test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

A moment of nerd rage...

135

Comments

  • amosov78amosov78 Member Posts: 1,495 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Remember, it's my job to figure out what it looks like. . . so I HAVE to be concerned with what you see.

    As for the amount of material, that is what makes Dyson *Shells* so insane. You'd have to harvest hundreds/thousands/millions of star systems to get enough material to make one, small (relatively) shell.

    Something else I didn't mention before. Let's pretend they have come up with some method to create a day/night cycle on the inner surface. Even with that, the sun is still fixed. i.e. the sun is always in the exact same position, day or night. There is no sunset as we know it, there is no sunrise as we know it. That means all shadows on the surface always fall in the same places all the time. Potentially, this creates insane microclimates.

    My point in all of this conjecture on the 'realities' of a Dyson Sphere*is that the mere concept of one is so ridiculous and insane, that it's silly to me to argue that someone didn't get it 'right.'

    Yes, there is science behind some of it, but because of how insane and ridiculous and far beyond our full comprehension such a system is, there is SOOOO much wiggle room in there, that I am not terribly concerned with making everything perfect. Again, gameplay is king. If we can make you FEEL like you're in a Dyson Sphere, and the game play is fun, and the story is interesting, I think we've done our job.

    *Shut up, I know, it's a Shell, but TNG says it's a sphere (and it looks like a sphere) so there. :::raspberries:::

    Just wait until you get around to doing stuff for the Tkon Empire; they had the ability to move entire star systems. The lockbox would be a flyable star system! :D
    U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-71895 - Nebula-class
    Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
    Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
  • reximuzreximuz Member Posts: 1,164 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Alright, you want to get into specifics?

    A Dyson sphere is very large, and has a lot of mass, but it's not very dense. 99% of it is empty space. So. . . . gravity? Does the gravity pull you toward the center of the sphere? Does it pull you toward the edge? (even on the inside?) Is the edge dense/thick enough to warrant localized gravity that would allow you to stick to the inside?
    Now's where someone says the whole sphere is spinning, and that what holds you to the inside is centripetal force. That would work well enough in a ring world, but you can't spin a sphere in all directions simultaneously, so you're going to end up with areas with less (or no) apparent gravity (like the poles).

    Ok, so enough with gravity, when you're standing on the inner surface of the sphere, and look up, what do you see? If you're inside the atmosphere, you'll see sky, but you'd also see the opposite wall of the sphere. Those of you who argue that you couldn't see the opposite wall, why not? I can see Jupiter on a clear night. Now if Jupiter was the whole sky. . . I'm pretty sure it would be pretty damn bright.

    How about if you are above the atmosphere? You don't get sky anymore. . . but you don't get blackness. The entire sky would be filled with brightly lit planet surface, perhaps with some darker sections if there is something shading them from the sun.

    Which leads us to night/day. Lots of Dyson concepts show big panels encircling the sun (presumably orbiting) such that they cast shadow on the inner surface. But. . . the opposite side of the sphere is entirely lit. It'd be like standing in the shade at earth. Just because you're not in direct sunlight doesn't mean the entire sky isn't brightly lit (and thus, indirectly lighting your side) Plus, if you have big wedge shaped solar blocks like that, you'd still have a problem at the poles.


    What did I miss?

    A civilization in the Star Trek universe that advanced would have gravity plating and wouldn't need to rely on spin to provide gravity.

    NOTE: For the visual assumptions I am assuming a Dyson Sphere around a Sol type star with an approximate radius of 1 AU. If you change the star, you have to modify some of the visuals.

    Assuming the inner shell has an Earth type atmospheric layer, I'd expect a predominantly blue sky, I would expect to look up and see the green land turning blue as it is eventually curving seemingly towards the sun, with the darker areas seeming to be a blue that matches the sky, and the lighter areas showing as a faded white. Think of seeing the Moon during the day on earth, the light areas are white, the dark areas are blue.

    Once the wall gets to a certain point where you are facing more toward the sun, the glare from the sun, and of course the sun itself, would obscure the far side. Jupiter is almost always more than 9 AU away from us, yet we can see it most all of the time its on the same side of the sun as we are, with the naked eye. The far side of the sphere will be massively more massive, and no more than 2 AU from us.

    I'm not sure its needed to have a night/day cycle on surface of the dyson sphere. If certain life forms needed night cycles, those could be simulated inside of structures built for that purpose.

    That said, if you really wanted a Day/Night cycle then you'd build a half sphere inside the Dysons Sphere that is maybe at most a few thousand kilometer smaller than the dyson sphere itself, that way it would be close enough to the surface to occlude the opposite side, except near the "sunrise" and "sunset" zones. Note that I pick a half sphere to emulate an Earth like Day/Night cycle of about half and half. You could probably make an adequately dark night area with a much smaller sliver, but then you wouldn't have equal day/night times.

    On further thought, scratch the half sphere, I think having something that massive having to rotate around the star once every 24 hours would create some physics issues. For a Day night cycle I'd build a second inner sphere with panels that can have their transparency/opaqueness adjusted.

    Think of giant tinted windows that gradually grow darker to simulate dusk, then after a night cycle is completed, they could gradually grow lighter to simulate dawn. These panels could also be designed to have a false sky transmitted across it.

    Unlike the half dome, this would also prevent the poles from having different cycles, the entire surface would have one cycle, that way they don't have to have time zones to create complaints from their MMO gamers who are pissed over having server downtime during their playtime. If the entire surface is on the same day/night cycle this inner sphere could be much smaller and closer to the sun, because you won't have to worry about the sunlight reflecting off the far wall.

    I live in Alameda county and I'm available for consulting ;)
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Ok, so enough with gravity, when you're standing on the inner surface of the sphere, and look up, what do you see?

    My God, it's full of stars! ;)
    GwaoHAD.png
  • o1derfull1o1derfull1 Member Posts: 294
    edited August 2013
    I have other questions: How is a dirunal cycle replicated? What about seasonal variation? The sphere captures 100% of the energy output of the star, so what does it do with it all? What happens to all the captured heat? Did the builders provide for weather? How do they keep all of the land from eroding away into the bottom of the seas over the course of time? How is the inner surface protected from dangerous radiation emitted from the star (there is no longer any geomagnetic field or Van Allen-type of radiation belts to do this)? How is the surface protected from coronal mass ejections? What protects the outside of the sphere from asteroids, cometary impact, or even rogue planets? How the heck does one achieve egress to and from such a structure?

    Read Ringworld by Larry Niven - a nice hard sci-fi (from the 70s I believe) - and you questions shall be answered. Though it deals with a belt around a star, rather than a encapsulating sphere, all the principles are analogous
    _________________________________________________

    ::WARNING:: This game is not intended for use as a source of self-esteem.
  • tpolebreakertpolebreaker Member Posts: 266 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    o1derfull1 wrote: »
    Read Ringworld by Larry Niven - a nice hard sci-fi (from the 70s I believe) - and you questions shall be answered. Though it deals with a belt around a star, rather than a encapsulating sphere, all the principles are analogous

    And dont read *any* of the sequels.

    A Dyson sphere, while it could actually be constructed out of typical star system mass, is not a very good design, depending of course on what you want to do. But the biggest problem is, of course, gravity... and a sphere cant rotate in 4 dimensions (or can it), which makes the ring much better.
    ___________________
    The doors, Mister Scott!
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    I liked it when they started calling them Halos
    GwaoHAD.png
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,326 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Hey, who can tell me what "fi" stands for in Sci-fi?



    I really am never going to understand theses "you are doing it all - scientifically - wrong" threads.



    Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, you made a blue unicorn. Everyone knows unicorns are white.
  • tpolebreakertpolebreaker Member Posts: 266 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

    Only those who fear, classify.

    One is a klingon saying, one is not! Both are relevant.
    ___________________
    The doors, Mister Scott!
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Hey, who can tell me what "fi" stands for in Sci-fi?



    I really am never going to understand theses "you are doing it all - scientifically - wrong" threads.



    Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, you made a blue unicorn. Everyone knows unicorns are white.

    because, based on the science we understand ... comes great science fiction.

    and from great science fiction ... yet to be discovered science has been dreamt.

    .
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,326 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    cgta1967 wrote: »
    because, based on the science we understand ... comes great science fiction.

    and from great science fiction ... yet to be discovered science has been dreamt.

    .

    Science fiction is based on real science more or less the same the Fast and the furious is based on driving.
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    whatever dude....
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • inkrunnerinkrunner Member Posts: 407 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    Hey, who can tell me what "fi" stands for in Sci-fi?



    I really am never going to understand theses "you are doing it all - scientifically - wrong" threads.



    Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, you made a blue unicorn. Everyone knows unicorns are white.
    Science fiction is based on real science more or less the same the Fast and the furious is based on driving.

    Can you tell me what the 'Sci' stands for? :P

    I'm discussing this because I thoroughly enjoy discussing science, not because I'm aggravated at the flaws in a fictional universe. For instance, the only reason that we think the Organians could move their star system was because the writers couldn't stay consistent with their home planet's location.

    I recognize that scientific principles must be sacrificed sometimes in order to achieve something enjoyable. Nobody wants it to take days to get from the Iota Pavonis Sector Block to Eta Eridani - that would make for some very dull gameplay. (But hey! It's more accurate!)
    2iBFtmg.png
  • ask4spock1ask4spock1 Member Posts: 135 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    baloq wrote: »
    You will all have to forgive me for this, but when I saw the screenshots and the concept art for the upcoming season 8 I was ticked off a bit. Not about the Voth (although I found the concept of the Voth to be totally ridiculous when it was originally presented during Voyager's on-air run) but about the Dyson sphere.



    REMEMBER, It is just a GAME.


    Just enjoy it.


    Sedative for the Nerd Rage
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,326 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    inkrunner wrote: »
    Can you tell me what the 'Sci' stands for? :P

    I'm discussing this because I thoroughly enjoy discussing science, not because I'm aggravated at the flaws in a fictional universe. For instance, the only reason that we think the Organians could move their star system was because the writers couldn't stay consistent with their home planet's location.

    I recognize that scientific principles must be sacrificed sometimes in order to achieve something enjoyable. Nobody wants it to take days to get from the Iota Pavonis Sector Block to Eta Eridani - that would make for some very dull gameplay. (But hey! It's more accurate!)

    I can, but as you know the words need to be associated. If I tell you that something is Science-fake, what am I telling you despite the word having science in it?
    The problem with Star Trek is that because they "explain" stuff people actually think that credits it as being real. Sure ST does part from basic "real" science, but it then extrapolates to a level that it's as fantasy as any other and no more science. Just because I tell you I can divert auxiliary energy produced by means of a gravimetric surge to the induction coils in order to boost the inertial dampeners, that doesn't mean any of those things exist, that they are possible or even that it would work if they existed.
    I love Star Trek and I love sci-fi in general and despite that in some things we can actually find a scientific base, for the most part it's still fantasy, fiction, etc..

    So when people start saying "Oh my god, such a big ship, it could never enter an atmosphere" or "Gee, the base could not be built so close to the star" or whatever, it "tickles my brain" as they don't seem to have a problem on going faster than light, on dematerializing something to the molecular level/converting it into energy and then rematerializing it on a place that has no process of reconversion, and vice-versa, with subspace, with time travel, etc, etc, etc..

    Do you get my point?
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 3,901 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    And dont read *any* of the sequels.

    A Dyson sphere, while it could actually be constructed out of typical star system mass, is not a very good design, depending of course on what you want to do. But the biggest problem is, of course, gravity... and a sphere cant rotate in 4 dimensions (or can it), which makes the ring much better.

    HEY - I liked "Ringworld Engineers" :eek::D;)
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • aestronaestron Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Remember, it's my job to figure out what it looks like. . . so I HAVE to be concerned with what you see.

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before, as I don't frequent the forums, but one thing that bothered me a lot about the show was that there was far too much curvature for an object of this size when shown next to the ship. From all of the scenes that I remember, the sphere should have appeared absolutely flat due to its sheer size, given the proximity of the ship in the scenes. One would likely have to focus on a point several hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of miles away to see any appreciable curvature. Seen from outside, this would require some substantial distance from the sphere and would be impossible without some nearby (astronomically speaking) light source. From inside, barring obscuring terrain features, the horizon in any direction would disappear into the haze of the atmosphere well before starting to curve upward.

    If you haven't read them already, the Orbitsville books by Bob Shaw might provide some additional insights. I personally didn't like them as much as the Ringworld books, but they were interesting.
  • lordhavelocklordhavelock Member Posts: 2,248 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...Yes, there is science behind some of it, but because of how insane and ridiculous and far beyond our full comprehension such a system is, there is SOOOO much wiggle room in there, that I am not terribly concerned with making everything perfect. Again, gameplay is king. If we can make you FEEL like you're in a Dyson Sphere, and the game play is fun, and the story is interesting, I think we've done our job.
    /signed +1

    :D

    You can find/contact me in game as @PatricianVetinari. Playing STO since Feb 2010.
  • jheinigjheinig Member Posts: 359 Cryptic Developer
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Alright, you want to get into specifics?

    A Dyson sphere is very large, and has a lot of mass, but it's not very dense. 99% of it is empty space. So. . . . gravity? Does the gravity pull you toward the center of the sphere? Does it pull you toward the edge? (even on the inside?) Is the edge dense/thick enough to warrant localized gravity that would allow you to stick to the inside?
    Now's where someone says the whole sphere is spinning, and that what holds you to the inside is centripetal force. That would work well enough in a ring world, but you can't spin a sphere in all directions simultaneously, so you're going to end up with areas with less (or no) apparent gravity (like the poles).

    I got this!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,395 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    cgta1967 wrote: »
    ^ this. please close this thread.

    ^ this. please close this thread.

    On distances and measurements, a dev has already long since stated that things like the map in sector space is not supposed to represent you in a real space ship, or real distances. They are just a symbolic representation.

    No need to go OCD nerd raging over something as trivial, and absolutely unimportant, as the 'actual' size of a Dyson sphere.

    /thread
    ChCDpuh.jpg
  • similonsimilon Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    ___________________________
    The day will not save them. And we own the night.
  • mistressbenihimemistressbenihime Member Posts: 224 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    tacofangs wrote: »
    Cripes people, it is JUST CONCEPT ART!

    The concept accentuated the curvature to make a point to the viewer that it's the interior of the sphere. That does not mean that the final maps will look anything like that.

    this, if what we saw was flat most people would either:

    1 not get the fact that they are inside a sphere because there is no curvature.

    2 not get why there is no curvature because the know they are inside of a sphere.

    this is why i prefer space-operas (huge star wars fan) over hard-SF because stuff just works the way you expect it to work without going into a detailed explanation why it works.
    that doesn't mean you can trow out the rule book completely writing and designing always looks/feels better when you chose limits>possibilities.

    i like it when stuff is mostly scientifically correct but to me it doesn't need to be correct to the last detail. mostly i want to enjoy the story being told.
    it's just a detail much like DS9 being bloated you expect it to be big so it needs to be big.

    where the curvature of the Dyson sphere is concerned, I expect to see it so I want to see it and i don't care that its technically wrong.
    THE NEW CRAFTING SYSTEM IS TERRA-BAD
    First of all it's not even a crafting system! It's just a dumb game system that's nothing more than a glorified slots machine.
    second the "special items" you hope will be the saving the saving grace are messed up to.
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,412 Bug Hunter
    edited August 2013
    Honestly, if I were a race of beings capable of building a dyson sphere, making a day/night cycle would be trivially easy.

    You could, for instance, just encase the star in a second sphere of opaque and transparent lenses that distort or block the location of the sun's emissions. Maybe multiple 'floating connected by energy' panes that do this, creating a clearly artificial, but otherwise non-stationary pattern of light and shadow, which could also be used to create a day-night cycle.

    Or you could just use forcefields, since they can do that (ie: holodecks).

    According to the TNG novel Dyson Sphere (which follows up Relics), that sphere actually had an entire planetary system preserved inside, and some method to handle day/night cycles.

    Of course that was the same book where an unknown race (implied to be the Borg), fired a neutron star at the Dyson Sphere via wormhole to try and destroy it.

    The dyson sphere reacted by gathering a ****load of energy, and folding space around it warp drive style to 'shrink' itself to the size of an atom.

    I'm serious, and it's completely ridiculous.
  • jumpingjsjumpingjs Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    We can trust TACOtheAmazing to do a good job.

    :cool:
    Hopefully I'll come back from my break; this break is fun; I play intellectual games.

    I hope STO get's better ...
  • chainfallchainfall Member Posts: 243 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    The mistake was using a Dyson Sphere in the first place. A Ringworld is so much more plausible, possible, and lacks the drawbacks of a Dyson Sphere.
    STO would have been better as a Stargate MMO than it is as Star Trek. Go figure.

    ~[email protected]
    Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier Exterminatus
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    chainfall wrote: »
    The mistake was using a Dyson Sphere in the first place. A Ringworld is so much more plausible, possible, and lacks the drawbacks of a Dyson Sphere.

    If I wanted to see a ring i'll play halo...trek had Spheres:D
    GwaoHAD.png
  • chainfallchainfall Member Posts: 243 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    neoakiraii wrote: »
    If I wanted to see a ring i'll play halo...trek had Spheres:D

    True, Trek did have Spheres, but Trek also explained why they were bad ideas ultimately.
    STO would have been better as a Stargate MMO than it is as Star Trek. Go figure.

    [email protected]
    Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier Exterminatus
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    chainfall wrote: »
    True, Trek did have Spheres, but Trek also explained why they were bad ideas ultimately.

    that never stopped them on Enterprise, although those were not as big.
    GwaoHAD.png
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    jheinig wrote: »

    Thanks for bringing this up. Was about to post it myself.


    In short, you'll have to put artificial gravity on the inside surface of the sphere (shell) if we're to get any ground action there.
    (Or you'd have to go with some rotation as Taco suggested with pole problems...)

    Well, I'm curious as to what you'll actually end up doing. Have fun creating it, I hope it'll be good enough for us to have fun playing it.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • cgta1967cgta1967 Member Posts: 86 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    toiva wrote: »
    ....In short, you'll have to put artificial gravity on the inside surface of the sphere (shell) if we're to get any ground action there.
    (Or you'd have to go with some rotation as Taco suggested with pole problems...)....

    or .... have enough mass to generate its own..... planets reach hydrostatic equilibrium...which draws all the collected mass into a sphere shape.

    you wouldn't have to generate hydrostatic equilibrium on the shell surface of the dyson sphere.... but just have enough mass to self generate it's own gravity.


    or.... just have fictionally generated "gravity plating" like the Star trek ships all have......

    which is probably the easiest way. :rolleyes:
    _______________________
    ---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
  • hevachhevach Member Posts: 2,776 Arc User
    edited August 2013
    neoakiraii wrote: »
    that never stopped them on Enterprise, although those were not as big.

    Those weren't Dyson Spheres, they were just spherical space stations. They'd have none of the drawbacks or construction challenges of a Dyson sphere, and have some advantages over more complex shapes.
Sign In or Register to comment.