Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Search For Dyson Spheres of Alien Civilizations
Hugh Pickens writes "An article by Ross Andersen makes note of Freeman Dyson's prediction in 1960 that every civilization in the Universe eventually runs out of energy on its home planet, a major hurdle in a civilization's evolution. Dyson argued that all those who leap over it do so in precisely the same way: they build a massive collector of starlight, a shell of solar panels to surround their home star. Last month astronomers began a two-year search for Dyson Spheres, a search that will span the Milky Way, along with millions of other galaxies. The search is funded by a sizable grant from the Templeton Foundation, a philanthropic organization that funds research on the 'big questions' that face humanity, questions relating to 'human purpose and ultimate reality.' Compared with SETI, a search for Dyson Spheres assumes that the larger the civilization, the more energy it uses and the more heat it re-radiates. If Dyson Spheres exist, they promise to give off a very particular kind of heat signature, a signature that we should be able to see through our infrared telescopes. 'A Dyson Sphere would appear very bright in the mid-infrared,' says project leader Jason Wright. 'Just like your body, which is invisible in the dark, but shines brightly in mid-infrared goggles.' A civilization that built a Dyson Sphere would have to go to great lengths to avoid detection, building massive radiators that give off heat so cool it would be undetectable, a solution that would involve building a sphere that was a hundred times larger than necessary. 'If a civilization wants to hide, it's certainly possible to hide,' says Wright, 'but it requires massive amounts of deliberate engineering across an entire civilization.'"
Don't they mean Matrioshka brain?
If it is natural to die, then to hell with nature. --FM 2030
Dyson assumed that all alien civilizations are stupid enough to believe in infinite growth, much like humanity.
I don't believe this. I think the most advanced aliens have probably realized that there isn't much point of growth after a certain threshold.
i'm sure an advanced civilization will master Star Trek type fusion tech before doing something ridiculous like building a starlight collector.
the earth compared to the sun is like a grain of sand to a beachball. where would you get enough matter to build something around a star if the same or similar size ratio will exist in other star systems?
They'll find nothing.
> Astrologers Search For Dyson Spheres of Alien Civilizations
Wouldn't planet-based solar be far more affordable and efficient, and produce more than enough energy for a planet with population controlled at a reasonable level, which should be expected from any advanced civilization? Seems like it would be unlikely for an advanced civilization to build one of these given the other options (including fusion power)...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This is the first time in a very long while that I've read a /. story that's gotten me excited. The idea that we could find evidence of a Dyson sphere is quite crotch-tingling for a fan of science fiction like myself!
Of course there's the problem of how we can be sure any evidence we see is actually a constructed sphere and not a freak natural occurrence, or something that we simply don't understand or haven't envisaged at this point. Still, any data that showed a "should-be-visible" star radiating heat but not light is something of note. Hell, it would give us something to start beaming signals at like mad in the hope of a return at the very least. Lets just hope it's within X light years, where X is less than half my remaining lifespan so I can catch the "Hello? Who the fuck are you!?" signal from the big blue people on Pandora.
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
I thought energy couldn't be created or destroyed, so the energy on this planet is pretty much constant?
Summation 2
I suspect at this point humanity, as a collective whole, is still too small-minded to consider such an endeavor. Our politicians are narcissistic/sociopathic, and private industry would want it to be profitable.
*sigh*
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
You mean, similar to what would be required to build a Dyson sphere?
What would you get from a massive amount of accidental engineering?
Wouldn't a civilization advanced enough to pull off an engineering feat like a Dyson Sphere also have advanced their engineering sufficiently to find more efficient power sources?
The Dyson sphere is a massive engineering project. It would take a very very advanced civilization to complete it, using a lot of energy just to build it, taking a long time to do such work. Chances are they will kill each other off before they did such a project.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
moreover, the earth is a collector of solar and lunar energy. We call it wind and sunshine and tides, there's even solar "wind" if one goes a bit outside the atmosphere. Together these have more than enough energy to power all of the earths needs. Harvesting these may not be simple, but it would be a lot simpler than a dyson sphere. ergo, no dyson spheres will ever be built unless the planet is too far from the sun to collect enough solar energy on its crossection.
What the earth lacks is a perpertual supply of transportation fuels or a means to adequately replace them. But replacing them is forseable and we don't absolutely need them--we just over exploit them now because we can.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
'If a civilization wants to hide, it's certainly possible to hide,' says Wright, 'but it requires massive amounts of deliberate engineering across an entire civilization.'"
If a civilization with a Dyson sphere has any reason to hide, it's probably for a civilization with interstellar flight and then I'd think you'd quite easily find the black spot. Unless you assume they got a system to route or absorb/emit starlight from one side of the sphere to the other. But since we're far into science fiction land already, why not...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I was watching that Riddick movie with the Necromongers the other day and I realized that the concept was actually very realistic. What kind of society would get into space first? The ones that put a high priority on space exploration. And what kind of civilization would do that just for the heck of it before any others? The ones that have some irrational reason to do it driven by some kind of religious fervor. While the "Star Trek like" science-driven societies pace themselves in a sensible manner, the religious nutjobs would throw every single resource their entire civilization could at getting into space to please their space deity or whatever. If there's an advanced space-faring race out there you probably want to steer clear of them.
See also: The Irkens from Invader Zim
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah, but remaining in a shroud of folded space-time that you couldn't enter, without the allowance of those inside, or be destroyed at the subatomic level, would be a much better solution, I think.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
If the civilization has achieved 100% energy efficiency, there would be no radiated heat, as that is simply wasteful.
It may not be politically "popular" for a given civilization to limit population growth. Imagine what the Republicans and Tea Party would do and say if somebody proposed government-enforced limits in the USA. And incentive programs are criticized as "poverty eugenics" by some on the left and "socialistic engineering" by some on the right.
Thus, expansion via space colonies may be more palatable to such civilizations.
Table-ized A.I.
Dyson doesn't have spheres, Dyson has balls !
But nothing sucks like an Elecrolux.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If Dyson Spheres exist, they promise to give off a very particular kind of heat signature, a signature that we should be able to see through our infrared telescopes. 'A Dyson Sphere would appear very bright in the mid-infrared,' says project leader Jason Wright.
Right, because there's no way a civilization advanced enough to build 282743338860000000 square kilometers of solar panels is going to be able to build solar panels capable of absorbing and using mid-infrared light (heat). If the supposition is that they inevitably build Dyson spheres to capture all of the available energy coming off their star, why would they let a whole bunch of it escape as heat?
Seems like a giant waste of time and money, but I suppose they will be generating useful data while they look. Still, their chances of finding one are likely ludicrously close to zero even if one does exist. I also find the whole premise to be rather poorly thought out, I have to admit; even if a civilization is capable of building a Dyson sphere, I'm not sure it makes any sense to actually do it.
I'm also confused as to how you can judge the likely frequency of light when you don't know what their building the friggin' thing out of. I mean, if they're advanced enough to collect and build the materials to make an inconceivably large solar array in space, maybe they'll be able to work out an even more efficient means of gathering light and reabsorbing any waste heat -- ie no leakage. (Heck, even a Sterling engine would be pretty efficient when there's a massive solar collector on one side and cold, black vacuum on the other.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Dyson Spheres are practically an impossible thing to build. First off, you'd need the energy to build such a system around the star. Secondly, you would need the MATERIALS (and even with Energy-Matter conversion tech, the issue again is energy.) Thirdly, you'd need the TIME.
These three things have been against us for pretty much any project our species has ever attempted, and I would readily assume the same constraints would apply to other civilizations attempting a Dyson Sphere. Given the sheer scale of the project, I would have to say it is nigh impossible.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Obligatory, of of course
If a civilization has the ability to construct a Dyson's Sphere they are probably so advanced they wouldn't need to construct it in the first place. (From Star Trek TNG, not a direct quote)
'but it requires massive amounts of deliberate engineering across an entire civilization.'
And a Dyson Sphere doesn't?
I'm not saying that this invalidates the research, but it does cast some doubt on it and the reasons it is being done.
The cold black vacuum is not going to take a lot of heat. There are few particles for that heat to go to.
While space itself is cold, it makes a very good insulator. So you might want to rethink that sterling engine.
On a cosmological scale, there aren't power sources that are more efficient than a star. Maybe a different type of star, if so.
OTOH many things are pretty inefficient on a cosmological scale. The suns energy outbut per cubic meter (Or cubic feet.) is on the same level as a compost. It's just so much larger. We can already build power sources way more efficient than the sun. We just can't do it on the same scale.
Why wrap your world around a giant fusion reactor that requires a massive clearance space if you can make smaller more portable more mobile units?
Against Stupidity, even the gods themselves labor in vain.
lets see how many mods perceive the relevance to the reference
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Never thought he could top that fan with no moving blades, but harnessing all of a star's energy output? Very cool.
Dyson spheres are an interesting thought experiment but fairly stupid when you think about the logistics (as mentioned in previous comments, so I won't get into it). At least on our scale. Just as elctrons orbit the nucleus, moons orbit planets, planets order stars, stars orbit the galaxy center, galaxies orbit the giant turtle and form supergalxy clusters... There's no reason to say intelligent life composed of cells composed of molecules and atoms couldn't also exist at a larger scale. (Ask the symbiotic bacteria in your gut sometime). And intelligent life at a larger scale certainly could biuld a dyson sphere. Hell, maybe we are part of the dyson sphere.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Ok so somehow you get enough materials and energy to shape it into a sphere. That's an impossible task, but then it's somehow even more impossible that they use radiators to disperse the heat? I mean when you're talking about impossibility, it doesn't matter if it's squared or cubed. Then once you have this shell of solar collectors, how do you get the energy inside of it? You basically have a Faraday cage.
Also, why the fuck? Any significantly advanced civilization would use gravitational engines. That is either under direct or natural control, they would set up a oscillation system between multiple orbiting bodies where they can harvest energy without needing fusion. Instead of lighting up the solar system, they'd go invisible, detectible only via gravity waves which to date, are impossible to detect. At a minimum, significantly harder to detect.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
First off a dyson sphere does not take into account the MASSIVE amount of praticle energy that is coming off the star. the Stellar wind on that scale would be immense. Secondly, Orbits are not magical. a dyson sphere is unstable and will either wobble and start to collapse into the star, or rip apart due to the uneven gravity well. Just the technology to even be able to have the ability to think of building a Ringworld, something far, far, FAR easier than a Dyson sphere is so mind bogglingly compex that it collapses in upon it's self.
Sorry but it's a waste of time we might as well look for civilizations that are harvesting black holes to power their space ships.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Quick! Let's build a giant IR emitter w/ some filters to produce the same spectral curve as a Dyson sphere. All those not-quite-advanced societies out there will detect it and run screaming from our perceived galactic-overlordishness.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
...and determine that the energy requirement for building and maintaining even a partial Dyson Sphere was so astronomically high that even assuming 100% energy collection from the star, it would never be feasible to build?
If we can assume that such a civilisation would still want sunlight to hit their planet, then any Dyson "sphere" would need to have a 'gap' around the plane of the inhabited planet. This wouldn't be perfect, and there would still be a bleed that would at distance be observable from any angle.
Wouldn't this money be better served feeding starving kids in Africa? (Just sayin'...)
I don't understand this nonsense of astronomers searching the galaxy for Dyson Spheres. I had no trouble finding and buying one off Amazon. The design is revolutionary, and it's very powerful. It gets pet hairs out of my carpet with ease. Highly recommended!
Yes there are. Local fusion, because you collect it close to source, and at a controlled rate. You can't slow your star, and you're setting up the collectors a quarter of a light hour away.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Maybe. But maybe it takes so much energy to bring the other power sources to fruition that you need a massive source of energy to begin with; and, it's only worth the effort to power things like ships that need more compact energy sources.
Taking a cue from science fiction: If I remember right, in Star Trek lore, the Federation gets it's supply of anti-matter from a particle accelerator built on a platform in close orbit of Sol. It extracts the energy necessary to run the process from the star. It's not efficient; so, the only place it's worth using is to power starships. They use more mundane methods to generate power for use on the planet surface.
IF what we already know about universe, in particular about speed limit, is true, they should not need to hide. The danger from inside their own solar system is far greater than the danger of invasion from outside it, in practice forever, unless you are talking about natural processes (i.e. a big asteroid/rogue star/whatever in collision course or a supernova close enough)
IF there is one out there, then instead of hiding they probably will make it very evident, at the very least to tell us all "we did it, bitches"
Small black holes are basically 100% efficient at turning mass into energy via Hawking Radiation, which is nearly two orders of magnitude more efficient than Stars powered by fusion.
There are some serious suggestions as to how to go about making them (ultra powerful converging gamma ray lasers, as photons aren't subject to Pauli Exclusion Principle). While it probably requires a moon-sized machine to do it, it is probably feasible for a civilisation capable of building a Dyson sphere, and once you have that technology you don't need stars or the gravitational hassles that they create anymore.
So, let me get this straight. Said civilization is technologically advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere, but not to avoid energy leakage in heat form ? Sorry, I don't buy it. If they are starving for energy and have that kind of technology, why not convert that heat "exhaust" into thermal energy ?
morcego
That is why.
Space is such a good insulator, that dissipating the heat from the crew and sunlight requires it.
Once you have self-replicating, "intelligent" machines to do the job?
Assuming you could keep them interested in building your sphere, of course!
You just create your first self-replicating solar-powered Dyson-sphere builder, and then sit back and watch it and its scions build for the next hundred million years or whatever. Or maybe nowhere near that long, assuming exponential growth (to some limit) of the builder-bots.
Another example of the power of the Singularity?
--PM
What if at a certain point in evolution and understanding the world around you and the universe you discover that instead of manipulating matter, which consumes vast amounts of energy, that it's possible to manipulate energy itself which (theoretically) would require no more energy than what is already present around us. Instead of building vast energy gathering complexes you can for all intents and purposes manipulate what's already in abundance for civilizations advantage. All of a sudden faster than light travel isn't an impossibility but likely and taken for granted in as much as we take hoping on an airplane.
On a different note, is it conceivable that the energy could be simply deflected (instead of harnessed into electricity) and be useful?
That's a relief. At first I thought you meant they were searching for alien Dyson Balls.
Or maybe they all have Mr Fusions and are quite happy to scoop up hydrogen by splitting water, mineing other planets, asteroids... or sucking it out of the ISM.
With all this talk about energy what if instead of a sphere of solar collectors it were an array of gyro mirrors which could be controlled in such a way apparent luminocity changes slightly yet enough for a signal to be broadcasted over massive distances?
This seems like a more pluasable and exciting idea to me than having to deal with collection and distribution of energy. After all Mr Fusion may prove to be much more convinent than solar arrays especially if there is any significant interplanetary traffic between terraformed worlds.
Astronomers weren't lookin for large sources of energy?
It's huge but look at the difference in density (from Wikipedia):
Average density of the Sun: 1.408×10^3 kg/m^3
Average density of YV Canis Majoris: 0.000005 to 0.000010 kg/m^3, the star is a thousand times less dense than the atmosphere of the Earth (air) at sea level.
Been written about. Course, Zahn didn't come up with any conclusions why the Spinneret aliens were hiding, just that they were.
Makes me wonder if some civilisations are hiding, and what they're hiding from.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Or even if they are mamals they may not be organised around individuals. See if you have a colony with a central queen/king as reproducing organs and a lot of worker, then reproduction limitation are much much easier. A civilisation with such a central reproduction would not need to go for a dyson sphere, it could simply limit itself in population , redirect project in a much better way we individual do, and not need all the distraction we need.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The energy investment for a dyson spehre is many order of magnitude above a fusion reactor, and you can make up as many reactor as you may need. How much energy do an individual need to live in comfort ? At some point you do not need much more. So the only factor really requiring a lot of energy is that they may not be able to stop reproduction. But at least our ci shows that when people go live in comfort they don't need to procreate that much.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Where would all the material come from?
That's a lot of "stuff" to build a structure to basically encircle a star. I've venture to say it would take more physical material than comprises most habitable planets.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Has anyone bothered to calculate + or - X the mass of a Dyson sphere? Even a ringworld would require the consumption (IMHO) of a solar system (or two).
The idea makes for fun scifi but it's just rediculous to think that anything like this could exist.
Very, very advanced civilizations may have FTL travel, but they also may live in log cabins and ride horse analogs.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The Templeton Foundation rewards answers that involve religion. I don't trust who funds this search, I don't trust the results.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
99% of Dyson sphere builders build a normal model and within a few aeons get eaten by the uberborg/guardians of the inorganic/hounds of tindalos. 1% of dyson sphere builders are paranoids from the beginning and devot trememdous extra resources to hiding their emissions, and so live. And then, since they are paranoids fron the beginning, invent their own species of world harvesters to wipe out the potential threat of new dyson sphere level cultures. Space constantly gets more dangerous with wave after wave of new harvesters being released, for anyone will tell you, paranoids lash out at their perceived threats.
Who is John Cabal?
I hope they also keep a look out for Rosettes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemperer_rosette too.
To get more bang for the buck via a higher energy differential? We might not see any infrared at all. We might as well look for a circular area of complete absence or radiation of any sort.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The first colonies of the first civilisation will develop at various rates, some faster and some slower. If those colonies eventually colonise another wave, it will be the fastest, most aggressive developers that get the prime destinations. And of the second wave, it will be the fastest most aggressive colonies that seed the third wave, with the slower developers falling further and further behind as the waves of colonisation expand.
After ten of so generations of colonies, the things will be expanding as fast as technology allows, burning through the galaxy like a wildfire.
[This is the plot that ID4 should have used to explain the "locusts". Both making a stupid story more logical (coz it also explains the weak security), and ending the movie on a more poignant note, as Goldblum's character pisses on their celebrations by explaining that this is just the first wave, in a decade or a century there will be another ship, and another after that, arriving faster and faster, and they will never stop coming.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
A ringworld is a lot easier to build than a Dyson Sphere, you could do it with the material from one solar system. And you can spin it for gravity.
For a dydson sphere you need to invent some sort of artificial gravity (even a sphere made of a thin layer of neutronium isnt going to work
Books to read:
Orbitsville , Orbitsville Deoarture by Bob Shaw
Ringworkd , Ringworld Engineers, Ringworld Throne by Larry Niven
Anyway a Dyson Sphere is an example of a type 2 civilization (one that utilizes the entire resources of its star
A type 1 civilization utilizes the entire resources of its planet and we have only scratched the surface of this one - just think how many zigawatt millenia of energy lies in the molten rock just a hundred km below your feet and all the way to the core
Vacuum energy? Apparently about 3/4 of the energy of the universe is vacuum energy. If you could consume space itself to produce energy, you might even be able to delay the heat death of the expanding universe.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We build taller and taller skyscrapers. Why? There are more efficient structures, and it's not like they are there to harvest resources unavailable at ground level. Besides, some peasant can build a mountainside hut that is at a higher altitude than the highest skyscraper. So, maybe it's not about the energy. Maybe it's a statement of prowess, or art.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
We cannot (given current understanding and resource consumption patters) maintain the current population of the planet indefinitely.
Actually, my "Dyson Animal" gets pretty warm after a a while. And it's more purple than black.
A Dyson Sphere is a largely ludicrous concept, and it did not anticipate virtual reality. By the time a civilization has the wide array of capabilities required to create anything approaching a Dyson Sphere, such a construct would long since be superfluous. I won’t go into all the reasons a Dyson Sphere is logistically unrealistic, other have already done this.
The most realistic trajectory for any species is to eventual stop expanding into real space and transition to virtual space. Most advanced species will eventually evolve from biological organisms into technological organisms. Computational capability does require a high power density, but the power efficiency gains realized by the transition from real space to virtual space are staggering. In other words, the amount of raw power needed to sustain a highly advanced virtual civilization, with relatively limitless ‘space’ to expand is minuscule compared to the raw power needs of a civilization that needs lots of physical space, atmosphere, food, clothing, houses, leisure space, large scale transportation, etc, etc., etc. etc.
Any truly advanced civ will have a very limited physical footprint because they will be largely virtual. Even if a virtual civ wishes to continue exploring the 'real' world, the amount of power needed to move a computational system and some robotic or android 'physical avatars' around and sustain them is, again, minuscule compared to sustaining biological bodies and moving them around. Power needs will still be high, due to the power density of computation, but it will be very manageable. Couple these lower power needs with advances in efficacy (which have generally followed Moore’s Law) and you simply do not need to expend the tremendous effort required to construct a monstrosity like a Dyson Sphere.
Sure, there may be something that prevents civs from going virtual (like the soul), but as yet there is no empirical reason to believe this is the case.
I wish people would stop debating speculative statements like "If someone knows a thousand times what I know, and is a billion times more advanced, having technology I could not imagine, then ..." The premise of the statement prevents any possible conclusion.
The best we can do is say "Given the limitations that we believe apply to the universe, what would we do?"
WE are the first ones, sad but true - now stop wasting money looking at the stars and build a ship instead.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
There is no reason to believe that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated, and overwhelming evidence that it cannot.
True but within what we already know it is entirely possible to imagine that you could dump your low grade heat "invisibly" without violating thermodynamics. For example suppose you dump it into neutrinos or perhaps Dark Matter or Dark Energy if you want to be more exotic. I don't see any reason why this would be forbidden but equally I see no way that we could achieve it because the neutrino coupling to matter is incredibly small unless you go to extremely high energy. So I would rate it as highly improbable (given our current understanding) but by no means impossible.
However, a ribbon ( or a ring, if you like ) would be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who's laws? Ours? Theirs? Some humanoid caveman? A dolphin?
To think we know all of reality is absurd. We only know a small part of what is going on in the universe. Not only that we could easily be running on a false assumption/observation that would completely break down every law of physics we think we know.
We have not been around all that long, we are NOT experts.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They'll find nothing.
I'd rather not be exterminated just yet.
First thing I thought of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECLvFLkvY7Y
"It's strange to write a serious research proposal and have half of your bibliography be science fiction."
If they had the technology to build Dyson Sphere they would also know that their parent star won't last forever making the build a complete waste of time and resources. As someone else stated if they follow Darwinian evolution and wanted to grow and spread out then they would simple leave their system for another one. Again if they had the tech to build it they could leave way easier and cheaper. (Time and resource wise)
At its heart, thermodynamics is nothing more than the assumption that certain processes are fundamentally random and unpredictable, an assumption about symmetry. These symmetries may well turn out to be broken by processes that we haven't observed yet, for example on a cosmic scale.
Even with existing physics, there are lots of things they could potentially do that would look like a violation of thermodynamics to us (even though it isn't): use a black hole, use a wormhole, radiate the heat in a tight beam, use neutrino cooling, or maybe even cool with dark matter.
Dyson ran the numbers:
Such a "Dyson sphere" would grow naturally and incrementally, and it doesn't require any unusual materials.
You build a box and try to fit God inside it. When he doesn't fit, you conclude he doesn't exist. The irony is that God created the one who created the box in which God does not fit. I find that you are not even aware of your own presuppositions, therefore you cannot reach a reasonable conclusion. You have been so heavily influenced by atheists and scientism (which is practically worshipped as a religion unto itself) that you have confined your own thinking to a box which you are unwilling to exit, and perhaps even unaware of.
1. You presuppose that if God acts on a prayer, it indicates that he was previously unaware of something.
2. You presuppose that if God is all-knowing and good that he must necessarily enforce what is best for people.
3. You presuppose that, as a finite, relatively insignificant human being, you could possibly know whether and when God intercedes in our world and to what ends.
4. You presuppose that you could even know what is "good" or "best" from the perspective of an all-knowing, all-powerful, universe-creating, life-breathing entity beyond our comprehension.
Your conclusion ("Therefore we find that an all-knowing and good god cannot be influenced by prayers...") is a non sequitur. It's not even a logical conclusion from your assertions. And your assertions are unsubstantiated, anyway.
The very nature of an omnipotent, omniscient entity who exists outside of our plane of existence means that we cannot completely comprehend him; we may only do so to the extent he chooses to reveal himself to us. What you have done is set forth arbitrary specifications for God, and if it seems to you that he does not meet your criteria, you conclude that he must not exist. This is nothing short of absurd. If God exists outside of or above our universe, if he created you and the universe and the very nature of our existence, how could you possibly define the means by which he may exist?
N.B. I am not even arguing that God does exist--I'm simply arguing that your logic is fundamentally flawed because of your presuppositions. Either God is an all-powerful, all-knowing entity--and therefore beyond our comprehension--or he is finite, like us, but with advanced technology--and therefore, presumably, ultimately understandable--or he does not exist at all. If you are arguing based on the presupposition that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, then you must argue that he is far beyond any of your reasoning or standards, and therefore you cannot logically define criteria for proving his existence.
The argument boils down to whether anything can exist beyond our understanding or comprehension: if we can comprehend God, then nothing is ultimately beyond our understanding, and--eventually, perhaps far beyond our lifetimes--we can "find" him, understand him, and even possess similar powers (note that this implies being able to create an entire universe of our own, from nothing). In this case, it's simply a matter of time until he is "discovered"--until then, he either does not exist or we have yet to find him (a conclusion which does not answer the questions, "How?", "Why?", and "From what?"). But on the other hand, if things may exist beyond our understanding, then we can never expect to meet God on our terms, and trying to do so is naive and futile.
I like the fishbowl analogy. (It's not perfect, of course.) The fish's entire universe is inside his fishbowl. He knows nothing outside of it (perhaps it would be useful to declare the fishbowl to be opaque, or at least barely translucent). Now and then something from outside his universe seems to interact with his world--perhaps a hand reaches in, but he cannot discern the source of the hand. The fish cannot comprehend existence outside of his bowl, or outside of water, the very fabric of his existence. Therefore, to him, nothing must exist outside of his world, and nothing must exist outside of water--which, to him, isn't even water, just reality as he knows it. But to the human, clearly the fish is limited
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
The emotional feeling is one thing. But what about this kind of love?
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous personâ"though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to dieâ"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."
That kind of love doesn't propagate any genes. It makes no sense from a Darwinian perspective.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
This deserves to be modded up.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
By the effect of a huge amount of matter on the light around it.
Distingishing it from a black hole is an exercise for better physicists than I.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Have you not heard of subatomic thermo-fissional macro theory? Thermal concretisation by quantum friandisation of bendy quark string polarisation? Heat-induced temporal flux? Well neither have I, but the aliens may well have.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
'A Dyson Sphere would appear very bright in the mid-infrared,' says project leader Jason Wright.
Any engineer will tell you that waste heat is energy lost.
I can't imagine that a civilization with the technology to tear enough solar systems apart, move all the material to one location, and build a Dyson Sphere would find it impossible or inconvenient to capture that waste heat and turn it back into energy before it escapes into space. (Any sphere that does not capture all of the central sun's radiant energy is inefficient.)
As as we have found out, there is always something you can use more electricity on.
THINK! It's patriotic
It is extremely difficult to imagine how it would look a civilization far more technologically advanced than our own. Such an advanced civilization could produce its own energy from nuclear fusion or might be able to extract energy from the vacuum, they would have total control of gravity (they could create artificial gravity), so they could build artificial worlds not related to a solar system, artificial worlds that would perfectly "work" in the vast space between galaxies where there is no danger of cosmic collisions, black holes, supernovae, etc.
When I was a physics student, we had a joke about this:
- How do recognise a Dyson Sphere?
- It has a star-sized hole on the side.
Red Leader Standing By!
Bu t then we would have proof we are no longer alone in the universe and all religions that base God to be centered around the earth and no where else, might have to perish, no?
The problem with the Dyson Sphere concept is that it assumes there is no other sufficient source of energy, largely because humans haven't invented one.
Barely over a hundred years ago, we hadn't invented the airplane or helicopter or nuclear power plants in Tsunami zones, or iPads. Yet these things exist now and humans invented them.
By assuming that we know best and there is no other possible better source of energy, we're basically saying it cannot be done. The problem is we have a really bad track record in that area of not know what the hell we are talking about, much less what aliens might do.
We invent. We should assume aliens will also invent.
Now, it will be interesting someday if humans and aliens finally do meet up and we find out they have invented something we also have. The iPad of that era, just for example. We don't have any room for such a thing in our IP laws so the standard lawsuits would fly. And it would be fun to watch the first human IP lawyer try to serve G'Gurat with a suit over bezel design and rows of icons. Especially if G'Gurat is hungry that cycle.
Sig for hire.