smart targeting computers, my tuchus.

[TaoLibra]

First of all: Regardless of construction materials (or where you get them), a Dyson Sphere would be useless because GRAVITY is impossible on the inner surface of a Dyson Sphere. {See the Dyson Sphere FAQ, or even the Wikipedia entry on Dyson Spheres.}

Secondly: Building either a Dyson Sphere or a Ringworld requires the ability to disassemble whole planets, the ability to convert matter into energy (and vice versa), and the ability to rebuild matter on an atomic level. So when you allude to "benefits" from building such a thing, you're talking about "benefits" that simply do not exist for anyone capable of building it. Think about it: What exactly are those "benefits?"

Capturing a larger percentage of the energy output of a star? Why would you need it? If you have such godlike technology that you can convert matter into energy, then you already have an endless supply of energy.

18440 times the surface area of Earth? Again, why do you need it? If you can disassemble whole planets, and can control matter with the ease necessary to fabricate your hypothetical (and impossibly dense) Dyson Sphere & Ringworld building material, then why would you waste it building anything that's tethered to the gravity well of a star? You could far more easily build mobile planets orbited by their very own artificial micro-stars.

I repeat: Nobody who could build one would need to build one. It's just irrational.

[Graeme Dice]

TaoLibra said:
First of all: Regardless of construction materials (or where you get them), a Dyson Sphere would be useless because GRAVITY is impossible on the inner surface of a Dyson Sphere.

Unless of course, gravity manipulation is part of having sufficiently advanced technology.

If you have such godlike technology that you can convert matter into energy, then you already have an endless supply of energy.

It's not completely endless. The stars are still converting large amounts of matter into energy, and you will eventually run out of matter to convert.

If you can disassemble whole planets, and can control matter with the ease necessary to fabricate your hypothetical (and impossibly dense) Dyson Sphere & Ringworld building material, then why would you waste it building anything that's tethered to the gravity well of a star?

Because you can?

[Higgsboson]

Regarding the gravity issue, all you have to do is spin the sphere. This will get you a band of living area around the middle or the sphere orthogonal to the axis or rotation. The rest is still pretty unlivable, which is why a ringworld is a more efficient choice.

Regarding need, I've already answered this question. I will add something I felt was already obvious: With such a huge amount of living room, you could support a massive population in relative comfort (think trillions; "We need breathing room!)while only having to defend one system.

[TaoLibra]

Regarding the gravity issue, all you have to do is spin the sphere. This will get you a band of living area around the middle or the sphere orthogonal to the axis or rotation.

No, it will not. "This" will get you nothing but a massive pile of wreckage, because spinning a Dyson Sphere would create destructive stresses that would tear it apart.

And you have not answered the "need question," because there is NO such "need." No race could achieve the level of technology necessary to build even a Ringworld without having already overcome all of the "needs" that might have made one desirable in the first place.

Please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, and go read the Dyson Sphere FAQ, to which I've already given you a link. Star-enclosing Dyson Spheres are not scientifically plausible; and while a Ringworld might be plausible, it's still irrational because it's totally unnecessary to anyone who could build it. Both of them are Science FICTION.

[Graeme Dice]

No, it will not. "This" will get you nothing but a massive pile of wreckage, because spinning a Dyson Sphere would create destructive stresses that would tear it apart.

If you can build the sphere in the first place, then you already have materials that are likely to survive the stresses. Even if you don't, there's absolutely no reason that it has to be a rigid structure.

And you have not answered the "need question," because there is NO such "need." No race could achieve the level of technology necessary to build even a Ringworld without having already overcome all of the "needs" that might have made one desirable in the first place.

If you want your civilization to still be around a trillion years from now, then you will need to do something about entropy.

Please stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, and go read the Dyson Sphere FAQ, to which I've already given you a link.

The FAQ you linked to isn't anywhere near as hostile as you are to the idea, which is a good thing, or else it wouldn't be very useful.

Star-enclosing Dyson Spheres are not scientifically plausible; and while a Ringworld might be plausible, it's still irrational because it's totally unnecessary to anyone who could build it.

Except, of course, to people who are taking a very long term view of the universe and would rather not run out of energy until it cannot be avoided in any other way. Stars waste huge amounts of energy, and even if you can convert matter directly into energy, you will still eventually run out of temperature differences.

Both of them are Science FICTION.

I'm wondering why this would be a problem.

[TaoLibra]

Graeme Dice said:
The FAQ you linked to isn't anywhere near as hostile as you are to the idea, which is a good thing, or else it wouldn't be very useful.

I am not "hostile" to the idea. I simply reject the notion that it's either plausible or rational, because it's not.

And while that FAQ isn't "hostile" to the idea, it does say all the same things I've already said, and it does support my contention that no race capable of building one would need one.

So does LOGIC.

Graeme Dice said:

I'm wondering why this would be a problem.

IN Science Fiction, it isn't a problem. Neither are any of Science Fiction's many other implausible fantasies — like replicators, transporters, universal translators, inter-breeding species, and faster-than-light speed travel for that matter. I didn't object to the presence of such things in Science Fiction, I merely pointed out that they are fiction.

[Graeme Dice]

TaoLibra said:
I am not "hostile" to the idea. I simply reject the notion that it's either plausible or rational, because it's not.

ie. You are hostile to the idea, as you continually ignore all arguments contrary to your position.

And while that FAQ isn't "hostile" to the idea, it does say all the same things I've already said, and it does support my contention that no race capable of building one would need one.

No, it doesn't say the same things that you've already said. It lists several reasons one might want to build a Dyson sphere, and several different structures that would be possible. It also says nothing about not needing one except that it would require supertechnology to build a rigid Dyson sphere. It also explicitly states that the material requirements are considerably lower than your initial claim that you'd need to use all the solar systems, including their stars, within the nearest thousand lightyears.

So does LOGIC.

In order to claim that logic supports you, you must first supply a logically sound argument.

IN Science Fiction, it isn't a problem. Neither are any of Science Fiction's many other implausible fantasies — like replicators, transporters, universal translators, inter-breeding species, and faster-than-light speed travel for that matter. I didn't object to the presence of such things in Science Fiction, I merely pointed out that they are fiction.

No, you certainly objected to the presence of Dyson spheres, or else you wouldn't be so openly hostile to the idea that there are legitimate uses for them. Openly hostile to the point where you aren't even acknowledging your opponents' arguments.

[TaoLibra]

You are hostile to the idea, as you continually ignore all arguments contrary to your position.

I find it terribly amusing that you think you have any "argument," because I haven't seen you present anything but illogical assumptions. I find it even more amusing that you are whining about me being "hostile," for doing no more than what you are yourself doing: DISAGREEING.

In any event, I have had quite enough of your refusal to acknowledge reason, and I am done participating in this thread. Don't bother responding to me unless you're doing it just to see yourself talk, because I won't be reading it.

And by all means, continue to believe whatever insipid nonsense you wish.

[Davin]

It would be interesting to note two things:

1) There is a massively popular science-fiction work that discusses in fairly great detail exactly *why* a super-advanced civilization *might* need to build ringworlds, at least, if not dyson spheres. (Just take a wild stab in the dark as to what I'm talking about. I'll even give you a hint: it's a ring that floats over one's head.)

2) The frequency at which the phrase (or the ideas communicated by such) "Don't bother responding to me unless you're doing it just to see yourself talk, because I won't be reading it." is used on the internet, and the hyprocisy rate thereof.

IOW, Hi TaoLibra. I know you're reading this

[Graeme Dice]

TaoLibra said:
I find it terribly amusing that you think you have any "argument," because I haven't seen you present anything but illogical assumptions.

How are my assumptions illogical? Unlike you, I've actually read both the links you posted earlier in this thread. Unlike you, I'm not so utterly fixed on the idea that a Dyson sphere is a rigid body that I refuse to even consider other construction methods. Tell me, what superstrong materials are needed to make large sections of independently orbiting habitats that have energy collectors to gather aas much radiation as possible? Unlike you, I'm actually aware that any civilization that wants to delay the heat-death of the universe is going to go to drastic lengths to conserve as much energy as possible.

I find it even more amusing that you are whining about me being "hostile," for doing no more than what you are yourself doing: DISAGREEING.

I'm complaining that you are being hostile because you are yelling and ignoring everybody's arguments. If you don't realize that writing in all caps is yelling, then perhaps you need to go read up on standard netiquette and lurk for a few months before posting.

In any event, I have had quite enough of your refusal to acknowledge reason, and I am done participating in this thread. Don't bother responding to me unless you're doing it just to see yourself talk, because I won't be reading it.

You've presented no logical argument, so you can hardly accuse me of refusing to acknowledge reason when I have dealt with every single one of your points. Perhaps you should actually respond to a single one of my rebuttals, or you could implicitly concede as you've just done.

I always enjoy it when somebody refuses to even respond to their opponents' arguments, then claims victory. That's as clear a concession as can ever be gained on the internet.

And by all means, continue to believe whatever insipid nonsense you wish.

This is the standard statement of a person who knows that they have no argument. I've outlined exactly what uses a Dyson sphere could have. All you've done is stick your fingers in your ears, ignore the calculations that were presented in the links that you yourself presented, and declared victory (With lots of extremely annoying all caps, italics, bold text, and coloured fonts to boot). That's an argument style worthy of a twelve-year old.