[cgriswald]

If binary star systems were systems in which stars were moved into the system, we should see evidence of stars being moved and consumed. I have also read about stars being created (e.g., starting a fusion process with all the hydrogen and helium in Jupiter, Saturn, etc.).

There is currently no evidence which suggests stars are being moved. We should see either large gravitational tugs or engines such as Shkadov thrusters. The latter should be plainly visible. The former should be easily detected by extrasolar planet detection methods. Unless the tugs are spherical, the light curves of the tugs would definitely pique interest. In any case, moving a star seems a rather extreme and expensive measure. It is probably more effective to consume the star onsite and use the energy locally or send only the energy back.

There seems to be no evidence of stars being consumed, either. Dyson spheres (or swarms) have actually been searched for locally by comparing visible and infrared wavelengths over sections of the sky. None have been found. Intergalactic searches have also been done by looking for galaxies which glow too brightly in the far infrared. No luck.

It is not just a question of a mistaken belief that the artificial is natural. The properties of light are the same here on Earth as they are billions of light years away. Further, for all those galaxies and stars to be engineered in the same way aross billions of light years (with some points being unable to communicate with others since the Big Bang), is all but impossible. Life would have to evolve at effectively the same rate and come up with the same solutions in all those hundreds of billions of galaxies (and yet somehow be different here in the Milky Way). Given the variety of life on Earth and the variety of solutions it has evolved, that seems unlikely.

[blackorzar]

And three more strange ones: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/27/science/sci-planet27

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/kepler...

http://astronomynow.com/2015/05/24/hubble-observes-one-of-a-...

Edit: to include the third link for Nasty1

[blackorzar]

These are my favorite candidates for stars being consumed in our own Milky Way: http://www.space.com/20286-star-whips-around-black-hole-at-r... http://www.space.com/20303-black-hole-star-speed-record.html http://www.space.com/24290-quiet-black-hole-discovery.html

[talmand]

What if these things were done so long ago that we missed our chance to witness them?

[cgriswald]

There are hundreds of billions of galaxies at various distances from Earth. When we look out at those different distances, we are also looking out at time. So we have something of the full spectrum of galactic evolution. Even if these events happened "long ago" we should be witnessing them somewhere.

Locally, if these events happend long ago, surely they would have been here by now, harvesting our star.

[talmand]

That's also assuming such things are being being done on a large scale. My point is that we've only had the capability to see such things recently, while the universe is really old.

I personally just don't like definitive statements when there's no way for us to know the whole story.

[cgriswald]

I am open to the idea that there is evidence we don't have yet, but based on the evidence we do have, the original poster's point doesn't seem likely, even with modification. I understood your point, but as the sibling poster points out, we have the entire history of the universe essentially on display for us.

[talmand]

How can you be open to the idea there is evidence we don't have yet but still make a statement that the entire history of the universe is on display for us?

[JoeAltmaier]

The entire history of the universe spread out before us in light-delayed time sequence is pretty much the definition of "knowing the whole story", right?

[talmand]

I don't believe we have total access to the entirety of the history of the universe for us to observe at will. If somehow we do, please point out an article that explains how it is possible.