/sci/ - Science & Math

Interesting. I sincerely hope you didn't just make this up.

Then again, I'm not sure how a Dyson sphere could be built in a way that it won't just collapse into the star.

You should probably link the article, but yeah why not. In theory dyson structures should be bright in infrared, while dim in visible light as they block most of it in and radiate the heat as infrared.

First time on everything

Legit for the science stuff, didn't read enough to talk about dyson sphere theory. Seems weird enough. Link: (pdf is in open access, yay)

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/732/1/43/

>The source is optically variable on short timescales (tens of days) and is also slightly variable in the mid-IR, indicating that it is a star. Archival photographic plates (from 1949 and 1991) show no optical source, so the star has been obscured for at least half a century.

Gentlemen, an interstellar war has caused this dyson sphere to collapse.

Oh COME ON /sci/ !

A fucking potential Dyson sphere, with actual science backing it up, and this fucking thread is sinking with 3 replies ?

>>6102869

An entry called: "How to Kill Someone with Your Bare Hands"
2 cups rhubarb, sliced
2/3 cups granulated rhubarb
1 tbsp. all-purpose rhubarb
1 tsp. grated orange rhubarb
3 tbsp. rhubarb, on fire
1 large rhubarb
1 cross borehole electromagnetic imaging rhubarb
2 tbsp. rhubarb juice
Adjustable aluminum head positioner

>>6103138

>>6102869
Occam's razor will cut the shit out of that idea.
>>6102889
having a super structure around the star affects the star!?!?!?
Shell theorem where'd you go!?!?!
>>6103125
smells like bullshit

>>6102869
>http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/732/1/43/
>>6102911

considering the H-alpha it could be a very, very large accretion disc in a system of multiple tiny main sequence stars.

Life is bad enough without you faggots getting our hopes up for the tiniest instant before senses kick in leaving us with a hole that can't be filled because for a brief instant we knew how amazing such a find would truly be, but will never actually experience the real thing.

>>6103125
No where in the actual paper are dyson spheres mentioned, and the logic
>usually bright in the IR spectrum is the signature of a Dyson sphere.
Is bullshit.

Next.

the dyson sphere part is not what the scientists assume it to be.

and i highly doubt any civilization that could actually build a dyson sphere would build one. why would they if they could just colonize other stars and shit

>>6103190
What if they already colonized other stars

>>6103190

nigger, a tokamak, or any fusion reactor is effectively a "dyson sphere"

>>6103204
and your mom is a planet. we know. now go suck your moms penis

>>6103204
you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about on either subject, apparently.

>>6103190
>doubt any civilization that could actually build a dyson sphere would build one. why would they if they could just colonize other stars and shit
>doubt any civilization that could actually build a dyson sphere would build one. why would they if they could just colonize other stars and shit

>>6103190
>why would you build a power plant when you can move to another town
Interesting argument. But perhaps not as compelling as you imagined it in your head.

>>6102869

retard here, so i know the dyson sphere is meant to use the star as a form of power but do people inhabit the inside or outside of the sphere because wouldn't inhabiting inside the sphere cause mass amounts of radiation?

>>6103231
It could be either, and that probably depends on what kind of lifeforms they are, we cannot say.

But if they have enough technology to build a fucking dyson sphere I guarantee you that is not going to be a problem at all.

>>6103243

Yeah i just realized what i wrote was pretty stupid.

I mean if one was able to create a massive sphere to harvest energy from a star then they must have some kind of way biologically or technologically to protect themselves from radiation.

Do you think it's possible in a few centuries for us to have a dyson swarm around our sun?

>>6103250
A few centuries?
I highly doubt it.
While some people may claim our technology on earth is growing at an exponential rate and that may be true,
our space travel technology is still very much in its infancy.
We are still many years away from just being able to move an asteroid for mining.

>>6103250
no, the amount of raw materials makes it unfeasable. I have a very optimistic view about space travel, but i don't believe that this will ever happen.

Here are some things that I do expect that might be pretty cool:

>Colonization and terraforming of mars
>large solar array on sun side of mercury, supermassive laser array on dark side to propel light sail craft
>possibly this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

>>6103210

except it's a fucking torus ehrmagherd muh homeoporphicity

>>6103209

how is scale an issue? how is it unfeasible that at one point we'll have space ships the size of moons? how is it unfeasible that at one point we'll have space ships the size of stars? how unfeasible is it that at one point we'll have space ships the size of larger stars requiring the power of smaller stars?

>>6103266

Well I hope we can eventually do this, I wish I was optimistic when it comes to space and humans but seeing how things are now I have doubts about even seeing anything astonishing to do with space in my lifetime.

>>6103275
well, I hope to make a contribution throughout my lifetime, maybe I can try to push things along a bit, eh?

>>6103266
>the amount of raw materials makes it unfeasable

One third of earth's mass is friggin metal
count in rest of the solid planets, moons, planetoids, 10% of fucking asteroid belts is M type, comets... you don't have to put the sun inside million miles thick armor. Hell someone prosposed the alone Mercury would be enough for the job. We just need a good spacecraft tech and a quick efficient way to planetcrack. Next stop Necromorphs.

>>6103305

>>6103264
>our space travel technology is still very much in its infancy.
>We are still many years away from just being able to move an asteroid for mining.
Ridiculous.

It's not that we're not able to do things in space, it's that there are much, much better returns on investment to be had in other fields, so orbital launch and spacecraft development have been limited to token efforts and minor chores by mediocre men.

You can't extrapolate our progress since Apollo. There hasn't been any. We've been ignoring it.

Look at SpaceX for an example of what will come eventually. They jumped the gun a little, but they're properly applying computer technology to spaceflight, and blowing the conservative competition out of the water. What you get eventually are computer-designed rockets coming out out of an automated factory, with automated maintenance, and computer piloting that can pull tricks like simply landing a tube-rocket on its tail.

Computer technology is what we have been focusing on, and what we should be focusing on, because it pulls along every other technology with it. Everything else is and should be short-term, until the computers are ready to do it right. Then things change overnight.

>>6103305
dude, do you know how hard ANYTHING is to do in space?
>We just need a good spacecraft tech and a quick efficient way to planetcrack
this is the unfeasible part, I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just something that isn't worth it in the long run

>>6103348
No, no, I call bullshit, it's unfeasible NOW. Man gave you few centuries. You know where we were 100 years ago. People from that time would look at our world and see goddamn magic everywhere. Who's to say where we will be 100 years from now. To simply dismiss something as not worth trying because you or me don't know ho to do it doesn't someone 50 years from now on won't.

>>6103362
So we should not dismiss that in 100 years time we may have colonized the entire universe.

>well thats stupid, there is no possible way, look at the evidence
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW?

>>6103387
holy shit what a hyperbole

>>6103362
100 years ago, there were cars, aircraft, telephones, electric lights and motors, radios, movies, adding machines, punchcard tabulators, etc.

I don't think someone from 100 years ago would see magic when confronted with modern daily living. If anything, he might be disappointed at the limited progress.

>signature of a Dyson sphere

or a brown dwarf star

>>6103399
none the things you mentioned don't have shit on their current forms

Wright brothers would most likely get a heart attack if you showed them shit our current aircraft can pull off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBVafIdbsqk

also you compeltely ignored a shitton of technologies that simply didn't exist back then, Computers, instant global communication, wireless data transfer, spaceflight, advanced robotics, multi layer infrastructure, advanced engineering completely new science fields and greatly expanded existing ones just to name few

>>6103437
FUCKING #REKT!

>>6103437
i'll give you all of those except
>instant global communication
telegraph. internet has been around for a hundred years, just not in the form we think of

>>6103465
That's right, the government.

No not making fun of you, the government and practically all that follows like DARPA and contract companies def have 25+ years tech on the public before release.

>>6102869
the tone of the writing suggest scifi to me. (believing anything posted on /x/)

>>6103465
Yes, telegraph existed, but do you really want to compare it to current web and all of its bells and whistles?
I'd really want to see a camwhore streaming her ass in morse code.

>>6103343
Im with this guy. Investing time and knowledge into space mining and traveling is a bit futile without a proper computer technology
>inb4 huuurr durr , the technology of my iphone was better than the one that send the people to the moon
Yes , thats true , but that doesnt mean we should still invest a looooot more time and dedication to computer technology b4 even considering going to mercury and build a giant reactor or some shit like that
>pic sorta unrelated

>>6103437
>>>You know where we were 100 years ago. People from that time would look at our world and see goddamn magic everywhere.
>>I don't think someone from 100 years ago would see magic when confronted with modern daily living.
>none the things you mentioned don't have shit on their current forms
Why do you have to turn this into something stupid?

>>6103217

>>6103399
Are you kidding me, we are literally in the period of the most change in technology in our entire history. There was no other period that had as many inventions, ideas and information come about as fast it is now.

>>6103125

This is unlike any Dyson sphere we have seen before.

I don't know where TME gets his information, but most dyson spheres I've seen have been dim in the IR spectrum and bright in the UV spectrum. Maybe TME has seen dyson spheres made by a different manufacturer than the ones I've seen. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that that's the case and he's not just full of shit.

>>6103832
Me make a lot of little inventions now, but the way of life was changing more rapidly due to technological progress 100 years ago than it is changing now.

>I read it on /x/
>nothing is turning up

>HURR IS DIS TRU?!?112

While being very bright in infrared but low visible light could be a sign of dysonspheres, it's also the way star formations are. Andromeda is much brighter in infrared than visible. All the dust gets hot from star formations and glows in infrared.

>>6103502

hahahahahahahahaha

>>6102869
>unusually bright in the IR spectrum is the signature of a Dyson sphere.
Fictional Dyson spheres maybe, but not necessarily real Dyson spheres. We don't have examples of real Dyson spheres, nor how they'd be built/maintained, so we wouldn't know how to detect one yet.

maybe, just maybe there's something inbetween the star and us besides a dyson sphere. No, it's probably a dyson sphere.

if it's actually a dyson sphere, doesn't that mean that that civilization actually built a dyson sphere 3 million years ago? I wonder how much more developed they are now

>>6104036
That is rather nonsensical. You're saying you need to have detected something before you can detect it. The theory says Dyson spheres would emit infrared radiation, so that's how we'd go about it.

It doesn't seem like much of a Dyson Structure candidate. It's also unfortunate that it's so fucking far away. Ironically it might be easier to see such things in other galaxies that point their faces toward us just as ours points towards them, which reduces to a minimum the gas and dust in the way.

It is very useful that the universe's visible matter ended up in filaments surrounding voids. That makes the universe very visible on average. The challenge that remains is to obtain more massive data collection in order to perform a comprehensive gravitational lensing study. For example, we know for sure about baryon acoustic oscillations only due to statistical study of the data so far. So more and more astonomy will have to make use of numerical analysis in order to get innovative results.

>>6103958
>>>/b/

>>6105153
qed'ed

When a Dyson sphere can be built around pulsars or quasars let me know.