It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dyson Shell

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

There are all sorts of different shapes, size, and density proposed.

Probably dependant on your level of technology as to what geometric shape would be possible though.

A ring seems rather more easily managed, built and maintained, rather than a shell or other structure.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


There's also the idea of the Dyson Swarm. That is, a large number of satellites surrounding a star that can capture an appreciable amount of energy from that star.

Think of it as a (say, for example) 20% constructed Dyson Sphere that consists of a bunch of smaller pieces of a partial sphere that are not physically connected to each other.

Some of the fun hypothetical speculation surrounding Tabby's Star was that it could have been surrounded by a Dyson Swarm. The observations matched a swarm of smaller objects more than it matched a solid ring or similar larger structure.

It should be noted that the observations also matched peices of naturally-occuring objects, but that idea is not as fun as speculating that it was artificial.

edit on 27/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Some very interesting responses. I will try to respond to all of you but if your feeling left out by, all means express yourselves.



Yes, there are many variations, to Dyson's conclusions and some are more practical. than others given the not. too distant future. But such an effort is considered in so far as I know to be a generational effort. No there is not enough material in our solar system to build a Dyson Shell so while reaching that point could take a really long time, the effort is well worth it. In so far as harmful radiation what could be done is to collect it in no different a way we collect visible light with solar panels. Even with respect to charged particles, a solution would be the responsibility of future generations with of course the construction of a shell as the goal.

The advantage of constructing such an object is enormous. Case in point. If we decided to replicate the appearance of
Earth on its inner surface to scale? I mean think about that how large then would be North America?

And what about food?

While in relation to advanced civilization besides us and are more advanced than us what would be the amounts of their populations? Covering a star this way would give us the opportunity, to multiply, potentially into, the quintillions.

Myself I do not believe that mankind has any real limit in relation to how long it will exist. Over time man will change but suggesting those differences, make them separate from us is IMHO irrelevant except to Archeologists and those so inclined for purposes of investigation. Homo-Sapien is probably a link in a proverbial chain but that does not change our contribution.

Thought?

edit on 27-11-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Might be converting said heat into microwaves or other as of yet undiscovered states of energy, then beaming it to other star systems or areas of the universe where required. They could even utilize said microwaves beams or streams of energy for transportation purposes, you would be bound by light speed all the same. 


I hinted at such things in my first post but as you mentioned in your first post, such concepts of energy production could be so primitive for where they are.

Trying to fathom the unfathomable gets my brain going in circles though, it always comes to "how you get there" and then I can only use ourselves as examples.

Here are my conclusions.

1. A "wireless" format of energy distribution where shear volume trumps efficiency. Or it could be efficient but limited by light speed.

2. Localising your civilization around the star, this makes gathering raw materials a logistical nightmare.

3. Faster than light travel.

Now those conclusions of mine (I'm not exactly educated) rely on some technologies to be mastered and potentialy sciences we don't have a clue about. Which gets me in circles... Who knows?

Super batteries and wormholes?

Power from the ether?

It keeps bringing me back to the point that the Dyson Sphere idea might be utterly pointless.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

We'd probably be machines by then or heavily augmented lifeforms with "safe spaces" like Earth being a fond memory.

We might not even eat but just plug ourselves in and nano machines tailor make energy individually cell by cell.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

Trying to consider the idea today of making a Dyson Sphere as opposed to a Dyson Swarm today is pointless. But given human ingenuity to date, it is not impossible.

It could take 100,000 years to complete and at least but, it's not impossible.

And yeah it would require the work currently involving, that we do gain access to FTL. But that is the thing about this civilization.

We can actually consider the potential of accomplishing such things today.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Another issue is that Earth-like planets that we could habitat in our galaxy contain, life of there own.

Meaning carbon-based viruses and bacteria that could adapt to us and cause all kinds of problems.

A Dyson Shell prior to Humans entering it would have nothing in it that did not come from Earth.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

Think of it this way, we live/exist and build things at the macro scale. Dyson type constructions are of an order of magnitude well above our ability to construct or even comprehend what to do with all that space.

Which in a reasonably sized sphere, ring, or any other shape around a star would encompass and create more living space than there is theorized to exist on all of the other planets that possibly provide habitable space in our entire galaxy.

As long as we exist as mere 2 meter tall biological meatsacks such constructions will simply remain beyond our ability to comprehend what to do with never mind construct in any kind of meaningful manner.
edit on 28-11-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: andy06shake




Might be converting said heat into microwaves or other as of yet undiscovered states of energy, then beaming it to other star systems or areas of the universe where required. They could even utilize said microwaves beams or streams of energy for transportation purposes, you would be bound by light speed all the same. 


I hinted at such things in my first post but as you mentioned in your first post, such concepts of energy production could be so primitive for where they are.

Trying to fathom the unfathomable gets my brain going in circles though, it always comes to "how you get there" and then I can only use ourselves as examples.

Here are my conclusions.

1. A "wireless" format of energy distribution where shear volume trumps efficiency. Or it could be efficient but limited by light speed.

2. Localising your civilization around the star, this makes gathering raw materials a logistical nightmare.

3. Faster than light travel.

Now those conclusions of mine (I'm not exactly educated) rely on some technologies to be mastered and potentialy sciences we don't have a clue about. Which gets me in circles... Who knows?

Super batteries and wormholes?

Power from the ether?

It keeps bringing me back to the point that the Dyson Sphere idea might be utterly pointless.


Unless that civilization had mastered fusion power and fusion related technologies. Then in theory they could just create matter and elements when they needed. Basic quantum physics will allow two gamma rays to combine and create an electron/positron pair. Perhaps higher energies could create protons. In that case, fusion processes would allow any element to be created: Hydrogen->Helium->Lithium etc...



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Really higher interactions like some equivalent to two neutron stars colliding could make gold.

You are correct though and interestingly enough the idea of your position is not discussed on the internet, as far as I know in relation to new technologies.

If you have a related link I would like to see it but otherwise?
and we need a smiley for DAAM!



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Seriously if you cannot find a referent to what you just explained here at ATS, you have just presented an original thought.

Thoughts?



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   


Fusion Torch Can Create New Raw Materials

January 1, 2004 • 1:00AM

Marjorie Mazel Hecht reports:

How soon the world might run out of necessary resources and raw materials, from drinkable water to strategic minerals, should be no concern for panic, rationing, or calls for population control. We have the ability now to create the resources we need, using advanced technology. Conventional nuclear reactors can provide the energy to desalinate seawater, and high-temperature nuclear reactors can efficiently create hydrogen to replace petroleum fuel. The even higher temperatures available from thermonuclear fusion will provide working plasmas that can reduce garbage and waste down to its constituent elements, eliminating disposal problems; these high-temperature plasmas will also be able to “mine” strategic minerals directly from the ordinary rock.


archive.larouchepac.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

yes wrapping a star the size of sol is a colossal task but how about a white dwarf between 10 to 20 miles in diameter odds are you could find enough material for that in system but seriously thats stil alot of heat and rads to use maybe the power would be needed to warp space for ftl travel like through a gate .



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33



The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy. As a result, it cannot support itself by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse but is supported only by electron degeneracy pressure, causing it to be extremely dense. The physics of degeneracy yields a maximum mass for a non-rotating white dwarf, the Chandrasekhar limit—approximately 1.44 times of M☉—beyond which it cannot be supported by electron degeneracy pressure. A carbon-oxygen white dwarf that approaches this mass limit, typically by mass transfer from a companion star, may explode as a type Ia supernova via a process known as carbon detonation.[1][5] (SN 1006 is thought to be a famous example.)

A white dwarf is very hot when it forms, but because it has no source of energy, it will gradually radiate its energy and cool. This means that its radiation, which initially has a high color temperature, will lessen and redden with time. Over a very long time, a white dwarf will cool and its material will begin to crystallize (starting with the core). The star's low temperature means it will no longer emit significant heat or light, and it will become a cold black dwarf.[5] Because the length of time it takes for a white dwarf to reach this state is calculated to be longer than the current age of the universe (approximately 13.8 billion years),[9] it is thought that no black dwarfs yet exist.[1][4] The oldest white dwarfs still radiate at temperatures of a few thousand kelvins.



There are currently thought to be eight white dwarfs among the hundred star systems nearest the Sun.


en.wikipedia.org...

The nearest one is 8.6 light years away and its part of a binary. Sirus A is 20 times brighter than Sol while the white dwarf is called Sirus B.

No planets have been detected yet with current technology and Sirus A is 1.7 times larger than Sol.

Actually a good idea.










posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Yes but if a civilization cracked that then they've probably got access to a greater power source than a star.

Because it's highly portable compared to a star, it's energy on demand too.

As Andy said above you, it's the scale and usability. In my opinion a Dyson Sphere might be a huge waste of time.

But who knows? We've barely got off our planet apparently, we can't fathom such energy requirements.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990



The idea is to build the entire swarm in iterative steps and not all at once. We would only need to build a small section of the Dyson sphere to provide the energy requirements for the rest of the project. Thus, construction efficiency will increase over time as the project progresses. "We could do it now," says Armstrong. It's just a question of materials and automation.

And yes, you read that right: we're going to have to mine materials from Mercury. Actually, we'll likely have to take the whole planet apart. The Dyson sphere will require a horrendous amount of material so much so, in fact, that, should we want to completely envelop the sun, we are going to have to disassemble not just Mercury, but Venus, some of the outer planets, and any nearby asteroids as well.


io9.gizmodo.com...

The timeline is off with this article it could take 200 to 1000 years to work this all out.







edit on 29-11-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

We don't have the batteries yet.

So we'd either have power lines going through space or running on the same conundrum we have today. Wasted energy.

I really really don't want to see power lines in space, I was only partially joking about that.

But you know what?

With AI it's a potential possibility, but then we've not even started mining the moon yet. I think jumping to a Dyson Sphere whilst we've got primitive electrical grids is such a bad idea it's hardly worth mentioning.

We are too primitive. The power requirements of the Internet alone is detrimental to this planet, a Dyson Sphere is the equivalent to a cave man building a galleon.

We ain't there yet, in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

With our technology a weak solar flare will destroy the whole project.

An angle I haven't even touched on...



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

To suggest a solar flare would damage the project is silly.

Do you have any evidence to support your position??



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

No because we've never built such a huge project in space before.

However, electronics on earth have been destroyed due to solar flares, we've lost satellites too. All these were protected, sometimes partially by our own planet's electro-magnetic field.

Placing something closer to the sun will have it more at risk. The closer it is the bigger the target. We don't have the tech to protect our satellites from flares.

So no, but plenty of evidence exists for the affect of solar flares, within the Earth's magnetosphere.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join