1

General Science / Re: Are the words "natural" and "supernatural" actually meaningless?

« on: 06/05/2023 17:57:48 »

Interesting considerations and I think I understand your dislike in that terminology.
To make a clear distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" you may consider natural those things that are more scientific and under the scrutiny of skeptics of different kinds of pseudoscience that is usually surrounded by conspiracy, false theories, and affirmations that lead to false information, excessive imagination for fantasy and charlatanism.
Scientific knowledge follows the scientific method, usually, things can be reproduced under controlled circumstances in labs and with lab instruments and techniques.

Supernatural, on the other hand is from the domain of parascience, parapsychology and the paranormal activity in general.
You can do some research about many kinds of pseudoscience visiting the online Skeptics Dictionary (with hundreds and hundreds of entries and articles). Another way of saying supernatural can be: the Unexplainable.

2

General Science / Re: How good would a diameter of 111 Km be for a cylinder of diamond 111 Km high?

« on: 13/03/2023 14:53:52 »

By the way, what would be, theoretically, the size of the mentioned column if we used all carbon atoms available on air, around us?

What size would be a cube of same structure as diamond made of carbon with all the cabon on the air atmosphere nowadays on our planet?

To determine the size of a cube made of carbon with the same structure as a diamond, we need to know the total amount of carbon available in the Earth's atmosphere.

However, it's important to note that most of the carbon on Earth is not in the form of diamonds. In fact, the vast majority of Earth's carbon is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolved in the oceans, or stored in the Earth's crust as fossil fuels.

To estimate the amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, we can refer to data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which estimates that the total amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere is about 3.1 trillion metric tons.

Now, we need to calculate the volume of a diamond cube with the same mass as 3.1 trillion metric tons of carbon. The density of diamond is about 3.5 grams per cubic centimeter, so the mass of a diamond cube can be calculated as:

mass = density x volume

Solving for volume, we get:

volume = mass / density

Plugging in the values, we get:

volume = (3.1 x 10^12 metric tons) / (3.5 g/cm^3 x 1 x 10^6 metric tons/g)

volume = 8.86 x 10^17 cubic centimeters

Taking the cube root of the volume, we get:

size = (8.86 x 10^17)^(1/3) cm

size = 4,735 km

Therefore, a cube made of carbon with the same structure as a diamond and containing all the carbon in the Earth's atmosphere would have a side length of approximately 4,735 kilometers (2,944 miles).




Daniel Alexandre
What would be the diameter of a cylinder like that instead of a cube if it had altitude 100 km (Karman Line) ?
If we assume that the cylinder has a height of 100 km (the Karman Line, which is commonly regarded as the boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space), we can calculate the diameter of the cylinder with the same mass as 3.1 trillion metric tons of carbon.

First, we need to calculate the volume of the cylinder. The formula for the volume of a cylinder is:

V = πr^2h

where V is the volume, r is the radius, and h is the height.

To find the radius of the cylinder, we can rearrange the formula as:

r = √(V / πh)

We know the volume of the cylinder is the same as the volume of the diamond cube we calculated earlier, which is approximately 8.86 x 10^17 cubic centimeters. We also know the height of the cylinder is 100 km, or 10^8 centimeters.

Plugging in these values, we get:

r = √(8.86 x 10^17 / π x 10^8)

r = 1.19 x 10^6 cm

So the radius of the cylinder would be approximately 1.19 million centimeters.

To find the diameter of the cylinder, we simply double the radius:

d = 2r

d = 2 x 1.19 x 10^6 cm

d = 2.38 x 10^6 cm

Therefore, the diameter of the cylinder would be approximately 2.38 million centimeters, or 23,800 kilometers (14,800 miles).

3

General Science / Re: How smaller can GPS trackers get?

« on: 05/11/2021 18:29:34 »

In reply to "Bored chemist":

I think that with the progress of technology is very unlikely you can avoid governments having more pervasive surveillance systems.
Since we are going to have them we will have only two options:
1) To let them be in the hands of a few: the powerful ones, the governments, the police state, the elites.
or
2) To democratize them, giving public access of all that data to all citizens and AI systems.

I think the second option is the one that can avoid the totalitarian abuses you are talking about.

4

General Science / Re: How smaller can GPS trackers get?

« on: 05/11/2021 17:21:02 »

So that if you were kidnapped the kidnappers did not find out you had one inside your body.

5

General Science / How smaller can GPS trackers get?

« on: 05/11/2021 14:34:27 »

How smaller can GPS trackers get?

Hello, I would like to know what is the expected size in the future and how small can GPS trackers, namely those that will be able to harvest energy from radiation to perpetuate their autonomy, can get. How smaller can GPS trackers get?
Also, is there any way they can be done with materials (graphene and nanotubes, perhaps?) that cannot be detected with metal detectors?

Hopefully, we will have GPS trackers (that can harvest energy from radiowaves: to perpetuate their autonomy) - smaller than a grain of salt - inside our bodies, able to send signals to the internet.
We already have them quite small, and we can put them inside pretty much anything that can be stolen: like a piano, a TV, a tablet or a motor-bike.
I want to live in a world where everything is being tracked to the clouds at all times,
and where everyone's voice and biometric signals (including pupil dilation and Galvanic Skin Response) are being recorded and analyzed.