Hi Strange,
Thank you for your comment. Sorry I did not reply yesterday, I was too busy. Basically you are repeating the same mistakes as before, and namely posting the criticism without reading the source.
>1. The discussion you link to is about hiding a single Dyson sphere by pumping all the excess heat to, say, another nearby planet.
I provided link to this discussion because it contains calculations of Dyson sphere surface temperature made by Rod Vance (what I specified in my post). These calculations show that for DS with the size of Pluto orbit the temperature would be 0.01 of Sun surface or about 60 degrees.
>2. And as you are assuming that there are 5 times as many of these spheres as there are visible stares, that would be readily detectable.
Can you provide any link (or reference to offline article) that supports your statement that object with temperature about 60 K on the distance of several light years would be "readily detectable" by their radiation? (Yes, we detect exoplanets, but by their gravity, not by radiation.) If you cannot prove this, your comment becomes incorrect and misleading.
>3. So now you have twice as much chance of detecting them: gravitational lensing...
The gravitational lensing detection of DS was analyzes in details in the article published on IntellectualArchive.com .
Basically, gravitational lensing researches expected the lambda-shaped graphs (like letter "A"), since the size of objects (brown dwarfs, black holes, planets etc.) are small and their "shadows" rarely influence the brightness of stars passing behind them. The DS have much bigger size and therefore were excluded from the objects detected by A-shaped graph of star brightness, which microlens researchers looked for. For DS we can expect the M-shaped or even U-shaped graph of star brightness when it travels behind the DS.
These graphs were not analyzed by gravitational lensing researches. However with their material they can make this analysis and confirm the DS existence or absence.
>4. And you think this is simpler than the rather mundane idea of yet another type of particle that does not interact with other matter?
Absolutely. If there is nothing that contradicts the DS explanation of hidden masses - we definitely do not need to introduce new type of matter, which is not detectable and which has the only purpose - to reconciliate the math.
Question is – does astronomy have material of observations that rejects the DS explanation? The mentioned article on www.IntellectualArchive.com is merely question, not statement.
>5.Teeny-weeny aliens taking energy away from atomic nuclei?
No comments, sorry.