I wonder if building an entire Dyson Sphere will decrease the heat output for everything around the sun. I'm sure theyll be spread out enough to avoid that and to avoid a collision chain reaction if something hit one.
@@FlyLeah Most of Sun's energy is going to waste anyway. The point is to capture that energy and make use of it. If you're worried about the Earth's receiving less energy, it's not the case. We can leave a tiny bit of gap for the Earth. But this type of civilisation wouldn't be concerned about such earthly things.
I did an amateur calculation for fun once about a dyson swarm If we managed to catch 1% of the sunlight, we'd get enough energy to cover all the energy needs of all of earth projected of this century 1000 times over in ONE SECOND. Just imagine that. So much energy we could literally spend it on anything and we'd still have more than we could ever use in thousands of years!
I was recently making a drawing of a nicholl-dyson beam which would hypothetically use 1% of the sun's output to focus it into a planet-killing weapon. I also tried to do some maths and it turns out that against an earth-sized target that thing would be 10942029 times brighter than the sun!
@@torylva not even close. To do that you need a target a few meters wide, as well as using way more energy. Highly recommend Isaac Arthur's video on the topic, named "Kugelblitz black holes"
I love that you bring up “Civilizations”! Loved those games growing up! They are the reason I became so curious about science, space, and human history.
I'm not sure how the orbits would work, but couldn't we just set up the solar panel orbits to be like a reverse torus, mostly taking up space at the 'top' and 'bottom' sides of the sun relative to the earth? The sunlight heading toward the planets would be left alone, and I'm pretty sure that kind of angle would allow for the collected sunlight to always be available, rather than the mirrors being stuck behind the sun at times.
That could work! I watched their video on a stellar engine and Kurzgesagt mentioned that as an option: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yifMzuQVY84.html
We could definitely leave holes for planets or whatever we want, but the concept of a Dyson Sphere is that it _does_ cover all of the star. He called it a sphere because from outside the solar system there is no direct sunlight. It would all have been captured and converted to IR.
I think we'd have to not only put aside our differences (to redirect defense spending) but also create a better balance of short and long term thinking. With the way most people think today, even if there was no need for a military I don't think the money would go into generational projects. That's not to say there aren't some areas that help people in the short term that couldn't use vastly more funding but short term projects have just as endless a demand for money as a megastructure. Achieving such a balance would be even more impressive and difficult for the species IMO than world peace.
Thanks for your comment! Maybe carving out a block of time for only thinking long term would prevent the sea of “today’s problems” from filling up all of our time. Baby steps first.
As the solar sails would not compare in size to the sun i think its very likely the earth would not be effected much by them. Like there are a ton of dust particals on a lamp but we only see it dim a little bit.
Most importantly, we could use the dyson sphere to create black holes made out of concentrated light, then we would be able to feed matter into the black holes and extract the energy that made that matter with 100% efficiency by a weird process involving reflecting photons.
The part at 5:21 where Kurzgesagt mention that “close to the Sun means less moving stuff around” is false, the way orbits work out is that it takes less energy to lower your perigee from your apogee, and it’s more efficient the higher your apogee is. For an orbit like Mercury’s, where you are already close to the Sun, your orbit is moving faster than planets which are further out, so it takes more energy to lower your perigee by the same distance, so it’s not that practical
Its true that it would take a similar amount of effort to lower a satellite’s perihelion from mercury or earth, but the major difference is how fast that satellite would be traveling at its perihelion. If it fell all the way from earth, more effort would be needed to slow it down into a circular orbit than from mercury. I think thats where the benefit would come from.
Thanks for your suggestion, and for supporting the channel! My later videos involve me being in the background with the original video in front so you can see more of the original video.
I am kinda surprised that Nasa has not tried fusion reactions in space. Also wouldn't we lose our heat and light source if we put a Dyson sphere around our sun?
But what if we don’t get a any light building a Dyson sphere would be like blocking out light so it would get much colder over that would be good that could actually solve global warming
the move to "renewables" is actually an evolutionary step BACK, a big one! It massively DECREASES energy density, requiring a massive INCREASE in effort to produce the same amount of energy, while at the same time greatly reducing the reliability of energy availability. And the current trend is to go back farther and farther, faster and faster. I fear that if this trend continues for another 2-3 decades we'll be back striking rocks together trying to make stone tools.
That "please" at 0:24 sounds so genuine, sincere and sad, and hell, he at one point (if you go frame by frame) even looks like he is about to cry: i.imgur.com/XwyUUcP.png Don't be sad Tyler, we love your videos!
