Well, I was searching to see if this was already made, but the searches didn't show a thread with my idea so here it is. I am making this thread so we can have a typical tavern discussion thread for all things science! Basically, a thread for everything science! Ranging from discussions about laws and theories, scientific debate, breakthroughs, discussion about new scientific breakthroughs, certain scientists/philosophers, and all that good stuff! So go out there and let out your inner science! ;P To get us going somewhere I'll start: what do you think the future holds for technology? I think our knowledge will allow us to overcome the obstacles thrown at us in the future, I mean, we have discovered so much and have come so far!
I was suggesting the towers instead of lighting because the towers would be unpowered and thus they would be free to use. I could see a red lighting system being used at night, but that would cause problems for the city it is in. The lights would interrupt the sleeping patterns of the inhabitants and such.
The tubes would have to be lighted or else the microbes inside would die. This system would be put to better use as a system for mega-towers and space stations rather then a huge air filter for the city. Such damage can be fixed in a more long term way through other changes.
But can we say that by puting up these towers across the world we can in a long term way, improve the air of the world. Or a city.
Sure but we can achieve that goal in other ways as well. Things like if we get off the use of oil as a primary fuel supply, so less pollutants go into the atmosphere. Or more in the future, if we were to build arcology for means of providing housing. This would free up land that could then be used for things like preserves, zoos and parks. Such changes in living, changes that are likely going to have to be done one way or another, would make these towers completely obsolete.
Mage, I would never have thought you would have more faith in humanity than I.
I wouldn't say it was faith in humanity, I just don't see the current system being sustainable. We have plenty of other forms of technology that could replace the current which only needs refinement and the avenue of the more financially viable solution to become mainstream. It might not even take such technology becoming completely financially viable, the majority might just simply get fed up with the current decaying system and force these changes. So either way we will see such changes if not for the environments sake then for our own.
How about vertical farms? They take up less space, allow or year round crop yields and reduce the need for shipping. There are a number of down sides that would make then unfeasible today though. But perhaps in the future some of these issues could be dealt with.
Wyrzen, it is physically impossible for there to be 90% anti-matter in the Universe. If that was the case, then life couldn't exist because the anti-matter and matter would cancel themselves out, and the Universe would just be a big blob of nothing, or space, or whatever.
Anti-matter. Dark matter. Supposedly out universe is around 90% of this stuff.
antimatter is not Dark Matter. Though if we could produce and contain enough antimatter it would be a very effective method of producing power, with a near 100% efficiency. Nuclear power yields only about 40% efficiency. For example one gram of matter/antimatter would produce the equivalent of about 89 terajoules or 25 million kilowatt-hours of energy.
This is about science but about something else in science! Please help me I have this test on the circulatory & respiratory system please give me facts and examples, thank you!!
I'm sure that we are just grossly underestimating the presence of energy and matter in the universe, and that mistake is what we deemed as dark versions of them.
I'm sure that we are just grossly underestimating the presence of energy and matter in the universe, and that mistake is what we deemed as dark versions of them.
I think you might be misunderstanding the term. It's call "Dark" because of our lack of ability to directly observe it.
I thought dark matter was a different classification of matter, not just matter we can't see from here. If it is as the latter states, then I rescind my prior statement.
