On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Lets factor in the material in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud
> also-could change the picture.
The mass estimates I used included the best estimates for those.
> Who's to say that "new" material may not be available
> in higher physical dimensions as described by Rudy Rucker and Clifford
> Pickover? More reasonably, in Saucer Wisdom, Professor Rucker presented his
> 'ala' device which transmutes matter into any form desired. We'll have a
> hundred Petatons of Carbon-60 by next wednesday, mister!
Using normal physics, however, you can breed H & He into structural materials but it takes a long time. I've wondered if we still see stars because they happen to be the best containers for breeding heavier elements.
> While I'm raving; why not postulate new material around other stars that are
> A or B class stars. (if I vaguely remember the Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams)
> and use em' for Dyson shells-no C.O.D.'s please?
O, B & A stars are fine for rapidly breeding heavy materials, and good if you need a lot of energy for computation, but you get it for a much shorter time (millions rather than billions of years). There appear to only be 2 ways to do this -- (a) beam your information over to the new D.S. just before your star blows up/goes out; (b) navigate your star into a close collision with another star and deconstruct & reconstruct your D.S. around the new star. It isn't clear which is more efficient.
> -Spud p.s. The dead Tern tied to my head says "Nevermore" perhaps a
> cryogenic Tern would suffice?
Kind of tough on the teeth, I'd presume.