Umm. Wasn’t that just a TV show? I don’t think it is based on historical fact.
We’ve found a lot of them, but we don’t call them Dysonspheres. We call them “Dark matter.”
I would think a civilization advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere, would be advanced enough to hide it from our prying eyes if they wanted to.
Why make a structure to collect the energy from a star when you can make a star that fits in your pocket? Dyson spheres are interesting, but they are also a silly extrapolation.
You can probably build an orbiting but continuous “ring,” starting with a few points along the ring and then building towards each other, ultimately connecting. And maybe the ring could be fairly wide -— but all the bits need to be essentially in orbit. (See Niven’s “Ringworld”)
With a Dyson sphere, the “polar parts” are NOT in orbit.
As the belt gets wider and wider, it reaches a point where the orbital velocity of the edges is no longer counterbalancing the tendency to “fall” inward to the star.
At the extreme — the poles — orbital velocity is zero, and the rest of the sphere would have to somehow “hold it all up.”
Unless the ETs have some form of antigravity...
Given that life arose so plentifully and easily here on our home planet, and that the ingredients for life are everywhere we look throughout the Universe, it seems like a foregone conclusion that we wouldn’t be alone.
...
If that’s the case, why is there only one common ancestor, and one tree of life?
One thing I’ve noticed about serious futurism: the predictions are often correct insofar as future tech _can_ do X, but when people (er, sentient intelligent beings) get there they realize there’s undesirable side effects and forego the vaunted prediction.
We _could_ have Moon hotels. We got to the Moon, it’s a dead rock, too high a price to see too little.
We _could_ exterminate all rodent/insect pests. That would destroy the ecosystem.
We _could_ enlighten everyone with a magic all-knowing glass slate. Cat videos are more fun.
We (well, some species) _could_ build a Dyson Sphere. There’s probably a good reason not to.
Just because He made it look easy doesn't mean it's easy.
The Dyson sphere idea is sci-fi fantasy. Intelligent civilizations will do well to just survive much less build something so ridiculously huge. The inability to detect Dyson spheres doesn’t not mean there are no intelligent civilizations out there.
Why?
Shouldn't the 'holy grail' in astronomy be finding what is there, regardless of what it is?
Science should explore, not for the 7 cities of Cibola, nor El Dorado, but to be like golfers and play it where it lies (and then to work out creative solutions to bad lies)
To specify a 'holy grail' is to set an agenda, like the fools errand of finding, or conjuring, anthropogenic global warming.
I would be laughed out of the seminar if I said the holy grail of all astronomy is to find popsicle sticks. And rightly so.
All of the ingredients for life are available throughout the observable universe. Not necessarily all. The Will of God is necessary for life to emerge.
There are plenty of Dyson ‘spheres’, they’ve morphed into vacuum cleaners and prefer to be called Dyson balls :)
IF there is life on another planet, why do we always assume it is intelligently advanced beyond life on our planet?
This Dyson Sphere hypothesis appears to have the smell of Sophomore dorm room marijuana in its origins.
Find Alien civilizations out there, what could possibly go wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08TFTAnlnUs&t=148s
Easily, eh? Let's see you do it, Siegel.
Anyone else?
What are these, galactic vacuum cleaners?
Who changes the bag? Oh that’s right; Dysons don’t have bags.
imagine the need for specific raw materials needed for such a monstrosity, entire planets would have to be raped of all their mass, and for what? a civilization advanced enough to build such a thing would also be advanced enough to find a more cost effective method of accomplishing the same goal.
constructs such as dyson spheres are the equivalent of navel gazing, and what-if-hitler-had-won pseudo ingtellectualism
Giving a concept a name does not guarantee that it actually exists in reality.