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.

 

Seeking Silent Aliens - How to Search for Advanced Alien Civilizations - Space.com article

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

jonnywhite
And what about the heat leakage we should be able to observe if they're dyson spheres?


Well, if you can make a Dyson sphere, maybe you can also make Greg Bear "Forge of God" energy sumps - use the vacuum as your cold sink and let the energy show up as virtual particle fluctuations over a huge volume of space.




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Bedlam

jonnywhite
And what about the heat leakage we should be able to observe if they're dyson spheres?


Well, if you can make a Dyson sphere, maybe you can also make Greg Bear "Forge of God" energy sumps - use the vacuum as your cold sink and let the energy show up as virtual particle fluctuations over a huge volume of space.

What about the evidence which shows most of the "unseen matter" must not be baryonic? This means it's not producing an atom, since all atoms are baryonic in nature, since they're composed of neutrons and protons. Most of this "unseen matter" must also only weakly interact with normal matter or photons.

If the premise is normal baryonic matter was enveloped in some kind of dyson sphere long ago and now it's hidden then how does it create the situation where we would think it must not be baryonic?

Sorry I'm strugglingto make sense of this dark matter information I'm reading. I am not a scientist only a browser on the wiki trying to understand it.
edit on 16-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

jonnywhite

If the premise is normal baryonic matter was enveloped in some kind of dyson sphere long ago and now it's hidden then how does it create the situation where we would think it must not be baryonic?


Because...we're wrong!

Or, if you like, a Type II+ civilization may know how to manipulate the information structure of space, using "fake matter" for most of the Dyson sphere. See also: Kantor "Information Mechanics".



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
The Dyson sphere is an outdated science fiction concept which is no longer consistent with current technological trends. It's more likely that we'd develop mini-sized Suns capable of nuclear fusion to supply our energy needs rather than investing an exorbitant amount to harness one of the smallest stars in the known Universe.

Another person wrote:


It seems to me that the premise for the Kardashev scale may not be as applicable as presumed. For example, as our own technology is progressing, we're not looking to create bigger units that require more power, but smaller units that are far more energy efficient, with the aim of energy self-sufficiency on a unit per unit scale as opposed to a gigantic collector and distribution system. Houses are becoming self sufficient, more efficient batteries are being developed, there's even a solar powered airplane. And of course, fusion power is a realistic goal, which will mean that we'll be able to create and harness miniature Suns right here on Earth. So why would we want to build a Dyson's sphere? It's static and follows the star around. It would make more sense to build mother ships and move to a new star than waste all that effort building an enclosure around a star that is destined to eventually burn out.


I simply agree.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

RUInsane
The Dyson sphere is an outdated science fiction concept which is no longer consistent with current technological trends. It's more likely that we'd develop mini-sized Suns capable of nuclear fusion to supply our energy needs rather than investing an exorbitant amount to harness one of the smallest stars in the known Universe.



And have you done the math? How many mini fusion reactors do you need to equal the output of even a small red dwarf star?

Trust me, it's more efficient to just harness the output of the star. A Dyson Sphere would not be some rigid construction, it need not even be spherical in shape. It's simply a whole bunch of solar collectors surrounding a star.

Call it a Dyson Swarm or a Dyson Shell and you get a better picture.

Our Type 0 technological trends mean nothing to a Type I or Type II civilization.

That would be like saying: "All these attempts at heavier than air flight are mostly sci fi, and they have all failed. The technological trend right now is leading us to bigger and better airships. Winged flight is for the birds! LOL!", prior to the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk.
edit on 11-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

JadeStar

RUInsane
The Dyson sphere is an outdated science fiction concept which is no longer consistent with current technological trends. It's more likely that we'd develop mini-sized Suns capable of nuclear fusion to supply our energy needs rather than investing an exorbitant amount to harness one of the smallest stars in the known Universe.



And have you done the math? How many mini fusion reactors do you need to equal the output of even a small red dwarf star?

Trust me, it's more efficient to just harness the output of the star. A Dyson Sphere would not be some rigid construction, it need not even be spherical in shape. It's simply a whole bunch of solar collectors surrounding a star.

Call it a Dyson Swarm or a Dyson Shell and you get a better picture.

Our Type 0 technological trends mean nothing to a Type I or Type II civilization.

That would be like saying: "All these attempts at heavier than air flight are mostly sci fi, and they have all failed. The technological trend right now is leading us to bigger and better airships. Winged flight is for the birds! LOL!", prior to the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk.
edit on 11-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see your comment.

There's no evidence to support that either Type I or Type II civilizations exist. The entire basis of this speculation is based off human technological trends (and by that, I of course refer to what's mainstream). This would explain why the Dyson sphere sounds like a glorified incarnation of current attempts at harnessing solar power. It's a good starting point, but I don't see why we should confine ourselves to solar power writ large. It's amazing what scientists can discuss with a straight face when it doesn't concern humans directly. Mainstream science is too self-important, and too young to deliver a credible conclusion on the specific energy technologies a potential ET civilization may use. Perhaps the reason we don't see any Dyson swarms (like you described) is because it's pure fiction.

I apologize if I sounded a bit terse. I love your threads, but Dyson spheres represent what I dislike about mainstream science speculation.
edit on 5-4-2014 by RUInsane because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join