วีดีโอ

Yes, you can make that argument, and I will agree with it, even if my following comment does not read like that. My point is to separate it to specific technologies, or the specific application of that knowledge. The sum is exponential, but the parts are S-curves is my hypothesis.

I like your suggestion, a lot. The graphical example was just for illustrative purposes, but your suggestion of the rate of technological adoption makes a lot of sense. The older technologies are used to develop the newer ones, so as development advances and the population of users and developers grows, so too should the adoption of new technologies.

Thank you for those four minutes. Hopefully there will be another video in the future more to your liking.

I actually caught myself on that later in the video. When I caught myself, as I recall I mentioned how all of the volatiles have been burned away, which would include the atmosphere and water. As far as the mass from solar flares and the damage they would do, a couple things occur to me as I think about them now, but it is a very interesting question I want to give more thought to. One is Mercury has a radius of about 2440 km, and I'm pretty sure the majority of Dyson sphere designs are far thinner, so there is less mass to absorb the impact. The other is Mercury does have a magnetic field that helps deal with CMEs and such, but a Dyson sphere, if it had one, would be a very different shape. You would be within the sphere, as opposed to outside of it, so as the charged particles come in, the field would need to reflect them back, approaching a reversal of momentum, as opposed to just deflecting them at a lower angle, so less momentum needs to be changed.

Good points, all. I use the term "vent" quite generically here to mean gotten rid out. In my story that involved a Dyson sphere the vents worked by taking the energy collected on the inside of the sphere and emitting it as radiation out into space. By the way, either for your benefit or anyone else who reads this comment, what you're describing is black body radiation and is why there can be no green stars. Green is too central in the visible spectrum so when the heat of an object would primarily radiate green light, it's radiating the other colors too, giving us white light.

I heard somewhere someone did the math and concluded a sphere to encompass the Sun with a radius matching Earth's orbit would require more mass than is available in the Solar System. I don't recall the thickness being mentioned though, so I'm unsure how informative that claim is. Regardless, you point is completely accurate; such a structure realized will be completely different from those theorized. The science fiction still is a lot of fun though!

@@TheFictionMethod and that's just pure mass. I'm sure we couldn't make a dyson sphere with dirt and gravel! theoretically we would need to harvest multiple solar systems. Possibly wiping out any chance those stars had at intelligent life, and who knows what repercussions that would have on our own solar system.

@@TheFictionMethod When you look at the rate the human race is advancing technologically, I don't think its too far fetched to believe we will reach interstellar travel by 2400-2500 if we don't kill ourselves. We may even figure it out sooner with AI, but when you look at the big picture, all of the technical advancement is starting to de-evolve us. We may see evolutions to combat cardiovascular issues if we don't solve that problem with technology also (I theorize), but I don't see any good evolutions happening besides ones that will allow us be to be lazy, especially with the help of AI.

@@theabomination396 I'm a little torn on if this were the best time or the worst time to make this suggestion. On the "best side" the current story I'm working on involves working through the technological eras of man, though not in a historical way. (When a technology was discovered is irrelevant in the story, just the discovery and application of it.) On the "worst side" I just started a different series of videos that are more story-based than science-based. But I'll do it anyway. It is an interesting topic I've give thought to before, so I'll try to record a video this week, with it coming out next week. (All of my videos thus far I record and schedule for the following week.)

I made individual videos describing the books shortly after this video, so that's probably why I did not show them for long in this one. If you look on the channel's Playlists there is one named "Book Descriptions" and I have the link to my Amazon Author Page in the description of each video as well.

thats exactly what he said multiple times

a similar moral conundrum is created in the novel Anvil of Stars (1992) by Greg Bear (well worth the read imho). when the earth is obliterated by a self replicating robotic menace, a benefactor species appears to save who they can and provide the tools for revenge (we are entitled to it, its galactic law after all...), and so a crew of humans set out for justice against the killers of humanity! they encounter other destroyed species, other ships of the law, other survivors, and eventually discover what they suspect is the home system of the killers, but something is amiss. the system is brimming with life; millions of intelligent species co-existing, trillions of individuals living rich & meaningful lives, commerce, art, mega-structures aplenty, and eons of peaceful history. but is it all a trap? a carefully constructed camouflage and psychological defence against inevitable justice? the human crew faces a choice: justice for lost humanity, but at what cost? aboard the ship reason and democracy fail, and without certainty the trigger is pulled...

I often say a lot of "big idea" hyperfuturistic sci-fi basically reflects the era of western Imperialism for reasons like this. The European nations prospered and became the hubs of art, science, etc but were built on a parasitic system at the complete total expense of the poorer nations they conquered. The Sci-Fi genre was born in the era those empires were at their peak so it's no surprise a lot of that mentality shaped the genre with tropes like tech level being directly tied to consumption and environmental exploitation, megastructures being prominent reflecting people's obsession with megaprojects in the early-mid 1900s, and even the concept of "uplifting" is essentially rooted in colonialism with White Man's Burden. A lot of these outlandish hyperfuturistic sci-fi settings are presented as a wondrous vision of the distant future but in reality they are a reflection of our dark past. When we write about these things we're essentially commenting about ourselves. I personally believe Anvil of Stars was also a meta take on the usual sci-fi "hyper advanced utopian civilization" narrative probing more into this angle and pointing out the issues with it.

I'm not certain, but that is an interesting question for an astrophysicist. Could the energy cause the star to swell, like when other materials are warmed? Could it reach into the core eventually and enable higher levels of fusion, or will the pressure not be enough for this? That is actually kind of a funny thought; could you pump so much energy into a star this way to actually shut down fusion, because the pressure and therefore the density of the fuel is too low?

Awesome question. But be more specific; how is the energy "building up"? Is this material also impervious to heat? This would mean an accelerating surface burn-off until core instability and then nova, if I had to guess; but a nova wouldn't be possible. The energy released and then reflected back at a single point would likely compress the star into a black hole at some point, in my uneducated opinion; assuming this material exists.... (It does, and it's easy to make.... For some [body] out there) What if instead of a sphere, a "giant mylar balloon"? The external solar winds would keep the balloon inflated perfectly equidistant with the star centered.

I'd not heard of that group before, but it is very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

In theory, yes. An isotope of 114 should exist in the island of stability. The "but" is we're still uncertain about where exactly the island is; it's all theoretical at the moment, though some discoveries are promising. The discoveries are very important, because some theories disagree on exactly where the island is. Curiously, I don't recall finding this source before, when I was looking more closely at the island of stability, but as this Scientific American article has a nice graphic marking the proposed doubly magic pairs (both proton and neutron counts are magic numbers): www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-quest-for-superheavy-elements-and-the-island-of-stability/ . In this it appears the doubly magic 120 (with 172 neutrons) could be easier to reach than the doubly magic 114 (with 184 neutrons). Until we reach them though, we don't know if the theories are correct or not.

@@TheFictionMethod Brilliant reply, very informative. Thanks!

I do try to keep them shorter than half an hour, but sometimes there is a lot to talk about. Sorry about droning on though, because I actually do find this topic interesting. The idea was part of the inspiration for one of my novels, after all. As far as water, while it is plentiful, it is not always potable. The majority of water on Earth is salt water, so it is not unreasonable to import water to early planetary colonies before purification methods are in place, during emergencies, and on space stations where everything must be imported. Also some planets in my Catherine-verse are colonized for specific industrial purposes, such that worlds lacking significant amounts of surface water will still be colonized, even though no viable ecosystem would be possible there.

I am unable to disagree with you on any of the points you are making, and thank you for providing the criticism as well. The problem is, I'm not enough of an artist to make graphics and I'm not really good at following a script, especially as I normally only have a day to work on these each week. When I do a full presentation, then I have the speech worked out and the graphics, but I usually have weeks of preparation to build and practice it all. (Even then, I'll deviate from the script because that's just how I am, especially when talking about things I'm interested in.) It's almost as though I should just do these as livestreams, but I have my doubts that format would work.

@@TheFictionMethod Basic graphics can be done with a spreadsheet such as Excel or Numbers. They can also be made with drawing programs such as Windows Paint or Mac Paint S. There are also a lot of free graphics that can be downloaded and modified. Instead of going directly to the negative, consider what kind of charts and/or graphs you would create if you had enough artistic talent. You must have some amount of artistic talent if you are attempting to write a novel. The script doesn't need to be a word-for-word script. Something more akin to an outline would suffice to keep you on track. Practicing is easy. Just make the video several times with the cameras off. Then do that again a few times with the camera on. Pick the one you like the best. That is a little more time consuming, but you get much better results.

The graphics I used for the "Manufacturing Materials 3" I made using R and Inkscape, and occasionally I pull out Gimp, so I'm not unfamiliar with the software, just pretty unskilled when it comes to images/graphics. Fortunately, with one exception the cover art I've had to produce for my five novels (and counting) has been relatively simple, or at least something I had a vision for, and that helps so tremendously. Sometimes I haven't even that though, and for some of these videos that's what happens; I don't have a good image in mind to attempt creating for the video. I do practice these videos, though not in the way you mean, so you are correct. I will start recording and if I mess up, by digressing, stumbling too much over my words, or otherwise breaking my flow, I stop, delete it, and start over. There have also been a few where I finish recording, am largely happy with it, but decide to do another take that will, hopefully, be better. This kind of practice is not the norm, but I understand it to be your suggestion. I will think on trying to do it more often, but it will depend on the time available to me, and sometimes the topic.

I cannot disagree with you. The thing is I'm lousy at making images, so, for now anyway, I try to select the best of the auto-generated. Usually that means including the insert if there is one, with either a smile on my face or some appropriate motion (like gesturing to the insert). I am thinking I might make a thumbnail for next weeks though, as I have an idea that I think is within my skills and will be appropriate for it.

Thank you. This and the next few videos were recorded before your previous comment, but I am thinking about re-recording one to tighten it up. For what it is, it is a bit long, but fortunately I have time to decide and try a formal script.

I agree with you, but unfortunately there are a couple realities I have stuck with at the moment. One is, I can be quite a rambler. The other is I am not very at script writing. (I am better at story writing than talking though.) Right now the best I can hope for is taking effective notes and following them, but that doesn't always work. My hope is as get more experience with these recordings and from that better control my rambling, and potentially then also improve my ability to write scripts, as I will be more familiar with the way I talk in the videos. I do believe I am getting better already, slowly, but as I record videos in advance, it might be a bit before it becomes clear. At least I have gotten more comfortable throwing out a video when I feel it is too long, and starting over.

I'm unsure how serious to take this. That's not on you, but the idea of coal-fired spaceships for Rebel Moon. You're building a spaced-based science fiction story, and go with coal? Different video, but I thought up a new energy storage mechanism just because I don't always like superconductors, but someone went to coal? All kinds, I guess. Anyway, coal-fired spaceships don't make sense because of the terribly low energy density. I guess you could make a rocket with coal as the fuel, but with such low density you'd run through the oxidizer pretty quick. For instead generating electricity or similar, again, the energy density is so low there are many other, better options. One would be hydrogen, which is plentiful in the Universe.

I already have a video recorded covering why I dislike artificial wormholes, though the "gates" of something like Stargate would technically be different. As in they are not actually wormholes. Now I'm thinking do I want to redo that video, or make a new one just on "gates." It is a fair idea, and I do like Stargate SG-1 (in season 7 in my current watch through) and Atlantis.

That is probably the best compliment I've gotten for a while. Thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean, but there would be three speeds involved here. The speed of light in the normal Universe (c); the speed of light in the warp field (xc where x>1); and the speed of the ship (y). Typically y < 0.5xc to avoid relativistic effects coming into play. Technically c is the speed of light in a vacuum, as it slows in a medium, but we can mostly treat space (especially dark space) as a vacuum with the occasional interruption of gas, dust, and immense rocks.

​@@TheFictionMethodhow do you warp a vacuum? Really. Space is essentially nothing so what is it that you are warping? Your imagination? Like Star Trek does? Nothing can go faster than light because it becomes light with Acceleration. E=mc. Unless youv3 figured out a way to leave this universe and transition into another universe you are stuck at about .5c traveling in this universe. The Breakthrough Starshot solar sail is converting to radiant energy at .2c. The astronaut's are experiencing accelerated heart rates during lift-off. How long can a person sustain an accelerated heart rate condition? What is the law of motion? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? If you want to accelerate mass forward, you have to accelerate mass backwards. Like letting air out of a balloon. But then you are going to have to stop and periodically refill your air tanks. Warping space was something the creators of Star Trek came up with in order to get around the laws of physics so that they could explore the galaxy in timely fashion. What did TNG do, they increased the degrees of warp speed so that they could explore more of the galaxy. Light doesn't have a speed. It has an induction rate. The rate at which it can propagate itself through space. Propagation requires electrical energy. How much electrical energy the space the wave travels in determines its "speed'. You can speed up sound waves by increasing the temperature -> adding more energy. That's what a worm hole does. Adds more energy do that light can travel faster. That doesn't mean mass can travel faster in space though. To prevent mass from being accelerated in time, you need to cool it. You need a little heat pump circulating a coolant to collect the excess energy and dump it into space. That's more mass that requires more force to accelerate it which requires more energy which produces more heat. That's why you are stuck at about .5c. At that point, the amount of energy required to cool the vessel exceeds the amount of energy being used to propel the vessel. So, unless you make your entire ship out of gold which requires tremendous force to accelerate it to radiant energy, you are not achieving speeds anywhere near the speed of light for solid matter.

Good question. The key with my answer (along with remembering it is science fiction, so I lack perfect answers), is there is a threshold below which relativistic effects do not come into play. That threshold is about 0.5c. By pushing away the speed of light, I am also pushing away that threshold, and so the dilation effects you mention do not occur. This makes the situation more analogous to being within a massive lens. Light can travel freely through the lens, but is moving slower within the glass than in normal air. Imagine the glass has some crazy high index of refraction, so the light is really slow there, and ask will a clock run slower when in the lens then outside of it? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because the time difference between the clock's movements will not change, just the speed they arrive to viewer. Relativity is not in play here because nothing has crossed the threshold, but you still have light traveling at different speeds. That's the best answer I have for now, but I fully admit I only really thought to ask if such a hypothetical lens would produce relativistic effects. I do not believe so, but will think on it more as I can.

Clocks would have a lot to do with time dilation, but, as I tried to explain in the earlier comment, I do not believe dilation or other relativistic effects are in play here. The closest analogy would be a clock within a material of very high index of refraction. This means light is traveling at very different speeds inside and outside the material. Despite this, there is no reason to expect the clock to run faster or slower. A clock in water (index of refraction ~1.33) does not run slower than one in air (~1.00) or a vacuum (1), controlling for any mechanical interference the medium has on the clock.