Enzo wrote:Energy dissipates exponentially at a distance
Мастер wrote:We're currently having some issues with the rapid release of large amounts of solar energy that accumulated as storage in chemical form. If you had a lot of new energy to the planet, that it's not currently receiving, one would need to figure out how to get rid of some of it when the work is done, no? Maybe turn hydrocarbon combustion products back into oil. I can't help but wonder whether dealing with the output of energy consumption is going to be a far more difficult problem than finding new sources of energy.
Мастер wrote:There's lot's of energy lying around on earth - much of it is more expensive to tap than current sources, which makes sense (one would normally access the cheapest sources first). At least at current levels of technology, there's lots of energy on earth that we're not using now, that's going to be cheaper than building a solar collector in space. Technology for building space structures may improve, but then again, so might technologies for extracting energy from earth-bound sources. But either way (bring in lots of new energy, or tap currently untapped sources), it's going to get a bit hot if we don't figure out some way to get rid of it.
Мастер wrote:Of course, this thread is about some potential energy-capturing structure around a different star, so conditions on earth might be a bit different.
Lance wrote:Мастер wrote:We're currently having some issues with the rapid release of large amounts of solar energy that accumulated as storage in chemical form. If you had a lot of new energy to the planet, that it's not currently receiving, one would need to figure out how to get rid of some of it when the work is done, no? Maybe turn hydrocarbon combustion products back into oil. I can't help but wonder whether dealing with the output of energy consumption is going to be a far more difficult problem than finding new sources of energy.
I'm not sure I completely follow you here. If we use the energy directly, or by converting to, say, electricity, what are the byproducts? We're not releasing from a stored state, we're just consuming it.
Lance wrote:Мастер wrote:There's lot's of energy lying around on earth - much of it is more expensive to tap than current sources, which makes sense (one would normally access the cheapest sources first). At least at current levels of technology, there's lots of energy on earth that we're not using now, that's going to be cheaper than building a solar collector in space. Technology for building space structures may improve, but then again, so might technologies for extracting energy from earth-bound sources. But either way (bring in lots of new energy, or tap currently untapped sources), it's going to get a bit hot if we don't figure out some way to get rid of it.
But sources are not unlimited.
Lance wrote:As time passes and resources are depleted, production costs go up. You have to keep tapping more and more expensive sources.
Lance wrote:At some point, it may become cost-effective to take on even such a large project.
Lance wrote:It might even become a choice a civilization has to make or risk perishing.
Lance wrote:Of course, there could be more to it than just energy. We now know that energy can be converted to matter. With significant advancement, it may become easy and commonplace. This would answer how such a civilization could gather the materials to construct such a mega structure in the first place.
Lance wrote:Мастер wrote:Of course, this thread is about some potential energy-capturing structure around a different star, so conditions on earth might be a bit different.
Isn't speculating about this kind of stuff fun?
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:I'm not sure I completely follow you here. If we use the energy directly, or by converting to, say, electricity, what are the byproducts? We're not releasing from a stored state, we're just consuming it.
Ultimately, it ends up as heat. ... It must be got rid of somehow, as the default is that the earth heats up and radiates away, isn't it?
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:But sources are not unlimited.
True enough, but demand is also not unlimited. The earth will exist for a finite amount of time. But, projecting the world's energy needs for a few hundred million or billion years, I suspect, will necessarily involve some uncertainty.
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:As time passes and resources are depleted, production costs go up. You have to keep tapping more and more expensive sources.
That is already happening (alright, we're on a several year holiday from rising energy prices, but I suspect that's not permanent). That's why civilisation collapsed, as per rational analysis conducted at astronomy boards.Lance wrote:At some point, it may become cost-effective to take on even such a large project.
It might, although we're quite far from that point.
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:It might even become a choice a civilization has to make or risk perishing.
If by "perish", we mean cease to exist, I think that's going too far. They can downsize their energy consumption to what comes off if the local star. But if they were living at a level of energy consumption far beyond this level, then downsizing might turn their civilisation into something unrecognisable.
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:Of course, there could be more to it than just energy. We now know that energy can be converted to matter. With significant advancement, it may become easy and commonplace. This would answer how such a civilization could gather the materials to construct such a mega structure in the first place.
That would be the reverse of nuclear power . But isn't the exchange rate really bad? That is, huge amounts of energy make only tiny amounts of matter? If so, and your problem is you don't have enough energy, this might make the problem worse rather than better.
Has someone managed to do this in lab conditions?
Мастер wrote:Lance wrote:Мастер wrote:Of course, this thread is about some potential energy-capturing structure around a different star, so conditions on earth might be a bit different.
Isn't speculating about this kind of stuff fun?
Not on days when I'm typing on a tablet device
Enzo wrote:Or they have a totalitarian hive mentality. Or just a state centric culture as opposed to an individual-centric one. Greed assumes there is something to be greedy for. They could have a culture like a hamster cage, the state provides a wall outlet for food and water (or its equivalent) that all citizens can access at will. No point in amassing food or water as all you ever want is freely available at all times.
Enzo wrote:We tend to think of our energy resources as fossil fuels and nuclear and some fringy stuff like wind and solar. But the whole interior of this earth is molten iron and rock, and that won't cool down for eons, lasting probably longer than human beings. tapping that extends our resource curve way into the future.
Enzo wrote:I suppose we could detect such things, but I am squarely in the horses, not zebras camp on this.
Enzo wrote:Not convinced.
Enzo wrote:Remember the microbe fossils on a mars meteorite some years back? Wound up not being them.
Enzo wrote:I still am thinking horse. Maybe we are so used to seeing brown horses that an albino shows up and we think it is a unicorn. We cannot let ourselves go down the path of "I can't think of an explanation, therefore it must be Aliens." Not until we have real evidence.
Enzo wrote:The History channel has been taken over by this thinking. "We can't think of how the Egyptians built the pyramids, so it must have been ancient aliens."
What does that mean? It means we're allowed to get a little bit excited! Not because aliens are a likely possibility, but because we're in the middle of an awesome mystery the likes of which we haven't seen before in the history of space exploration. (Emphasis added)
ScienceAlert.com wrote:
Scientists can’t explain what huge object is blocking the light from this distant star
They say we actually need to consider the possibility of aliens.
15 OCT 2015
It’s not every day that we have permission to throw "Aliens?" out there in relation to a confounding astronomical discovery - in fact, I don’t think we ever have. But the discovery of a strange pattern of light surrounding a distant star called KIC 8462852 has seen even the most sensible astronomers throw their arms up with a, "Sure, why not?" arguing that the possibility of advanced alien technology can’t reasonably be ignored.
"Aliens should always be the very last hypothesis you consider, but this looked like something you would expect an alien civilisation to build," Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University in the US, told The Atlantic. more...
Enzo wrote:I will, but no, I have not. Generally the big announcements I see on the MSN home page or similar, I let slide. Once it shows up in Nat Geo or Scientific American, I start to listen. Or if buzz starts without the shallow hype.
Enzo wrote:perhaps it is discussed, but so far, have we seen a pattern? Like whatever it is reliably comes around in orbit on a regular basis? otherwise it can be hard to tell the difference between a huge thing there or a much smaller thing MUCH closer to us transiting the view. Like the well known small bug in front of a camera lens that LOOKS like a huge UFO in the distance.
Enzo wrote:Did Wikileaks learn us nothing?
Return to UFOs, Aliens and Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest