel various areas of the galaxy. it is a curcial point for anyone thinking about space travel.

ask yourself this what is a cosmic particle and why do they exist.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

*cough*
Pseudo-science?
*cough*

Nice thread Dwayne.

No, I'm asking you to demonstrate that all this actually does happen outside your head, in the "real" world.

How much chemistry and physics do you have, Dwayne?

I was under the impression that one of the fundamental laws of physics...no, one of the postulates on which modern physics is based is that the laws of physics are constant from every reference point. This would include everywhere.

Please give an example of a known location at which the laws vary from the norm.

- KitNyx

I got a better idea, let's make the hull out of stable neutronium and green thea, we all know how green thea fights ageing effects!

Of course, with the neutronium, composed strictly of neutrons, we would not have to worry about the protons decaying...now what to use as a bonding agent...

- KitNyx

Well enough to read beable to read U.S. Department of Energy documents and Lititure, including nuclear reactions, and proccess.
got a microscope and chemistry with lab time since i was 9 years old, inaddtion that includes astronomy as both my parents worked in the feild. like it was second nature BabY!!!!!

Comments form people like guthie are such insult, i have to assume that waht they where meant to be a least, such a demonstartion of ignorance, a waste of good fourm space.
gurthie get with the program.

does it matter my creditals, if you can beat the facts first hand, why would you need my refernce.

Well i had a few more key points to post but i will wait after i redfine some of them, i am looking for the strongest and most beifical element for structual perpose in galaxtic travels. which will be used in the futrue and thatcan tell us what a another space travel race might use. i have it narrowed down and will post a list next time.


Note: those that decide use near light speed will have to consider the fact that when traveling at such speed light becomes physical, providing enertia. as near light speed light would be near soild. guiding such a craft, or sterring such a craft will require the use of light or emf as a steering device.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Note: those that decide use near light speed will have to consider the fact that when traveling at such speed light becomes physical, providing enertia. as near light speed light would be near soild. guiding such a craft, or sterring such a craft will require the use of light or emf as a steering device.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

See, now we KNOW your a bullshitter. This is just plain, plain wrong. Light does not become 'solid' as your approach the speed of light. Yes, General Relativity DOES predict that mass will increase and width will contract. BUT that is due to the nature relative motion. They are a consequence of approaching light speed. It gets HARDER to push a craft to light speed. There is no inertia provided from light. You have inertia from the energy you used to accelerate. So appearently your 'sources' and background are questionable.

blackholesun - I know you know this I am just clarifying in case anyone else does not. Like who you ask...hmmm...

It requires increasing amounts of energy to ACCELERATE an object as its velocity nears the speed of light. An object in motion will continue at a constant velocity (until energy is expended to accelerate it in opposite direction). For this effect to even be measurable you would have to be traveling at a huge fraction of the speed of light (or traveling EXTREMELY long distances).

- KitNyx

Originally posted by KitNyx
blackholesun - I know you know this I am just clarifying in case anyone else does not. Like who you ask...hmmm...

It requires increasing amounts of energy to ACCELERATE an object as its velocity nears the speed of light. An object in motion will continue at a constant velocity (until energy is expended to accelerate it in opposite direction). For this effect to even be measurable you would have to be traveling at a huge fraction of the speed of light (or traveling EXTREMELY long distances).

- KitNyx

Kinda what I meant. I guess I could have worded it a bit more carefully. Oh well, I always have someone here to back me up and reword things when my brain farts :D

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Well enough to read beable to read U.S. Department of Energy documents and Lititure, including nuclear reactions, and proccess.
got a microscope and chemistry with lab time since i was 9 years old, inaddtion that includes astronomy as both my parents worked in the feild. like it was second nature BabY!!!!!


Presumably, he has been practicing the English language even longer than his scientific and technical skills. Communicating coherently in English is still obviously beyond his capacity, what are the odds the Dwayne is better at physics than he with English?

Or, maybe he is only 11. That would seem to account for both his lack of scientific knowledge (even though he had a microscope at age 9), and his lack of command of the English language (since he would only be in...what 4th or 5th grade?).

By the way, how do you use a microscope for astronomy? I guess you could look through the other end...

- KitNyx

got a microscope and chemistry with lab time since i was 9 years old That explains a lot!! Stop licking the test tubes clean and vent out the fumes regularly, and you will see the world much clearer.

Hans

Anyway...Mr. Rabon, I am a bit ashamed of my poking fun that is obviously only one sided. Although I do not agree with your observations or conclusions in physics or chemistry, I have always been an advocate of open mindedness and I believe in maintaining a constructive atmosphere. I do not want people to be afraid to post their thoughts for fear of ridicule. Please accept my appologies and know that in the future I will ATTEMPT to keep non-constructive thoughts to myself.

- KitNyx

I agree with KitNyx.

I withdrawl the observation that Dwayne's lack of proper grammer, spelling, and punctuation make his physics credibility questionable.

Why go there when the content of the messages establish his lack understanding/knowledge convincingly on its own.

First off retards, i don't see any of you posting anything near some thing that would be helpful in any event of traveling the galaxy.
what i read is the bolstering of this is physics and what physics is but there have been not real statements, point is your comments are a lot run of of the mouth. this seems to be quite frequent on the internet i have grown use to it, it shows in general that most people care for only their view point, and every oneselse is shit or so to say.
plainly if you had facts to other than what i said you would have made that clear by now, but you have not, in fact the bases of you so called conceited ego trip is that you can type it, a easy achivement for morons.
Surly you did not have to even post to the topic, what made you post your comments any way, you knew they where worthless when you wrote them, as unrelative to subject. so personally i would request that the admistrator erase your comments or you do it your self.
Lastly if you the intelligence you would have demonstarted that already.

i think that what i heard was something about how i lack the ablity of science and grammer ect...... quite frankly your comments showed that you had now knowlegde of atmoic energy, or the structure of atoms and stablity in the galaxy.

like i said i find such comment quite frequent on the internet no matter who it is, it is not your comments that bother me its the interruption of a useful topic and subject. The point of posting to a science forum was to communicate with some else of logical and scientifc mind. you contribution to my topic has simply been nothing, and was no help in comming to a point of benifit for anyone intrested in traveling the galaxy.

Lastly belive what you will, if you find your view better than mine so be it, i am not here to force you to belive. you can gambel with your own life, how ever i am quite certain that you comment busters have no real intrest in such travel and will not make any real attempt at flight its self. i find flight achiveable and with in my means, deviseing a better meathod of flight and saftey is what i am looking at.

the list of elements for galaxtic travel are the most safest.


The singel most safest element for constructing galaxtic crafts is Oxygen, due to several factors such as reactivity of oxygen, the element Neon is the most structually sound element for construction.
Eliminating factors of ionzation beryllium,carbon, oxygen, neon,magnessium, silicon, and sulfur.
the more physically manipulated materials beryllium, carbon, silicon.

the safest chemical for construction was water, or ice.

Carbon is a element that would very effective as a measuring device, such as a probe, or as a controll switch device.
Carbon was very alluring as it have a good tempture resistance which would be useful for atomspheric entery, carbon and nitrogen seem to be elements that would play a prominet role in structural reaction and plyablity.

beryllium as well is very alluring as it is a very balanced and stable element, its cheilf problems where temp, and ionzation problems.

All the elements other than hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, flourine, neon will demonstrate some distrubance and reaction to each area of galaxtic enviroment, the in list above elements will maintain a constant preformance.



Dwayne D.L.Rabon

I'll just pick one thing, the most outrageously wrong statement and look at it.

the element Neon is the most structually sound element for construction.

What? What are you talking about? How can you possible think that you could build anything out of neon? You can't even make neon into a solid.

Neon is a noble gas and unable to form a compound with any other atom. A brilliantly sound element of construction, there.:rolleyes:

Edited to add: And if you are going to argue that neon is a "structurally sound element for construction", don't bother. Instead, just show me one thing, anything that has neon as a structural component. Make something with it, anything. Even something that is as simple as spoon. If you can't make even a spoon with it, it can't be a very good structural material now can it?

Dwayne, couple questions...

1) Why do you think that 'near light speed light would be near soild'?

2) Why do you think that 'the enviroment of protons is detemined by the regional background constant of the galaxy', and what is this regional background constant? And if it's constant, why worry about it changing?

3) Why is 'the background constant of a given area of a galaxy is deterimeind by gravity and solar emissions'?

4) Why do you believe that 'atoms will become radioactive(decay) as they travel various areas of the galaxy'... unless they fly into a sun?

5) How do you build a ship with transmutation?

6) How do you build a ship out of gas?

7) How do people live on a ship of gas, and if no people are on the ship why care about radioactivity?

8) Why is silicon 'very inprortant to human stablity'?

References would be appreciated.

in addition: How are carbon based lifeforms like humans supposed to survive startravel at all if INDEED starships that transports these humans need to be made from solid hydrogen or neon to prevent some supposedly deteroriation effect from differences in galactic environment ????

Just make the blasted thing out of a big hollowed out asteroid and use a gravity slingshot to whip it out of the galaxy. Once its going you open up either a ramjet or just do a little manuvering so you can do further gravity slingshots. It dosn't matter how badly its surface is abraded because by the time you get to the vital stuff you are at your destination. Automatons will keep the thing in shape.

Well Scotth
The list of elements is one that just defines the safest elements for building a craft for traveling the galaxy, those that will remain stable for the construction of a galaxtic traveling craft.
in the list it is my discovery that some of them even though remaining atomically stable will have chemical changes, or exsperince periodic events of radation emission such as gamma or beta relavant to energy changes, elcetron orbital changes ect.
it is quite clear that fewer than the given list up to sulfur, will have the same atomic, chemical and energy stablity that they know have on earth our our region of the galaxy.
Neon might be of high difficulty to manage for constution purposes but it remains atomically and other wise the best suited for the application. it may take a advancement in technology to devise a means for such construction with the use of Neon.


Note: oddly enough the earth that we live on is one of the safest galaxtic star ships, all of the main elements comprising life and our suirroundings are in the saftey list, it is for this reason no doubt that life is possible, the reason that life became capable of forming. if one took the elements of the earth and built say oxygen,nitrogen,carbon,silicon and built a craft they would not be doing so bad, what is even better is that it has become affordable for every one. a intresting point that i observed affordablity.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Well Vortex

the elements given in the list are those that will remain atomically stable and should be found abudnatly in various regions of the galaxy if not in all parts. so of them show great difficulty in managment such as the points exspressed by scotth regarding neon, others such as carbon show other difficulties, carbon although stable in galxatic travel atomically thoughout the galaxy still has energy problems, or energy transition fluxuation problems, where it more than likly will emit beta and gamma during changes in passing though the various regions, or from one region to the next region.
that poses a serious problem in galaxtic travel for humans, and in the construction of crafts that travel the galaxy that have carbon part, or machinery

Note: some of the energy problems of such elements as carbon and emission of beta and gamma by those elements due to region changes in galaxtic travel may be over come or reduced by traleving at faster than light speed pr near light speed, occuring where energy reaction is shelided by excessive energy, such as a group of protons in a cyclotron ect... here the problem occurs when the craft has come to a stop of the the relation of energy local to the region beomes effective on the body of carob or other such element. still this is a benift as there is less distrubance of the element from the other regional areas traveled though and so less gamma and bet emmssions, which now only occur when the craft comes to a stop in the regional destination and that areas effect weighs in on the incomming atoms.
The aspects of light speed travel seem very benifical understanding these effects, conquering the arrival events however seem to be rather trail and errror, kind of like developing a vaccine. maybe gradual slowing down out of light speed will greatly reduce bet and gamma emmssions, maybe it will not, and a therefor a constant spectrum energy emmmsion or sttablization by spectrum emmsssion will have to be maintained the ehtire time in that region of the galaxy. no doubt there will be regions that allow stablity with out spectrum emmmsion stabliztion of the given element carbon ect.... more so in the ones of heavier gravity. but then again xray emmmsions are harm full as well and so.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Well Persol
I have addressed serval of your questions in the before post,"OH Gurthie" post .


How ecatly to build certain crafts is actually the builders challange, and i suppose that you will have to be inventive when it copmes to gas crafts, or lighter than air craft. i suppose that wee can can exsplore some meathod of building thses type of craft in discussion.
the event of the elements give as structual items for crafts did not only include gas elements but other as well.

Building a craft based on transmutation, i don't know that it has ever been done but it would require a nuclear sheild such as maybe Boron, or heavy water(deterium) ect... lead sheild.
it would also require having a heavy enough element such as thorium for it to gradually deteriate into lesser atoms that remain stable enough for you to stand in, it would require in this event a serious level of calculation to the given elements of deteriation, and a basic knowledge of the atomsphere of the galaxtic region that you planed to arrive in.
Building a craft with transmutation is something i would think of more for satitlites that travel though regions with out light speed, planing this way will allow the craft to reamin operational based soly on it atomic structure, rather than the use of spectrum stablization of the atomic structre of the craft.( see voayger lost no longer operation after solar departure).

Well persol how do you live on earth, the earth is basically just a ball of gas, oxygen, nitorgen, hydrogen. so be it chemical, it still mainly gas.

Silicion work in the harmonics of the human system just as aluminium, this is the same as looking a the spectral emmssions in a vaccum of in oxygen there is a change in spectral emmssions, this is due to the inreactance of energy something like 10 to the 33 power, Planck uniform energy point, humans absorb energy of their enviroment in very large doses, which determin the harmonics or to say palapation of the body in health. Silicon. Aluminum, Oxygen, Nitrogen play the biggest roles in that absortion of energy by humans. example emf is a force that travels though the body and produces a effect.


Note: Going to need a electromagnetic feild as well.



Dwayne D.L.Rabon

You can't be this nuts....

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
How ecatly to build certain crafts is actually the builders challange, and i suppose that you will have to be inventive when it copmes to gas crafts, or lighter than air craft.
Well no... you can't. A gas in space will expand until there is no longer any 'ship'. The person inside would end up floating in a cloud. You have no propulsion because you have no mass to push. As soon as you add solid materials you not have a steel/iron/whatever ship which just happens to have a gas inside. The gas becomes redundant.
the event of the elements give as structual items for crafts did not only include gas elements but other as well.
But your gas ones are most absurd... but the basis of this post is even more so.

it would also require having a heavy enough element such as thorium for it to gradually deteriate into lesser atoms that remain stable enough for you to stand in
How long do you plan to be on this ship? Regardless, the 'deterioratoin' of atoms makes them more stable, not less so.

rather than the use of spectrum stablization of the atomic structre of the craft.( see voayger lost no longer operation after solar departure).
Cause the batteries died:) What is spectrum stabilization?

Well persol how do you live on earth, the earth is basically just a ball of gas, oxygen, nitorgen, hydrogen. so be it chemical, it still mainly gas.
It has solid ground... or did you somehow miss this fact? The mass is mainly solid infact.

Silicon. Aluminum, Oxygen, Nitrogen play the biggest roles in that absortion of energy by humans. example emf is a force that travels though the body and produces a effect.
Proof anywhere?


So, you seemed to miss a few. Please repeat the question in your post, and then the answer underneath. Sources for your claims would be welcome, as this seems to be coming from your imagination.

In fact, you only answered 1 of the questions.
1) Why do you think that 'near light speed light would be near soild'?

2) Why do you think that 'the enviroment of protons is detemined by the regional background constant of the galaxy', and what is this regional background constant? And if it's constant, why worry about it changing?

3) Why is 'the background constant of a given area of a galaxy is deterimeind by gravity and solar emissions'?

4) Why do you believe that 'atoms will become radioactive(decay) as they travel various areas of the galaxy'... unless they fly into a sun?

6) How do you build a ship out of gas?

7) How do people live on a ship of gas, and if no people are on the ship why care about radioactivity?

8) Where is the proof that silicon is 'very inprortant to human stablity'?

Dwayne, bless his cotton socks, has realised that the Earth is a 'Galaxtic Ship' (sic) and is made of the elements he lists. Heavy elements tend to be radioactive so decay and complex compounds are hard to make up, but then break down in accordance to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ok the voracity[0] of this claim is easily destroyed. Ergo any galaxtic ship (sic) must be made of light elements.

[0] See news://alt.folklore.urban for the nature of the misspledding [0]
[1] The claim is so simplistic I'm assuming a highly simplistic reasoning behind it.
[2] At least the trolls here are pleasant still.

Originally posted by Persol
You can't be this nuts....

*snip* Read his posts in the magnetic pole change thread and say that again :rolleyes: :bugeye: :eek:

Hans

Dwayne the bathtub,

plainly if you had facts to other than what i said you would have made that clear by now, but you have not

On the contrary, evidence has been placed before you on a regular basis - you simply refuse to accept it.

Well to awnser your questions Persol i think that may be you should awnser some of them your self, given your comments i would appear that you suggest that any hunk of material will get you through space travel.
So i missed a few points, it seems that you missed a few points in contrast.

your questions appear as if you have no comprehension of the subject at hand. example you say where is there proof and refrence to the event that magnetic feild passes through the body, why don't you get off your computer and conduct a expserment with a magnet, such as put one magnet on one side of your hand and another on the other side. your questions seem quite ironic.
As for absorbstion by the human body, what is it that you think makes humans living, have you ever sat in the sun light, do you think that you recive direct sun light, if so then you are unaware of the spectrum microscope and the event of polarization of light.
the light you recive from the sun is altered by the atomsphere of oxygen, such as light bands seen in the spectrum microscope, each atom has its own bandwidth created by its electron configuration, in a atomsphere of oxygen all life forms absorb this spectrum energy, same for spectrum energy emitted by silicon and aluminum.

spectrum stablization is the controll of chemical reactions and atomic energy levels by the emission of light, such as a laser in a cesium clock, this means that the electrons of the atoms are given a certain wave length of light that excites or feeds the atom keeping them stable from ionzation or unstablity, untill it is time for the chemicals to react with other elements put in the pot/mixture or untill the material has reached a certain energy level for reaction, or stable reating point. various types of spectrum stablization are possible. to stablizae atoms.

on the conatry it does not come from my imagination, the things mentioned are facts of science. it is your lack of knowledge of science that leaves you to define events as a character of imagination.


Dwyane D.L.Rabon



Q i have been to few topics where any logically deductive evidence has been presented to alter anything i have posted.
please name some viable evidence. you can't.
once again bolsetring comments with no contribution. you need refeferences because you appearntly lack the scientific skill to define. if not then post properly.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

For all that have not figured this out yet Dwayne D.L.Rabon is are forums Crack Addict! Almost everything he says is purifed bull shit and we keep him around because for some of us he funny as hell!

Here are just some of Dwayne D.L.Rabon other drug induced delusions which I had particular joy in countering.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17377

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
on the conatry it does not come from my imagination, the things mentioned are facts of science. it is your lack of knowledge of science that leaves you to define events as a character of imagination.

Dwyane D.L.Rabon
Q i have been to few topics where any logically deductive evidence has been presented to alter anything i have posted.
please name some viable evidence. you can't.
once again bolsetring comments with no contribution. you need refeferences because you appearntly lack the scientific skill to define. if not then post properly.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Hehe. This just makes me laugh. FACTS of science? NONE of what you said is science. It's just pure bullshit. It's like your sitting around in your basement making shit up just on the offchance it sounds scientific. OUR lack of scientific skill? Here's an idea. Stand up, go to a library and pick up a basic science book. Not one those 'advanced' high school general science books. But one of those remedial "My first science book" once. With as much understanding as you have shown, we have to start you off as close to the beginning as possible. And please stop thinking you have knowledge of nuclear physics. You're talking to someone whose had to sit through plenty o' classes of this stuff. What you're spouting is just plain HI-larious!

To those intrested in defining atomic activity, foe safe material for constrution of galaxtic traveling craft here is the entire list of the periodic chart, {CS} defines those senstive to cosmic activity, {GS} for those that are galaxtic senstive and ,{SS} for those that are solar senstive. those that are marked SS will become radioactive emmiters in galaxtic travel emitting gamma,beta, x-rays.
GALAXTIC PERIODIC CHART OF THE ELEMENTS
CS -16 ARGON
CS 2.660 BROMINE (GS)
CS 1.720 CHLORINE
CS -47 FLOURINE
CS -99 HELIUM
CS -86 HYDROGEN
CS 1.160 KRYPTON
CS 2.330 MERCURY (GS)
CS -75 NEON
CS -37 NITROGEN
CS -45 OXYGEN
CS 2.020 RADON (GS)
CS 1.620 XENON

GS 9.330 ALUMINIUM
GS 9.030 ANTIMONY
GS 8.090 ARSENIC
GS 5.750 ASTATINE
GS 10.00 BARIUM
GS 8.150 BISMUTH
GS 5.940 CADMIUM
GS 10.71 CERIUM (SS)
GS 3.010 CESIUM
GS 10.95 EUROPIUM (SS)
GS 3.000 FRANCIUM
GS 3.020 GALLIUM
GS 4.290 INDIUM
GS 3.860 IODINE
GS 6.000 LEAD
GS 4.530 LITHIUM
GS 9.230 MAGNESIUM
GS 9.170 NEPTUNIUM
GS 3.170 PHOSPHORUS
GS 9.130 PLUTONIUM
GS 5.270 POLONIUM
GS 3.360 POTASSIUM
GS 9.730 RADIUM
GS 3.120 RUBIDIUM
GS 4.530 SELENIUM
GS 3.700 SODIUM
GS 10.50 STRONTIUM (SS)
GS 3.860 SULFUR
GS 7.220 TELLURIUM
GS 5.770 THALLIUM
GS 5.040 TIN
GS 10.92 YTTERBIUM (SS)
GS 6.920 ZINC

SS 13.24 ACTINIUM
SS 14.49 AMERICIUM
SS 13.23 BERKELIUM
SS 15.60 BERYLLIUM
SS 23.48 BORON
SS 11.15 CALCIUM
SS 11.73 CALIFORNIUM
SS 37.73 CARBON
SS 21.80 CHROMIUM
SS 17.68 COBALT
SS 13.57 COPPER
SS 16.18 CURIUM
SS 16.85 DYSPROSIUM
SS 11.33 EINSTENIUM
SS 18.02 ERBIUM
SS 18.00 FERMIUM
SS 15.86 GADOLINIUM
SS 12.11 GERMANIUM
SS 13.37 GOLD
SS 25.06 HAFNIUM
SS 17.47 HOLMIUM
SS 27.19 IRIDIUM
SS 18.11 IRON
SS 11.91 LANTHANIUM
SS 19.00 LAWRENCIUM
SS 19.36 LUTETIUM
SS 15.19 MANGANESE
SS 11.00 MENDELEVIUM
SS 28.96 MOLYBDENUM
SS 12.94 NEODYMIUM
SS 17.28 NICKEL
SS 27.50 NIOBIUM
SS 11.00 NOBELIUM
SS 33.06 OSMIUM
SS 18.27 PALLADIUM
SS 20.41 PLATINUM
SS 12.04 PRASEODYMIUM
SS 13.15 PROMETHIUM
SS 18.45 PROTACTINIUM
SS 34.59 RHENIUM
SS 22.37 RHODIUM
SS 27.07 RUTHENIUM
SS 13.47 SAMARIUM
SS 18.14 SCANDIUM
SS 16.87 SILICON
SS 12.34 SILVER
SS 32.90 TANTALUM
SS 24.30 TECHNETIUM
SS 16.29 TERBIUM
SS 20.23 THORIUM
SS 18.18 THULIUM
SS 19.41 TITANIUM
SS 36.95 TUNGSTEN
SS 14.08 URANIUM
SS 21.83 VANADIUM
SS 17.95 YTTRIUM
SS 21.28 ZIRCONIUM

the above is just the entrie periodic chart shifted out, the majortiy of elements are atomically unstable for galaxtic travel, the elements that are atomically stable are define up to sulfur.
heres a list
CS –86 HYDROGEN
CS –99 HELIUM
CS –37 NITROGEN
CS –45 OXYGEN
CS –47 FLOURINE
CS –75 NEON

GS 4.350 LITHIUM
GS 3.700 SODIUM
GS 9.230 MAGNESIUM
GS 9.330 ALUMINIUM
GS 3.170 PHOSPHORUS
GS 3.860 SULFUR

SS 15.60 BERYLLIUM
SS 23.48 BORON
SS 37.73 CARBON
SS 16.87 SILICON

Determing the safest elements from the above list up to sulfur ccan take sevral meathods, depending on your opinion you may sort atomically by numder of protons, proton neutron pairs, or alpha pairs, electron configurations ect......


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Please, just try and build a ship out of them and prove us all wrong.

Hey Dwayne

What does 'galaxtic' mean?

Originally posted by blackholesun
Hehe. This just makes me laugh. FACTS of science? NONE of what you said is science. It's just pure bullshit. It's like your sitting around in your basement making shit up just on the offchance it sounds scientific. OUR lack of scientific skill? Here's an idea. Stand up, go to a library and pick up a basic science book. Not one those 'advanced' high school general science books. But one of those remedial "My first science book" once. With as much understanding as you have shown, we have to start you off as close to the beginning as possible. And place stop thinking you have knowledge of nuclear physics. You're talking to someone whose had to sit through plenty o' classes of this stuff. What you're spouting is just plain HI-larious!


Really then since you seem to think that you have some advantage because of your classes where is your contribution to the subject, what i have read of you there is no really arguement other you say its this and that because of your classes.
i say this before we go any father with slander, if you had a founded bases in nuclear science you would have known of the things of which i have brought to dissuccsion in this topic, and you should have provided a base for argument. apparently your knowledge of nuclear science is not mature, as you gain in understaning of it will find that i am on the right path of defining elements for galaxtic travel.
this topic was for the discussion of elements for galaxtic travel, if you have some other meathod for making a defintion of elements then post it, i have more than enough knowlegde to provide argument or agreeance.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Well persol how do you live on earth, the earth is basically just a ball of gas, oxygen, nitorgen, hydrogen. so be it chemical, it still mainly gas.
Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Maybe you're thinking of gas giant planets like jupiter, saturn, neptune and uranus, which are mostly gas, and stars. Earth is made of iron more than any other element, and by far mostly solid/liquid.

Are you from Jupiter, by chance?

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Really then since you seem to think that you have some advantage because of your classes where is your contribution to the subject, what i have read of you there is no really arguement other you say its this and that because of your classes.
i say this before we go any father with slander, if you had a founded bases in nuclear science you would have known of the things of which i have brought to dissuccsion in this topic, and you should have provided a base for argument. apparently your knowledge of nuclear science is not mature, as you gain in understaning of it will find that i am on the right path of defining elements for galaxtic travel.
this topic was for the discussion of elements for galaxtic travel, if you have some other meathod for making a defintion of elements then post it, i have more than enough knowlegde to provide argument or agreeance.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

I corrected you about why light doesn't turn 'solid'. I shouldn't have to chime in that much more as others have already showed you the errors of your ways and I'd just be repeating them. First off, stable nuclei mean just that. Stable. They don't just transmute because you travel to a different galactic region. Second, if you're traveling at a significant percentage of the speed of light, the relative travel time for the craft is well short of any time that elements might transmute anyhow. It's called time dilation. Third, elements won't transmute unless given a reason to. Elements like uranium eventually transmute to lead because as they decay, they decay into elements that are still unstable, which decay further. Therefore, stable elements like iron don't transmute without a reason, some sort of energy kick to change their neutron count. And I don't even KNOW where you came up with that silicon/human relationship.

First, I cannot believe this thread is still going, but since it is...

I still do not agree with Mr. Rabons basic assumptions as to why we should use the elements on his list, but I would primarily use carbon anyway (and it is on his list).

"experimental measurements of nanotube heat conductivity went as high as 3000 watts/m/K, almost as high as that of diamond. He predicted that nanotube performance would reach levels of 6600 watts/m/K. The ability to conduct heat will come in handy for future circuits needing to dispose of lots of heat from tight places"
- http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.531.html

Carbon nanotubes would make the perfect building material for a spacecraft. It is less massive and can be much stronger than iron/ steel.

All we just need now are nanites that will spin it like spider silk.

- KitNyx

Oh, and I wanted to clarify something. Nobel gases do not form compounds with other elements (or themselves for that matter) under NORMAL circumstances. With the exception of Helium and Neon we have found or created compounds in the lab containing the heavier inert gases.

Even still Mr. Rabon, you list both of those elements as possible construction materials. Check out this reference:

"The noble gas elements, whose atoms have full outer orbitals tend to be stable, inert and not chemically active, are found in Group 0 Elements of the periodic table. The elements in this group are
Helium
Neon
Argon
Krypton
Xenon
Radon
Helium is an inert gas, because it has two electrons in its outer orbital. Only two electrons may reside in an s-orbital of helium and therefore the outer orbital is full.

The noble gases are characterised by their stable electronic configurations. The small atomic radii and high ionisation potential values suggest the presence of strongly bound electrons. There are no molecules and the inert gases are all monatomic. Low values for the boiling points indicate the presence of weak Van der Waal's Forces. Melting points and boiling points increase with atomic size.

They were called the inert gases, because it was thought that they would not react with other elements. Helium and Neon are not known to combine with other elements. However, compounds of the higher members of the noble gas group have been found, this is due to the presence of d orbitals (e.g. xenon tetrafluoride and krypton difluoride).

Helium is used along with oxygen by divers. Neon is used in neon sign electrical discharge tubes. Argon, krypton and xenon, are used in incandescent lamps. Radon a radioactive noble gas is used in the treatment of malignant growths. " - http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/chem/dolchem/html/dict/000n1.html

So granted, we have found uses for all of the Nobel Gases, but not in building materials.

- KitNyx

That is right; one design for an interstellar spacecraft we came up with -
(the Surya)-
primarily consists of water ice, with carbonfibre/diamondoid strengthening; the ice cap at the front end serves as protection from interstellar dust and molecular impacts; the rear two thirds is gradually vaporised and used as reaction mass for the antimatter-excited fusion engines.

By the time this sacrificial design of craft arrives it has mostly been consumed, leaving the carbon fibre shell of the central habitable portion to enter orbit around the target star.
There is some requirement for dense metal shielding around the habitable section, however, as the antimatter reaction produces gamma rays.
_________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

were are you going to get the antimatter?

Perhaps Dwayne has got some...
otherwise you put some satellites in close orbit round the sun, and collect enough energy(lots!) to do some really serious high energy atom smashing; separating the debris with magnetic fields will produce a very small amount of antimatter;
for storage purposes it can be perhaps best combined as antihydrogen and frozen, then contained in a magnetic bottle-
antiprotons are allowed to evaporate off when needed, and the positrons discarded as they are not required for the catalysis of fusion.
There is a possibility that simply shining two very high powered lasers together will provoke some photons to decay to matter/antimatter pairs, but this sounds a bit unlikely to me.

SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

Originally posted by eburacum45

for storage purposes it can be perhaps best combined as antihydrogen and frozen, then contained in a magnetic bottle-

http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html


Just for record. As soon as antihydrogen is made, it no long is affected by a magnetic field and will drift into the sides of the bottle. Same with normal hydrogen.

Luckily solid antihydrogen (and hydrogen) are weakly diamagnetic, however.
http://www.rlpotter.com/ryan/school/asen/4012/Final_Report.pdf

SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

Or it seems you could just
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2003/03-84.htm
mine it out of solar flares

Carbon nanotubes would make the perfect building material for a spacecraft. It is less massive and can be much stronger than iron/ steel. Not to mention that mining the most common asteriods will give you copious amounts.