amazing science/nature images

Page: 1 ... 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
Online now: Bing (sucks), DEyncourt, Google [Bot], juice, Majestic-12 [Bot], Metacell, Pithecanthropus
Post Reply
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
The foam looks like a blanket.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
I want to photoshop in little cavemen
TOS
User avatar
a storm on the south pole of saturn

Image
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
the star-forming rho ophiuchi cloud complex:

Image
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
man, look at those clouds

i love those juno photos, so amazing
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
It's a star.

It's twinkling!

DUH ! :der:
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
macnuke Afar
User avatar
6 o'clock in the frggin morning and i see mars and think...

that's some tasty looking icing on that cake.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.
TOS
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile

I believe that Dyson himself worked out that his sphere would NOT require the conversion of all of the Solar System's planets and moons and asteroids into the sphere, just a lot of it.

As to why do this: Dyson's reason was to capture every bit of energy that the Sun produces.

Of course the construction of such a sphere would be wholly dependent upon a number of currently unknown technologies:

1) gravity induction (since a sphere cannot be rotated like Ringworld to "create" gravity through centrifugal force).

2) a well-organized space force powered by:

3) fusion (or better) engines. Specifically NOT Bussard ramjets, but something that would not require getting the vehicle to a significant percentage of the speed of light to become functional.

4) faster-than-light communications.

Which are what I could toss off the top of my head.
Let me add:

5) a weapons system that simply does not exist (maybe ever?). While Star Trek phasers come close to what is needed, note that (as the Bad Astronomer recently reported) a second probably interstellar object is about to cross through our Solar System. Its current speed is about 41 km/sec or 150,000 km/hour (and it is still on approach so it WILL get faster) relative to the Sun which means bad news for any Dyson sphere which might be in its way. Even if a phaser-like weapon could convert an incoming object completely into its constituent gases, even a stream of gas moving at that speed would severely damage ANY structure in its way (think of being blasted by hurricane force winds but a thousand times faster). So...a total conversion into energy/photons somehow? And remember: E=mc^2, so such a conversion would require perhaps the equivalent of a thermonuclear device's megatons of energy for EACH kilogram of incoming material. This new interstellar object is likely several kilometers in diameter (while 'Oumuamua--the first known interstellar object--was roughly cigar-shaped with an overall length of about 100 meters). To handle this new object--had it been in an intercept path with a Dyson sphere--um, how to express this? Let's see: giga = 10^9, tera = 10^12...how about in the range in peta (= 10^15) tons? And something in this range would be required for EVERY incoming interstellar object including rather tiny ones the size of a grain of sand.

Oh, here is the current projected path of that new object through our Solar System:

Image

So it is coming in from the celestial north pole and will pass through the Solar System's orbital plane just outside of Mars' orbit. At its closest point to the Sun, it will be about the distance of Mars' orbit but considerably off our orbital plane.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Image

Marbled polecat

AKA Leopard ferret
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile

I believe that Dyson himself worked out that his sphere would NOT require the conversion of all of the Solar System's planets and moons and asteroids into the sphere, just a lot of it.

As to why do this: Dyson's reason was to capture every bit of energy that the Sun produces.

Of course the construction of such a sphere would be wholly dependent upon a number of currently unknown technologies:

1) gravity induction (since a sphere cannot be rotated like Ringworld to "create" gravity through centrifugal force).

2) a well-organized space force powered by:

3) fusion (or better) engines. Specifically NOT Bussard ramjets, but something that would not require getting the vehicle to a significant percentage of the speed of light to become functional.

4) faster-than-light communications.

Which are what I could toss off the top of my head.


so you agree with me, in other words
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile

I believe that Dyson himself worked out that his sphere would NOT require the conversion of all of the Solar System's planets and moons and asteroids into the sphere, just a lot of it.

As to why do this: Dyson's reason was to capture every bit of energy that the Sun produces.

Of course the construction of such a sphere would be wholly dependent upon a number of currently unknown technologies:

1) gravity induction (since a sphere cannot be rotated like Ringworld to "create" gravity through centrifugal force).

2) a well-organized space force powered by:

3) fusion (or better) engines. Specifically NOT Bussard ramjets, but something that would not require getting the vehicle to a significant percentage of the speed of light to become functional.

4) faster-than-light communications.

Which are what I could toss off the top of my head.


so you agree with me, in other words

Well, in a word, no.

Of course Dyson's idea of his sphere is entirely pie-in-the-sky what-if thinking. My short list of currently unknown technologies that a Dyson sphere would require is equally so (BTW: add to that 6] instant teleportation because space travel even given those proposed fusion-driven spacecraft from one point inside a Dyson sphere to another could take days to weeks of travel time), but neither of them are necessarily impossible, just cannot be done given our current understandings of physics and other sciences.

Given the past 120 years, how many of its technologies would have been called "Impossible! Utterly impossible!" by even many scientists of 1898? Heck, recall that trains traveling at speeds over 25 MPH were once deemed impractical (and they WERE, once you take into account the materials science of and the assumptions made by people of the 1750s).
So with the possible exception of that space force (organized or otherwise), do I expect any of the other 5 technologies to happen within the next, say, 50 years (much less a human Dyson sphere)?

Well, no, but I could be surprised.
The Bad Astronomer invites you to take a 250,000 km trip just above Saturn's rings on July 26, 2009. YouTube video at link.

That particular date is important because that was the Earth day when Saturn had its equinox and--more importantly--its rings were edge on towards the Sun. Cassini did take a LOT of pictures of the rings on that day, and now a software engineer has taken some of them to create a simulated cruise centered over part of the rings just inside the Cassini Division. And--as the Bad Astronomer points out--that trip is about 1/3rd of the entire possible journey around this region of the rings.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile

I believe that Dyson himself worked out that his sphere would NOT require the conversion of all of the Solar System's planets and moons and asteroids into the sphere, just a lot of it.

As to why do this: Dyson's reason was to capture every bit of energy that the Sun produces.

Of course the construction of such a sphere would be wholly dependent upon a number of currently unknown technologies:

1) gravity induction (since a sphere cannot be rotated like Ringworld to "create" gravity through centrifugal force).

2) a well-organized space force powered by:

3) fusion (or better) engines. Specifically NOT Bussard ramjets, but something that would not require getting the vehicle to a significant percentage of the speed of light to become functional.

4) faster-than-light communications.

Which are what I could toss off the top of my head.


so you agree with me, in other words

Well, in a word, no.

Of course Dyson's idea of his sphere is entirely pie-in-the-sky what-if thinking. My short list of currently unknown technologies that a Dyson sphere would require is equally so (BTW: add to that 6] instant teleportation because space travel even given those proposed fusion-driven spacecraft from one point inside a Dyson sphere to another could take days to weeks of travel time), but neither of them are necessarily impossible, just cannot be done given our current understandings of physics and other sciences.

Given the past 120 years, how many of its technologies would have been called "Impossible! Utterly impossible!" by even many scientists of 1898? Heck, recall that trains traveling at speeds over 25 MPH were once deemed impractical (and they WERE, once you take into account the materials science of and the assumptions made by people of the 1750s).

How could you possibly make the interior of the sphere cool enough for life? Radiators don't work in space.
Pariah posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
TOS posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Recall Tabby's Star? That link is to the first post about that star back in 2015. There are many other posts in the Random Image Thread subsequent to that, the last of which MAY be this one dated May 22, 2017.

The Bad Astronomer reports that "Remember Tabby's Star? It may have a friend... and maybe lots of them".

Basically this past June some astronomers published a paper describing another such star with similar weird dips in brightness. There are some dips which ARE periodic and are within the range for a regular planet transiting at least one of the stars in a binary system, but there are others much bigger dips which defy that explanation.

Another astronomer decided to do some analysis of several star surveys covering many millions of stars and found 21 possible candidates (probably requiring subsequent brightness studies to confirm this status). Do note that the transit method of observation (where the object in orbit around another star basically does a partial eclipse of that star from the point of view from the Earth) only applies to a small percentage of stars within any star survey, so if these candidates turn out to be other versions of "Tabby's Star" then while we aren't talking about a very common star behavior it may be common enough to require only a natural explanation (so, sorry: no Dyson sphere-like structures unless THEY are that common too).


it's a fascinating phenomenon

personally i always thought the dyson's sphere explanation was silly ... that entire concept makes no sense to me

Well, considering that WE have no model to base what a Dyson sphere might look like from the outside, it is nearly impossible to say what actually makes sense.

Some people arguing for alien megastructures have claimed that the Dyson sphere itself is only midway through construction which COULD partially explain the highly irregular dips in brightness in Tabby's Star. And there are other possible megastructures such aa Larry Niven's Ringworld which have their own (dis)advantages towards explaining Tabby's Star.

Personally I was always inclined towards more natural causes with an emphasis that what is happening to Tabby's Star is a relatively short-lived phase that perhaps many stars go through (my personal favorite is the transition from being an exclusively hydrogen burning star into becoming one that burns helium so this would specifically exclude all red dwarves and probably many stars which are a bit larger). Of course that "short-lived" is very relative. For a star with an overall lifespan of 10 billion years (specifically excluding their final phase as a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole), any phase which lasts the equivalent to only 1 day over a human lifespan of 100 years would last over a quarter-million years for a star like the Sun, which could help explain why we haven't yet seen many other stars similar to Tabby's Star.


what i mean is that the resources required to build a dyson's sphere couldn't possibly make it worthwhile

I believe that Dyson himself worked out that his sphere would NOT require the conversion of all of the Solar System's planets and moons and asteroids into the sphere, just a lot of it.

As to why do this: Dyson's reason was to capture every bit of energy that the Sun produces.

Of course the construction of such a sphere would be wholly dependent upon a number of currently unknown technologies:

1) gravity induction (since a sphere cannot be rotated like Ringworld to "create" gravity through centrifugal force).

2) a well-organized space force powered by:

3) fusion (or better) engines. Specifically NOT Bussard ramjets, but something that would not require getting the vehicle to a significant percentage of the speed of light to become functional.

4) faster-than-light communications.

Which are what I could toss off the top of my head.


so you agree with me, in other words

Well, in a word, no.

Of course Dyson's idea of his sphere is entirely pie-in-the-sky what-if thinking. My short list of currently unknown technologies that a Dyson sphere would require is equally so (BTW: add to that 6] instant teleportation because space travel even given those proposed fusion-driven spacecraft from one point inside a Dyson sphere to another could take days to weeks of travel time), but neither of them are necessarily impossible, just cannot be done given our current understandings of physics and other sciences.

Given the past 120 years, how many of its technologies would have been called "Impossible! Utterly impossible!" by even many scientists of 1898? Heck, recall that trains traveling at speeds over 25 MPH were once deemed impractical (and they WERE, once you take into account the materials science of and the assumptions made by people of the 1750s).

How could you possibly make the interior of the sphere cool enough for life? Radiators don't work in space.

Presumably the entire outside of the sphere would be covered with complex heat radiators (to be sure: working very slowly). And the sphere for the Sun SHOULD be larger than Earth's orbit in diameter which would decrease the incoming sunlight on a square-foot basis while also increasing the outer surface area for those heat radiators. The working Dyson's sphere radius is probably closer to the calculated outer edge of any star's habitable zone (so approaching Mars' orbit for the Sun). Hey, even MORE room for us humans! Using Mars' orbit as the base for the Dyson sphere radius, that translates to an average of only 9 humans per surface area the size of the Earth for 10 billion humans. As Douglas Adams once wrote: "Space is big. Really big."

In fact some people who first read Dyson's proposal suggested that a search for Dyson spheres could concentrate on red giant "stars" that are radiating "too much" in the infra-red range compared to their sizes.
A radiator in space works by literally radiating away infrared light. They're colored black to guarantee maximum efficiency (black body radiation). They are pointed at a dark spot in the sky and shielded from sunshine to further improve efficiency.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Image

Spider-lemur

Does whatever a spider can. With a diaper.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I want one! :( (why no tears emoji?)
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Metacell posted:
I want one! :( (why no tears emoji?)


:cry: :whaa:

here we call them findeys :p
TOS
User avatar
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Image

find the leopard
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Much easier to do con the big computer screen than on the phone.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Much easier to do con the big computer screen than on the phone.


I took me a while, and I had to zoom in to be sure. My monitor is 18.5", 1366x768
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
unmitigated joy
New mineral discovered on Lake Superior shores.

Named yooperlite after Michigan's Upper Peninsula residents: UPers.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

amazing science/nature images

Page: 1 ... 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66