Dyson Spheres
Forum rules
Behave
Behave
-
Michael_horatio
- Master of Ceremonies
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2024 5:09 am
Re: Dyson Spheres
something strange about her. she sounds like an ai generated robot. I think it is as crazy as it sounds... 
Re: Dyson Spheres
Dyson spheres are only theoretically possible (it's been postulated for a long time), the logistics of it are another matter... it's really just science fiction.
She's actually quite good, I like listening to her.
She's actually quite good, I like listening to her.
Re: Dyson Spheres
I hadn't watched it yet (busy at the time and I know what a Dyson sphere is) but I did last night.
I see what you mean about her voice, at the start of the video. It did seem more mechanical, like she was struggling more with English (and possibly using cues, perhaps unprepared for the lecture). It improved in the second half.
Also, she is way too science fictiony in this video. Stating with too much certainty, things that aren't even "theories" by scientific standards. They may know just enough to call them hypotheses. Quite frankly I find a lot of it to be sketchy, convenient things that make their equations work out.
Fuck their dark matter and energy, the missing mass could be in singularities, which seems like what they are describing in the pre-big bang state (however, they think there's no "space" yet). It also seems to be what they are describing with the "Great Attractor" that seems to be influencing the movement of galaxies across vast, empty distances. There could be dense clusters of galaxies with singularities (in the "black holes" in their cores) that have merged together. Also, the Universe is OUR word for this and we don't completely understand its nature. "Big Bangs" could occur when singularities reach a critical state, or something. Then that "Universe" keeps expanding space and the matter in it. There's just no way for us to know, with what we are able to perceive from here, in our time, but we shouldn't make shit up
It all boils down to humanity always thinking there's something special, and they are at the center of it all.
I see what you mean about her voice, at the start of the video. It did seem more mechanical, like she was struggling more with English (and possibly using cues, perhaps unprepared for the lecture). It improved in the second half.
Also, she is way too science fictiony in this video. Stating with too much certainty, things that aren't even "theories" by scientific standards. They may know just enough to call them hypotheses. Quite frankly I find a lot of it to be sketchy, convenient things that make their equations work out.
Fuck their dark matter and energy, the missing mass could be in singularities, which seems like what they are describing in the pre-big bang state (however, they think there's no "space" yet). It also seems to be what they are describing with the "Great Attractor" that seems to be influencing the movement of galaxies across vast, empty distances. There could be dense clusters of galaxies with singularities (in the "black holes" in their cores) that have merged together. Also, the Universe is OUR word for this and we don't completely understand its nature. "Big Bangs" could occur when singularities reach a critical state, or something. Then that "Universe" keeps expanding space and the matter in it. There's just no way for us to know, with what we are able to perceive from here, in our time, but we shouldn't make shit up
It all boils down to humanity always thinking there's something special, and they are at the center of it all.
Re: Dyson Spheres
Also, I originally thought this was too stupid to bother discussing, but on further thought I think it's worthy of a separate point, even.
If there are real "scientists" that think those low energy (for their apparent mass) stars are "Dyson Spheres" then they haven't learned anything from Occam (actually Ockham, "William of Ockham"... but the ignorami adopted "Occam's Razor"). Of course, Occam's Razor in the modern context only speaks about probability. The less likely hypothesis is, well, less likely (very simple logic at its essence) but it's also a mistake to assume simplicity.
It seems to me that a construction, with a diameter on the order of 50 to 150 million of our miles, around a star, would be at the bottom of the list of my guesses to explain their readings
If there are real "scientists" that think those low energy (for their apparent mass) stars are "Dyson Spheres" then they haven't learned anything from Occam (actually Ockham, "William of Ockham"... but the ignorami adopted "Occam's Razor"). Of course, Occam's Razor in the modern context only speaks about probability. The less likely hypothesis is, well, less likely (very simple logic at its essence) but it's also a mistake to assume simplicity.
It seems to me that a construction, with a diameter on the order of 50 to 150 million of our miles, around a star, would be at the bottom of the list of my guesses to explain their readings