Also Presented: N-Ice Theory and the Pop-Fizz Cosmology
I even take a pot-shot at pointing out a candidate spherical hard X-Ray object in the ROSAT sky survey, noting that space is flat most places we look, but over yonder behind the Milky Way's core is a really big hill in space-time, and this thing is right at the heart of it. (See String Basics.)
Important Note, 06NOV19: One of the predictions of the N-Ice Theory and the Pop-Fizz Cosmology is that the universe is not flat, it is an "inflating balloon" white hole. I first pointed this out in letters to physiscists in the early 1970's, and self-published it in my later research reports in 1981 and 1982. I also pointed out that the physical universe is actually constrained to the skin of the balloon in the graphic depiction of the black hole/white hole embedding diagram. This makes it a "finite yet unbounded" universe... simply put, if you take a spaceship in a straight line far enough, you will eventually come back to where you started. Evidence is mounting that the predictions of CCST and it's cosmological foundations in the collapsar process are spot-on. The theory of quantum gravity embraced by CCST and N-Ice Theory also suggests an accelerating expansion rate to the universe. I don't believe any other cosmology has made such predictions. Nature Astronomy published a report on 04NOV19 giving evidence of a closed "inflating balloon" universe. There is another unverified prediction of the model, that looking toward the "neck" of the balloon there should be a shift in the energy-density gradient of space-time... a huge hill in space-time with the N-Ice on top. The galaxies behind this hill are closer to us than the galaxies on top of it, so the background galaxies appear optically larger than the galaxies on the hill which are farther away. I believe such an anomally has been reported in the ROSAT sky survey looking towards the Great Attractor, but the authors did not know what to make of it and glossed it over. (They were surprised they had to use a microscope to count the galaxies in the region.) Curvature of space-time is proportional to the energy-density gradient. It should be higher at the neck of the balloon where the melting N-Ice (core object) resides.
Mysteries Resolved (How CCST Resolves the Great Mysteries of Physics) NEW!
String Basics (Corpuscles of Light: The Ultimate Building Block)
Chemists (Nuclear Structure Intro & Important Stuff.)
Key to Nuclear Models (What am I seeing?)
Nuclear Shells (No, they are not molecules!)
Empirical Laws (The Rules of Nuclear Geometry.)
How to Build Them (Try it, you'll like it!)
Mensuration (Calculating Loop Values.)
Glossary (Terminology of Nuclear Geometry.)
Mirrors, Strings and Manifolds (Cosmological Foundations of CCST. C1994)
The A.S.R.O.C.M. (Is Reality a Simulation?)(Currently being edited.)
3D Viewing (Stereogram Viewing Aids.)
One of the tenets of CCST is that a quantum of light contains a conserved unit of scalar volume. A quantum of light is a string in the time-like dimension. The lower the scaler energy (angular momentum) of a quantum, the larger its volume and vis-versa. Corpuscles of light can be individuals, they can stack into open strings, or they can close into loops such as they would do in a nuclear structure. Where high energy stacked strings of corpuscles collide, a special collision cell forms, a quark, which conserves the properties of the colliding corpuscles while adopting some novel properties of quarks as mirrors that can perform transformative operations on corpuscles of light that impinge on the quark surface. Corpuscles of light come in different flavors of dimensionality and handedness, and interacting with quark surfaces can flip some of these properties in a very lawful way. But it is important to remember that a corpuscle of light can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed to other versions of itself through lawful interactions and processes.
Copyrights 1997, 1999, 2002, 2008, 2016 by Arnold J. Barzydlo
Legal Notes: There have been No Taxpayer Dollars and No Government Grants. All work was written, produced, funded, built, photographed, scanned, edited, copyrighted, HTML-coded, and released by the author. The author retains intellectual property rights and copyrights on this material.
And here is my post regarding this video:
The Karashev Scale itself may not be a bad broad measure of the scope or footprint of a technical civilization, but I think the underlying assumptions of how a technical civilization ascends are deeply flawed. First, they are not producing the energy drawn from stars, they are harvesting it. It is possible to both produce and harvest energy. You don't necessarily have to harvest all of the energy of a host star for your civilization to use the equivalent energy. A technical civilization is likely to discover quantum tunneling vehicles fairly early in their development. This opens the stars and galaxies to them. They aren't going to sit at home building their civilization around their star until they cover it up with a Dyson sphere. This belief probably arises from the author's assumption that faster-than-light travel is impossible, it's not.
I'd also hazard that "ringworlds " are more likely to be produced than Dyson spheres. You are going to have serious dust problems if you pack your civilization into a Dyson sphere, the stars are actually throwing out a lot of dust and ash on the solar wind. You won't have a planetary magnetic field to shunt that dust away, it would land in your Dyson sphere. With a ringworld you could magnetize the ring to keep the dust out. If you wanted to move your ringworld, you could build an additional magnetic structure to send all the dust one way to propel the star in the opposite direction. That calls up another point, energy-use may not be an adequate measure for gauging technical sophistication. Lower level technologies are less efficient, so it takes more energy to drive them. As a technical civilization advances, there may be significant drops in their energy usage as they develop more efficient ways to use it. This may be offset by their growth, somewhat, but it is not a given that all species will maintain expansionism, they may very well arrest their own expansion for stability. The point being that a prolific mid-level civilization in an expansive phase may be consuming vastly more energy than a technical civilization far in advance of them. So, the scale kind of breaks down in actuality because of the flawed assumptions it was built upon. It is a very broad generalization that may not accurately portray the technical sophistication of a population. By this line of thinking, people that drive big gas-guzzling trucks are more technically-sophisticated than people who drive electric motorcycles, because the trucker uses way more energy to travel the same distance. It is obviously a false analogy that I can gauge their technical sophistication by their energy footprint.
It should not be overlooked that more advanced technologies will use energy with much greater efficiency, and unbridled expansionism is a negative quality that destabilizes a civilization. The more territory you seize, the more enemies you are likely to make. Advanced civilizations are likely to curtail expansionism for this reason. The most sophisticated civilizations will likely achieve stability at a particular level of energy usage. The false assumption in the Kardashev Scale here is that unbridled expansionism is the norm for technical civilizations at all levels of development. If we could presume all species lacked wisdom and would not acquire it as they developed, this might be true, but again, it is a false assumption at the foundations of this hypothesis.
Only in the broadest terms can you measure a civilization by its energy footprint. I think there is a much better way to scale technical civilizations, not upon energy use, but on technical sophistication. Consider a type 0 as a people still using their organic bodies as-is, a type 1 as those having discovered FTL and are hybridizing and adapting their organic bodies for new environments, a type 2 as those who have designed new bodies that operate in harsh environments including the vacuum of space, and type 3 that no longer use their bodies but interact directly with their machines. Is there a type 4, and what would it be? I'd hazard a type 4 would dispense with the facade of physical manifestation and be working with the primordial sentience that organizes reality.
I have the hard to spell and easily mispronounced name of a theorist, so obviously I should name this the "Barzydlo Scale."
|If you wish, you may E-Mail Me.
(The domain name Stringtheory.com is not for sale.)