Dyson Spheres don't "orbit"

[wyldmage]

For the love of science, can the developers please update their game description and information?
Dyson spheres do not "orbit" anything. Same with ring worlds. They require high strength construction capable of withstanding the inward pull of the star's gravity.

There is no orbit, and a heavy-science game like this getting such a simple point wrong is embarrassing at the minimum, and mostly just insulting.

[umop-apisdn]

wyldmage の投稿を引用：

That is why I was asking for a pointer. Some starting source. Because that disconnect means there is something missing. Something that when I sit down to view on a topic does not connect from what learning I have already done into what is out there.

... thus my recommendation to start by searching for the term "how to research".
I meant what I said; it was genuinely intended as a friendly and helpful piece of advice, not an attack... which I stated.

wyldmage の投稿を引用：

I've taken college physics courses, and the concept of an orbit being velocity-independent never occured.

A velocity does not have to be non-zero. Motion is relative, by necessity; A measurement requires a thing to be measured, and a thing to measure it against. That measurement can obtain a result of zero, if the relative difference is zero. This is logic and critical thinking, combined with knowledge. Learning requires more than memorization of facts.
I am not a teacher. There are reasons.

wyldmage の投稿を引用：

If you don't even want to point, admit that yourself, don't tell me I'm bad at learning/researching. Because I absolutely understand how to go about it. I'm telling you that I've tried. And gotten nowhere related to the concepts of stationary orbit that you discuss. It's just not talked about.

I don't want to point at specific passages. I don't want to do your research for you. I'm fairly certain I actually stated that before I even recommended how to go about actually researching.
I am not a teacher. There are reasons.

The conclusions I reached about orbits were based on reading the text I explained earlier, combining that with my understanding of relativity, and applying some fairly simple (yet rigorous) logic with a creative dash of critical thinking.

I tried to explain my thought process to you.
I'm sorry that I was apparently unsuccessful.
I am not a teacher. There are reasons.

My research advice was based on the questions you were asking, and the insight they provided into your thought processes. It was genuine, and I stand by it.

Good luck.

[AlienWired]

Nekogod の投稿を引用：

AlienWired の投稿を引用：

Are you sure about that? It doesn't sound right, the effect on Mercury from the other planets would be negligible considering how close it is to the Sun, and their gravity would only act to help Mercury when it was between the other planets and the Sun. Any time the Sun was between the other planets and Mercury they would instead be pulling Mercury towards the Sun.

Though it is true that orbital resonance with various planets at various times is affecting it's orbit over time, it's an incredibly slow process.

It would probably be true to say that the other planets have a stabilising effect on it's orbit, though resonance with Jupiter may cause Mercury's eccentricity to increase to such an extent that it collides with Venus, but that's billions of years away.

I'm going to leave this here. You answered your own question.

Mercury orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit, ranging between 0.47 AU (at aphelion) to 0.31 AU (at perihelion) and is only 0.055 Earth masses (that’s barely five-times the mass of our Moon).

Running long-term simulations on the orbits of our Solar System bodies, scientists in France and California have discovered something quite unsettling. Jacques Laskar of the Paris Observatory, as well as Konstantin Batygin and Gregory Laughlin of the University of California, Santa Cruz have found that Jupiter’s gravity may perturb Mercury’s eccentric orbit even more. So much so their simulation predicts that Mercury’s orbit may extend into the path of Venus; or it might simply fall into the Sun. The researchers formulate four possible scenarios as to what may happen as Mercury gets disturbed:

Mercury will crash into the Sun
Mercury will be ejected from the solar system altogether
Mercury will crash into Venus
Mercury will crash into Earth

[AlienWired]

AlienWired の投稿を引用：

umop-apisdn の投稿を引用：

Source: Physics and relativity.

Density has nothing to do with it, merely the fact that the crust and the core are able to move independently of one another; they are, for the purposes of determining whether or not one is orbiting the other, two separate bodies.

The mantle (and the pressure provided by the crust being a mostly contiguous and impermeable (to the mantle) surface) that separates them provides the centrifugal force that counteracts gravity's centripetal force. Two separate bodies, one relatively motionless in position in reference to the position of the other; gravity is trying to pull the external object into the internal object, but some force is preventing that... et voila: Orbit, by definition.

"An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one."
"Stationary" can be defined as "infinite positional repetition."

QED.

Thanks for providing back up. Because, I used the earth's core only as an example to try in another futile attempt at explaining what orbit is and how a Dyson's sphere would work.

I'm not a teacher, you couldn't PAY me enough. I get sick of being questioned on every little thing by people that have no understanding, demanding sources for things they won't even read, and won't be able to comprehend when they DO read it.

You have people who demand sources from others, who don't understand that sometimes people come up with their own examples and explanations as a way to show by example what that person is describing so that the un-educated can become educated.

Apparently they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore, nor the meaning of the word "orbit".

And again, the word Orbit is third grade science, there is no need for a physicist or engineer to explain this so that the uneducated can feel secure about the knowledge they refuse to accept to begin with.

You want sources? GO LOOK IT UP AND RESEARCH IT YOURSELF!

[⎛⎝Duckers McQuack⎠⎞]

wyldmage の投稿を引用：

For the love of science, can the developers please update their game description and information?
Dyson spheres do not "orbit" anything. Same with ring worlds. They require high strength construction capable of withstanding the inward pull of the star's gravity.

There is no orbit, and a heavy-science game like this getting such a simple point wrong is embarrassing at the minimum, and mostly just insulting.

Have you actually seen one IRL up close? to stand by that claim? :) Cause i read an article a few years ago about a theory of a abnormal activity with a distant sun that went bright, then dim, bright then dim which was theorized it was because of possibly a megastructure like a dyson sphere that was rotating and giving light glimpses in "pulses" from our view.

[AlienWired]

⎛⎝Duckers McQuack⎠⎞ の投稿を引用：

wyldmage の投稿を引用：

For the love of science, can the developers please update their game description and information?
Dyson spheres do not "orbit" anything. Same with ring worlds. They require high strength construction capable of withstanding the inward pull of the star's gravity.

There is no orbit, and a heavy-science game like this getting such a simple point wrong is embarrassing at the minimum, and mostly just insulting.

Have you actually seen one IRL up close? to stand by that claim? :) Cause i read an article a few years ago about a theory of a abnormal activity with a distant sun that went bright, then dim, bright then dim which was theorized it was because of possibly a megastructure like a dyson sphere that was rotating and giving light glimpses in "pulses" from our view.

I remember that article, the light pulses from the distant sun were not naturally occurring as that which happens when a large planet passes in front of a sun.

From Wikipedia ; On 14 October 2015, Planet Hunters' citizen scientists discovered unusual light fluctuations of the star KIC 8462852, captured by the Kepler Space Telescope. The star was nicknamed "Tabby's Star" after Tabetha S. Boyajian — the initial study's lead author. The phenomenon raised speculation that a Dyson sphere may have been discovered. Further analysis based on data through the end of 2017 showed wavelength-dependent dimming consistent with dust but not an opaque object such as an alien megastructure, which would block all wavelengths of light equally.

[Madsen]

Does Dyson Sphere orbit encapsulated star or not?

No, it doesn't. Because Dyson Sphere center of mass should always be perfectly aligned with star center of mass. If Dyson Sphere center of mass deviates from star center of mass due to solar activity, then Dyson Sphere propulsion system will correct its position relative to the star. In fact, propulsion system will constantly correct its position.

But Dyson Sphere could orbit star if to turn off its correction system. In that case Dyson Sphere center of mass will deviate from star center of mass due to solar activity and then it will orbit star center of mass in linear trajectory. Later trajectory will become elliptical. This orbiting is very undesired because Dyson Sphere will experience extreme accelerations and should be avoided at all costs. Also, this orbiting doesn't depend on Dyson Sphere rotation around its own center of mass.

So, how phrase "a megastructure that would orbit around a star, harnessing all its power and energy" should be corrected? I would suggest something like this: "a megastructure that would encapsulate a star and harness all its power and energy".

And a couple of words to the author. You met so much aggression because you found insignificant mistake and presented it with unnecessary emotions like it is a crystal clear mistake. That looks like you wanted to show off. There are many more mistakes in the description. Even this phrase has a more significant mistake. Dyson Sphere doesn't harness power and energy. It harnesses only energy. It is impossible to harness power. If you really want to help this project you should check the whole description and point out all mistakes. And I bet, in that case you will receive only positive feedback.

[Zok]

AlienWired の投稿を引用：

Thanks for providing back up. Because, I used the earth's core only as an example to try in another futile attempt at explaining what orbit is and how a Dyson's sphere would work.

I'm not a teacher, you couldn't PAY me enough. I get sick of being questioned on every little thing by people that have no understanding, demanding sources for things they won't even read, and won't be able to comprehend when they DO read it.

You have people who demand sources from others, who don't understand that sometimes people come up with their own examples and explanations as a way to show by example what that person is describing so that the un-educated can become educated.

Apparently they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore, nor the meaning of the word "orbit".

And again, the word Orbit is third grade science, there is no need for a physicist or engineer to explain this so that the uneducated can feel secure about the knowledge they refuse to accept to begin with.

You want sources? GO LOOK IT UP AND RESEARCH IT YOURSELF!

This wasn't a request to be taught something. But since you criticize education systems - yours severely lacks classes teaching proper manners.

Further, students in school have to write papers, and references to external sources need proper citation. This is academic standard. Obviously you should know that, but apparently you don't.
A few reasons are e.g. attribution serves as a fact checking tool and a good bibliography shows off your scientific knowledge.

So, the way you articulate and present yourself in public only leads to the conclusion that you're but a short-tempered and ignorant hot-air merchant.

P.S. Opinions need back up, facts don't, especially when corroborated with citations.

[Zok]

Madsen の投稿を引用：

And I bet, in that case you will receive only positive feedback.

And I bet that haters are gonna hate.

[AlienWired]

Zok の投稿を引用：

AlienWired の投稿を引用：

Thanks for providing back up. Because, I used the earth's core only as an example to try in another futile attempt at explaining what orbit is and how a Dyson's sphere would work.

I'm not a teacher, you couldn't PAY me enough. I get sick of being questioned on every little thing by people that have no understanding, demanding sources for things they won't even read, and won't be able to comprehend when they DO read it.

You have people who demand sources from others, who don't understand that sometimes people come up with their own examples and explanations as a way to show by example what that person is describing so that the un-educated can become educated.

Apparently they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore, nor the meaning of the word "orbit".

And again, the word Orbit is third grade science, there is no need for a physicist or engineer to explain this so that the uneducated can feel secure about the knowledge they refuse to accept to begin with.

You want sources? GO LOOK IT UP AND RESEARCH IT YOURSELF!

This wasn't a request to be taught something. But since you criticize education systems - yours severely lacks classes teaching proper manners.

Further, students in school have to write papers, and references to external sources need proper citation. This is academic standard. Obviously you should know that, but apparently you don't.
A few reasons are e.g. attribution serves as a fact checking tool and a good bibliography shows off your scientific knowledge.

So, the way you articulate and present yourself in public only leads to the conclusion that you're but a short-tempered and ignorant hot-air merchant.

"P.S. Opinions need back up, facts don't, especially when corroborated with citations."

Opinions vary. Facts do not.

But since you're on the whole subject of manners.

"P.S. Opinions need back up, facts don't, especially when corroborated with citations." <--- This was especially an entertaining gem. Both, contradicting and proving yourself wrong all in one sentence.

You really have no idea how science works, and on top of that, I am not on this planet to be "nice" to you.

Secondly, the OP called anyone who responded to him with an adequate educated response a TROLL.

Responding in kind to a troll(which is what I am doing with you as well, which in kind garnered a short temper and "hot-aired" response from myself. JUSTIFIABLY, after being called a troll by a pedantic, highly ignorant uneducated argumentative FOOL.

3rdly? Don't like my manners?

I don't give a flying rip what you like or not, pissante.

"Steam level 0".... Speaks volumes.... LOL!!!

Make a new account and come back witih a more educated response than a low ball ad-hominem. You'll have to if you want a response from me cause your newly created troll account has been blocked.

Next time, troll smarter, not harder.

[AlienWired]

Madsen の投稿を引用：

Does Dyson Sphere orbit encapsulated star or not?

No, it doesn't. Because Dyson Sphere center of mass should always be perfectly aligned with star center of mass. If Dyson Sphere center of mass deviates from star center of mass due to solar activity, then Dyson Sphere propulsion system will correct its position relative to the star. In fact, propulsion system will constantly correct its position.

But Dyson Sphere could orbit star if to turn off its correction system. In that case Dyson Sphere center of mass will deviate from star center of mass due to solar activity and then it will orbit star center of mass in linear trajectory. Later trajectory will become elliptical. This orbiting is very undesired because Dyson Sphere will experience extreme accelerations and should be avoided at all costs. Also, this orbiting doesn't depend on Dyson Sphere rotation around its own center of mass.

So, how phrase "a megastructure that would orbit around a star, harnessing all its power and energy" should be corrected? I would suggest something like this: "a megastructure that would encapsulate a star and harness all its power and energy".

And a couple of words to the author. You met so much aggression because you found insignificant mistake and presented it with unnecessary emotions like it is a crystal clear mistake. That looks like you wanted to show off. There are many more mistakes in the description. Even this phrase has a more significant mistake. Dyson Sphere doesn't harness power and energy. It harnesses only energy. It is impossible to harness power. If you really want to help this project you should check the whole description and point out all mistakes. And I bet, in that case you will receive only positive feedback.

You have a hang up with stationary orbits. As does the OP, Geo-Stationary satellites correct their geo-stationary orbits quite frequently through-out their lifetimes, it, in most cases, prevents the Geo-stationary satellite from entering into what is called ORBITAL DECAY and falling back on to Earth.

They do not just send them into space and forget them, these satellites are constantly maneuvered back into their correct geo-stationary orbits.

At the end of these Geo-Stationary satellites life, NASA, or whoever is in control of their trajectory, will allow the satellite to enter an Orbital Decay and allow it to burn up in the atmosphere.

[umop-apisdn]

I'm going to try again; while I am not a teacher, I am quite stubborn.

Let's start by defining terms. I will mark these terms (and other potential keywords) with bold text in an attempt to make them easier to scan for. I will endeavor to mark previously defined terms in italics, to indicate that they have been previously defined.

Measurement will be defined as "segregation into regular intervals"; those intervals will be described as "the unit by which something is measured".

Position will be defined as "an expression of the measurement of the three-dimensional space occupied by a point, object, or body". It can be expressed as a Vector3 comprised of the othogonal axes along which distance measurements are taken to derive the position; eg (X,Y,Z), with the X-axis representing width, the Y-axis representing height, and the Z-axis representing depth... all of which is irrelevant, because it won't be expressed in this discussion, as we're not going to dig deeply enough to need actual numbers; I simply wanted to give an example of a quantified position, in order to more accurately describe the concept.

Distance is defined as "a measurement of how far apart two positions are from one another". Its intervals include such terms as "inches", "feet", "meters", etc.

Time is defined as "a measurement of how far apart two non-simultaneous events occur". Its intervals include names like "seconds", "minutes", "hours", etc.

Speed is defined as "distance traveled in a specified time"; that is, how much an object's position changes per unit of time. We need two variables to properly describe this concept, so we express units of speed as something like "feet per second", or "kilometers per hour".

Velocity can be defined as "speed in a particular direction". It requires three variables, because we are now describing "distance traveled by a body during a specified unit of time" in relation to that body's starting position.
We will define "a change in velocity" as acceleration.

Let's call the concept described as "having a non-zero velocity" motion. When describing a scenario including the term motion, we must have an object or position to compare that motion to, which we will call the motion basis and stipulate that its velocity in relation to the observer's viewpoint is zero.

Now that we have something "concrete" to measure against, we have introduced relativity to the equation. Previously, we were dealing in strictly imaginary concepts; absolute motion can not actually be concretely measured, because there's nothing to measure against. See "Einstein's Train Problem" for more information as to why this is true, and the ramifications inherent in that knowledge.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will describe existence as "a thing which possesses mass," and mass will be defined as "the property by which applied force is resisted". An object, also called a body, will now be unilaterally and arbitrarily defined as "a thing that exists, as described above".

We will define force as "an object's ability to effect acceleration, ie 'a push or pull upon an object resulting from that object's interaction with another object'."

Now we have sufficient terms with which to define the rules by which motion can be predicted, as described by Isaac Newton:
1: An object will maintain its current velocity unless acted upon by an outside force.
2: Acceleration is determined by the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
3: When an object exerts force on another, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.

A curve will be described as "a line which gradually deviates from being straight for some or all of its length".

We can now define trajectory as "the curve followed by an object in motion while under the action of given forces". We can express a trajectory as a path variable, ie "an array of positions/points sequentially ordered by time intervals."

We need yet another term in order to continue to abide by natural laws in our model; we will define gravity as "the phenomenon by which all objects are attracted to one another," or to put it another way "the natural centripetal (inward) force exhibited by all objects."

Finally, we will also accept the formula "E = mc^2" as a given, which translates as "Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light, squared". This will allow us to stipulate that energy approximates "mass with acceleration," for the purposes of this discussion. This conjecture is intended merely to clarify that gravity and the laws of motion apply to all things that exist, as defined above, and to specify that things comprised solely of energy (such as light) exist, in case we need that to be stipulated. I'm certain that we won't need to, but I wanted to "cover all the bases" for the sake of completeness.

We can now define an orbit as "the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object", which happens to coincide with Wikipedia's definition.

It should be noted that often, "orbit" refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it can refer to a non-repeating trajectory; this means that dropping an apple from waist height results in that apple orbiting the ground... although it does not maintain that particular orbit for long. It should also be noted that when the orbit just described ends, it is because the trajectory has changed; the apple is still following a gravitationally curved path, but its motion as relative to the ground (our motion basis for this paragraph's example) is zero.

With the definitions presented so far, we can now discuss orbital mechanics in a somewhat sane fashion (if requiring the definition of all of these terms can indeed be described as "sane").

Therefore, an object with an orbit shall henceforth be described as an orbiter, and the object it orbits shall be named "orbitee". For clarity, it is preferred that the orbitee be selected as the motion basis of a given model.

Thence, any object or body that exists close enough to another object or body for their gravity to interact is either an orbiter or an orbitee, as described above.

It should now be obvious that an orbital trajectory does not require relative motion, and that the curve described by an orbit can similarly have a path length of one; ie, the current position.

Therefore, a Dyson Sphere (or for that matter, any object encapsulating another body) absolutely and objectively is orbiting the star it surrounds, by definition and therefore identity.

Quod erat demonstrandum; ie, "thus it has been demonstrated."

[Zok]

AlienWired の投稿を引用：

Zok の投稿を引用：

This wasn't a request to be taught something. But since you criticize education systems - yours severely lacks classes teaching proper manners.

Further, students in school have to write papers, and references to external sources need proper citation. This is academic standard. Obviously you should know that, but apparently you don't.
A few reasons are e.g. attribution serves as a fact checking tool and a good bibliography shows off your scientific knowledge.

So, the way you articulate and present yourself in public only leads to the conclusion that you're but a short-tempered and ignorant hot-air merchant.

"P.S. Opinions need back up, facts don't, especially when corroborated with citations."

Opinions vary. Facts do not.

But since you're on the whole subject of manners.

"P.S. Opinions need back up, facts don't, especially when corroborated with citations." <--- This was especially an entertaining gem. Both, contradicting and proving yourself wrong all in one sentence.

You really have no idea how science works, and on top of that, I am not on this planet to be "nice" to you.

Secondly, the OP called anyone who responded to him with an adequate educated response a TROLL.

Responding in kind to a troll(which is what I am doing with you as well, which in kind garnered a short temper and "hot-aired" response from myself. JUSTIFIABLY, after being called a troll by a pedantic, highly ignorant uneducated argumentative FOOL.

3rdly? Don't like my manners?

I don't give a flying rip what you like or not, pissante.

"Steam level 0".... Speaks volumes.... LOL!!!

Make a new account and come back witih a more educated response than a low ball ad-hominem. You'll have to if you want a response from me cause your newly created troll account has been blocked.

Next time, troll smarter, not harder.

What manners? You don't have any.

[AlienWired]

umop-apisdn の投稿を引用：

I'm going to try again; while I am not a teacher, I am quite stubborn.
(if requiring the definition of all of these terms can indeed be described as "sane").

Hmm, does stubborness lead to insanity?

Though, the definition of insanity has been miscredited to many people, From Ben Franklin to Sam B. Rush, to Homer himself.

Who said "I hate saying the same thing over and over."

Maybe we are.

By the way, your analogy of an Apple being in orbit to earth if it is dropped straight down, did not occur to me to be in an orbit.

Thanks for that.

[Silky Rough]

'Guys.... what the hell?' : Einstein 2021

[hadesoil]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgyGa-QZ4jgkTJW45xt4AaABCQ