3 ms·

To accelerate stars, you squeeze them until a jet of matter comes out in the opposing direction. For ideas on getting matter out of stars, see "star lifting".

To accelerate stars, you squeeze them until a jet of matter comes out in the opposing direction. For ideas on getting matter out of stars, see "star lifting". Furthermore, most of the useful energy in stars is not their nuclear binding energy, it is their potential as gravitational fuel, for example when added into a black hole via the Penrose process. It makes sense to accelerate stars toward the central dwelling place of intelligent life, even if the stars have burned out by the time they get there.

maxerickson 8y ago
How silly. Saying we don't know how to move a star is exactly the same as saying "you just squeeze it", right up until the point you actually go out there and actually fucking squeeze it.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  But, please, go squeeze some other star
- Eliezer 8y ago
  I was on mobile so didn't have the time to post a link to more than "search on star lifting", but now that I'm off mobile, have a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting EDIT: more material directly on moving stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine https://www.dynamical-systems.org/zwicky/stellarengines.pdf https://www.dynamical-systems.org/zwicky/stellarengines.pdf
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    You've also removed the part where you called those pontifications "engineering". edit: No, seriously, the initial comment shat on the author of the link for not knowing anything about mega-engineering. That's what I was calling silly.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      People need to stop abusing the term “engineering.” This is dungeons and dragons fantasy with s bit of math for color.
      - abecedarius 8y ago
        If you like, you can reserve the term "engineering" for detailed currently-implementable designs (or for work by a licensed professional engineer, or whatever). But that doesn't mean it's impossible or useless to explore what's conservatively doable within the laws of physics using resources we don't yet have.
- bookofjoe 8y ago
  "A chemistry is performed..."—Elizabeth Holmes

maxerickson 8y ago

How silly. Saying we don't know how to move a star is exactly the same as saying "you just squeeze it", right up until the point you actually go out there and actually fucking squeeze it.

Taniwha 8y ago
But, please, go squeeze some other star
Eliezer 8y ago
I was on mobile so didn't have the time to post a link to more than "search on star lifting", but now that I'm off mobile, have a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting EDIT: more material directly on moving stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine https://www.dynamical-systems.org/zwicky/stellarengines.pdf https://www.dynamical-systems.org/zwicky/stellarengines.pdf
- maxerickson 8y ago
  You've also removed the part where you called those pontifications "engineering". edit: No, seriously, the initial comment shat on the author of the link for not knowing anything about mega-engineering. That's what I was calling silly.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    People need to stop abusing the term “engineering.” This is dungeons and dragons fantasy with s bit of math for color.
    - abecedarius 8y ago
      If you like, you can reserve the term "engineering" for detailed currently-implementable designs (or for work by a licensed professional engineer, or whatever). But that doesn't mean it's impossible or useless to explore what's conservatively doable within the laws of physics using resources we don't yet have.
bookofjoe 8y ago
"A chemistry is performed..."—Elizabeth Holmes