Scientists Find 7 potential Dyson spheres after Scanning 5 million Objects

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

The Ringworld is....

Stable against axial displacements after which it will gently bob back and forth around the star.

Unstable against transverse ones because the gravitational attraction of the near-side is greater than that of the far-side.

Unless there are Laws of Physics Presently Unknown to Human Science...........

You are saying the inside of the ring would need to spin faster than the outside of the ring to remain in orbit, measured in degrees of orbit per time? Would not the middle of the mass of the ring be considered as the orbital velocity needed and the structure of the ring designed to take the difference in the forces from inside to outside?

I think those forces would be a minor consideration for a civilization that can build a ring one astronomical unit in radius. Also, it might be possible to harness those forces for energy generation for the inhabitants.

Edit: Those differing orbital forces would also apply to a Dyson sphere at the equator. So those forces would need to be designed for in a Dyson sphere, which I don't think is constructable by the reasoning in my first post of this thread.

" You are saying the inside of the ring would need to spin faster than the outside of the ring to remain in orbit, measured in degrees of orbit per time? Would not the middle of the mass of the ring be considered as the orbital velocity needed and the structure of the ring designed to take the difference in the forces from inside to outside? "

Yes .


I think those forces would be a minor consideration for a civilization that can build a ring one astronomical unit in radius. Also, it might be possible to harness those forces for energy generation for the inhabitants.


Yes . The Gyroscopic Motion of the Ring-Worlds Orbit around a Central Sun could be Harnessed to generate Energy used to Stabilize the Perturbation of it's Orbital Path using some System of Macro Engineered Stabilizing Attitude Thrusters in Theory .

I doubt any large constructions like this exist anywhere. It is wasteful to put all that effort into building something like that just to capture a strip of a star's energy. If you can figure out fusion you would be essentially building a star in a container. A fusion reactor captures everything from every angle, the containment device entirely surrounds the fusion reaction. Fusion seems like a much more practical and solvable technology.

a reply to: theatreboy

Why is it, that this discovery and most others recently, mimic our sci-fi and theories?

I think because most good Science Fiction is based on Science fact so much of what they write is at least feasible , if you think about it 3D printers are a our first step toward a Star Trek style replicators.

So people have been talking about Dyson Spheres for the last decade or two. And now we just happen to find 7 candidates?

Not so long ago Planets around other Stars were a theory as we had no evidence of their existence , only by looking did we prove the theory.

a reply to: GalacticCorn

Completely agree with your statement. Which brings up another point on subjects such as these and many other extra-terrestrial / extra-planetary excursion discussions. That point being...why are we worrying about any of this?

This is not something the humanoid species from planet Earth is ever going to accomplish. Not ever. Neither is mankind going to go live even on nearby planets like Mars, not in any notable numbers anyway. All of humanity, regardless of any stupendous discovery at the edge of the Universe, is stuck here on Earth...forever. Oh sure, some travelers may go to some distant place, and they will spend their entire lives doing this, but they are, at the end of the day, limited by their human existence and physical form. Until science figures out a way to crack that nut (i.e. divesting our physical being apart from our mental one) humans (in any large numbers) aren't going anywhere. Oh, and just in case someone is thinking this, AI ain't that solution. AI could, in theory, be 'part' of the solution, but AI does nothing to solve the human side of the equation.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think the "worry" part is that notions like these are part of the distraction engine. Keep the people thinking about anything except what matters.

Cheers

a reply to: gortex

True, but I think there are also two (2) other reasons:

1. Confirmation Bias

2. As far as we know, the Universe, for all intents and purposes, is infinite. Therefore, just about any concept someone could dream up in a science fiction novel probably exists out there in some capacity.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I think the "worry" part is that notions like these are part of the distraction engine. Keep the people thinking about anything except what matters.

Except most wouldn't know about it unless they were interested in science related matters or they read it on a forum , haven't seen any MSM reporting of the research so it's not much of a distraction for the majority.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Agreed. Perhaps more directly, that's what people "should" be worrying about.

I always tell people...Space is hard! It's such a simple phrase, but it says so much. People get into these extra-worldly discussions and I honestly don't think people realize just how "hard" space really is, especially for humans.

We have people throwing all manner of discussions around about colonizing Mars and we can't even reliably put any numbers of people on our own satellite, the Moon. And now we're going to build a belt around the Sun???? Capability aside, if you ground up the entire planets Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury into dust for raw materials, it still wouldn't be enough to get even a quarter of the way around the Sun. And then there's the logistics of all that.

Space is hard.

edit - Space is hard, and humans are such fragile beings.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Agreed Space is hard but there also needs to be a political will to do things here on Earth , for the last few decades that will hasn't been there but now we are experiencing a new Space race for territories on the Moon and control of the resources contained within.

For an advanced Civilisation who have matured well past out juvenile stage Space may be easier than it is for us , we are still learning to walk where they may be competing in marathons.

a reply to: gortex

Again true, but we have our priorities wrong. We're looking in all the wrong places. If even one tenth of the effort was spent not looking at the stars but rather looking at the human, then we'd be making some progress. Candidly, I am not aware of a single study looking at changing the human form. And, it's the human form which is our biggest limitation.

As noted above, space is hard, but humans are fragile beings. Very fragile. The human life form has all of these prerequisites (i.e. air, water, mass, temperature, etc.) which seriously complicates any long distance travel. Until this problem is solved space travel at any species survival level is completely irrelevant. But nobody is even looking at this, they're too busy figuring out how to grow plants on Mars. "We" (in the inclusive sense) are not going to Mars!

Another example (one of my personal favorites); I'm sure you are familiar with the Twin Paradox, but seldom do many of these prospective space travelers examine this concept from a practical human standpoint. Let's say we solved the physical human problem and developed a way to travel at high percentages of the speed of light. Let's also say we discovered a planet, a habitable planet, 50 light years distant from Earth. If we load an infant onto our spaceship and send them off to go discover the new planet. Taking a number of liberties from reality we'll assume the ship can accelerate and decelerate instantly. Our astronaut takes 50 years to get there, and 50 years to get back. Let's say he discovers a planet of absolutely unlimited resources...utopia. Okay, but he arrives back on Earth a 100 year old man. The problem is...no one back on Earth even knows who the space traveler is because multiple generations have passed. Anything our astronaut gave his life discovering would have already been discovered, or would have been rendered irrelevant, by the time he returns to Earth.

Ergo...

So, space is hard, humans are fragile...and relativity sucks (for humans).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So, space is hard, humans are fragile...and relativity sucks

Although that isn't a reason for not creating and using new technologies to expand our knowledge of the Universe which is what we are doing today , the use of robotic explorers is well within our grasp as the discoveries we've made in our own Solar System has shown in recent years so sending Humans to far off places in the future is probably unnecessary until we discover the secrets of Worm Holes and Warp Drives.

Instant written communication across the globe was an impossibility until fairly recently yet here we are in the 21st Century doing it , who knows what will be available to us in the 22nd , 23rd or 24th Centuries should we survive our growing pains.

a reply to: gortex

Fair enough.

I just wanted to offer up a counterpoint.

Scientist are arrogant and aren't willing to admit what they don't know.
We have gotten to a point where we jump from assumption to assumption.
It is time we slow down and be guided by facts instead of hope.

originally posted by: Russbowall
Scientist are arrogant and aren't willing to admit what they don't know.
We have gotten to a point where we jump from assumption to assumption.
It is time we slow down and be guided by facts instead of hope.

Quite common.

I don't think they have found Dyson Spheres. They hope it could be Dyson Spheres

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I think the "worry" part is that notions like these are part of the distraction engine. Keep the people thinking about anything except what matters.

Except most wouldn't know about it unless they were interested in science related matters or they read it on a forum , haven't seen any MSM reporting of the research so it's not much of a distraction for the majority.

Distraction measures would necessarily have to adopt a broad approach. The people this kind of thing distracts are those who may be capable of deep thinking, and worse, forming troublesome (for the establishment) questions.

For me, this is just more of the "Look -- Aliens!" theater that parts of "Science" have been pushing the last few years. I honestly preferred that crowd when they were highly conservative in their thinking about such possibilities.

Cheers

a reply to: gortex

"should we survive our growing pains", indeed. And it is all this instantaneous communication (that our societies are hopelessly slow at processing) that may prove to be the growing pain that can't be "survived".

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I think the "worry" part is that notions like these are part of the distraction engine. Keep the people thinking about anything except what matters.

Except most wouldn't know about it unless they were interested in science related matters or they read it on a forum , haven't seen any MSM reporting of the research so it's not much of a distraction for the majority.

Distraction measures would necessarily have to adopt a broad approach. The people this kind of thing distracts are those who may be capable of deep thinking, and worse, forming troublesome (for the establishment) questions.

For me, this is just more of the "Look -- Aliens!" theater that parts of "Science" have been pushing the last few years. I honestly preferred that crowd when they were highly conservative in their thinking about such possibilities.

Cheers

"LOOK! OVER HERE!! If you act right now and call 1-800-SUCKERS, that's 1-800-782-5377, we're having a 50% off sale on Quantum Computing!! Don't miss out! Call NOW!

originally posted by: GalacticCorn
I doubt any large constructions like this exist anywhere. It is wasteful to put all that effort into building something like that just to capture a strip of a star's energy. If you can figure out fusion you would be essentially building a star in a container. A fusion reactor captures everything from every angle, the containment device entirely surrounds the fusion reaction. Fusion seems like a much more practical and solvable technology.

Well said my friend! The Dyson Sphere is just a figment of our imagination, actually the imagination of some astrophysicists and some other scientists.

Take the money out of climate change, then we can talk.

a reply to: gortex
Sure, a rigid sphere would not be stable, but could you not accomplish the same thing with orbiting rings - or even just individual collectors, all at different inclinations and different radii?