Did a NASA telescope detect cosmic 'hot dogs' or Dyson spheres?

[Admin]

The potential detection of "Dyson spheres" indicating advanced alien civilizations may actually be supermassive black hole powerful galaxies obscured by dusty shrouds called "hot DOGs."

Did a NASA telescope detect cosmic 'hot dogs' or Dyson spheres? : Read more

 

[twitch758]

I've read this paper and nowhere did the authors say that their detections were definitely Dyson Spheres. All they said was that out of the 6 million stars that they have observed, there were only six or seven stars that could POSSIBLY be Dyson Spheres. They even argued in their paper that they most likely have natural explanations for what has been observed. What bothers me most is that the person talking in this article makes it out that it is impossible for there to be a civilization capable of building these structures. I'll admit that it's highly unlikely that any of these stars have Dyson spheres, but not impossible. I wish these scientists would stop thinking in absolutes. Like they are absolutely certain that none of the objects could possibly have a Dyson Sphere. They discount the entire scientific method to bad mouth other scientists before any sort of follow-up observations could be carried out. Most likely, the scientist in this article is afraid of losing telescope time and possible funding.

 

[bolide]

I've read this paper and nowhere did the authors say that their detections were definitely Dyson Spheres. All they said was that out of the 6 million stars that they have observed, there were only six or seven stars that could POSSIBLY be Dyson Spheres. They even argued in their paper that they most likely have natural explanations for what has been observed. What bothers me most is that the person talking in this article makes it out that it is impossible for there to be a civilization capable of building these structures. I'll admit that it's highly unlikely that any of these stars have Dyson spheres, but not impossible. I wish these scientists would stop thinking in absolutes. Like they are absolutely certain that none of the objects could possibly have a Dyson Sphere. They discount the entire scientific method to bad mouth other scientists before any sort of follow-up observations could be carried out. Most likely, the scientist in this article is afraid of losing telescope time and possible funding.

You commit the fault that you criticize.

The article authors never said that their detections were definitely Dyson spheres--and the present article never said that that would be impossible.

 

[fj.torres]

Dyson spheres, Ringworlds, and Halos are all very impractical.

The first question is where the mass to build them comes from.
Second is where does the energy to build them come from and what is the *net* gain.
Third is that we now know that stellar output, light and particle winds, are not uniform in all directions nor constant. Certainly not our star and the evidence says it is an unusually "calm" one. A solid structure as fantasized would need a massively complicated reaction control system, consuming even more energy and, yes, mass.

Basically, any civilization with the resources and technology to build such beasts wouldn't actually *need* one.

A far more practical solution for a civilization that needed that much energy would be a constellation of solar power satellites relatively close to the star, far enough to avoid the direct impact of CMEs but close enough to capture a high irradiation.

And even that is speculative.
Fusion would be more likely to meet their needs and if we're to get speculative, figuring out how to break the strong nuclear force would be easier.

But in the end, the one question that line of speculation must answer is: what use requires that much energy consumption and how would they manage the environmental impact? Third Law of Thermo, for one.

The entire debate smacks of dancing angels on a pin.