Sorry to bother you with this again. I have posted about this 2 times in the last 6 months already, because it is a fascinating topic and i want to talk about it. The issue is, whether there is renewable energy in the universe (truly renewable). Solar energy is called "renewable" but ultimately the sun will burn out. What then?
I have last time gotten the answers that "it's a stupid question because we have more urgent problems, such as corrupt politics etc.". Frankly, i disagree. This question is of existential importance, because it gives us an outlook into the far future. These perspectives are more valuable than playing 15 minutes of a computer game, which you could do instead of reading this article.
I uploaded a neat PDF here: https://files.catbox.moe/p8tg6i.pdf
Additionally i will copy-paste the article text here.
Spider Web Cosmology
From: https://feddit.org/u/gandalf_der_12te
Date: 2026-07-26
Subject: Renewable energy in a cosmological context
Abstract
In this paper i present a simple and clear approach to extract useful energy out of the cosmic expansion using mithril material wires, i.e. wires with very high Young's modulus and ultimate tensile strength. This energy is renewable, such that it represents a continuous and probably eternal power source.
Introduction and Motivation
The industrial revolution has allowed for a significant growth of humanity. While global population numbers were around 300 million around 1000 CE, it scaled to almost 8 billion by 2000 CE. That is an almost 30-fold increase. This was made possible largely by two inventions: the combustion-engine driven tractor and the natural-gas-based ammonia synthesis. Both consume massive amounts of energy, which mostly came from fossil fuels, which are not renewable. This naturally raises the question of whether humanity will ever run out of energy, which would induce a reversal of this massive growth, i.e. a significant population shrinkage. Related to this is the problem of climate change, i.e. whether there exists a long-lasting energy source that does not poison our own living conditions that we rely on.
Ever since solar energy started around 2020 to become economically competitive, many people have felt deep relief from the anxiety around climate change and the threat that humanity would eventually run out of fuel. However, the sun is predicted to burn out in approximately 10 billion years, and then humanity will have to find a new source of energy. While other stars do exist, those too will eventually run out of energy, with the slowest- burning stars (red dwarf stars) predicted to last for approximately 1000 billion years. Slower-burning stars do not practically exist as they would not be massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion in the first place.
What other sources of energy are there in cosmology? Especially, do sources exist that do not run out after a while, i.e. that are truly renewable?
Scope and Context
This paper uses the insights from general relativity, especially cosmic expansion, and simple mechanics to present a mechanism for renewable power in cosmology. While quantum aspects, such as vacuum energy, are highly interesting and might slightly change the reality, they’re left out of this analysis and regarded as an extra feature of nature that will have to be stacked on top of this one.
Mechanism
The term „spider web cosmology“ is justified if one visualizes the core concepts of this proposal:

An array of wires made from a very thin (lightweight) material called „Mithril“ are laid out throughout the universe, which have extremely high elasticity (Young's modulus), which means they exert force when stretched without significantly changing length.
Living organisms reside at the intersection points. As the intersection points are pulled away from each other over time, the wires between them will be stretched. The force that each wire exerts can then be calculated from Hooke’s law: F=σ⋅A=E⋅ε⋅A , with F being force, σ being stress, E being Young's modulus, ε being axial strain, A being cross-section area.
The mithril wires are chains of small link elements. As the living organisms at the intersection point let the wires contract from time to time, while generating power from that contraction, new link elements are produced and attached to the wire.

The mithril wires have to be produced from new matter that gets produced from a matter-anti-matter pair, that gets produced from the energy harvested from the chain relaxation. In other words, the chain has to release more energy when it relaxes than the rest mass of the mithril chain links.
This is why this mithril material has to be extremely lightweight while still having high Young’s modulus and high ultimate tensile strength. Practically speaking, I’m not entirely sure whether such a material could exist. Using simplifications and a linear model of elasticity, common steel does not have good enough properties for this application.
I will proof this in the following calculation. For this, we have to look at the rest mass of a steel chain link and the energy that can be released when the chain is relaxed by the length of one link element. Let x be the length of one link element.
The work W1 released by the chain is W 1=F⋅x=E⋅ε⋅A⋅x , while the rest mass (rest energy W2) of one chain link is W 2= ρ⋅A⋅x with density ρ, therefore for W1 to be larger than W2 one gets the relation E⋅ε > ρ. Comparing this to the actual values for steel:
- E is around 200 GPa (2·10¹¹ J/m³)
- ρ is around 8 000 kg/m³, equivalent to a rest energy of around 8·10²⁰ J/m³
Therefore, ε would have to be larger than 4·10⁹, i.e. the steel wire would have to stretch to 4 billion times its usual length. However, commercially available steel used in construction typically breaks apart for ε > 3·10⁻³ (Source: Wikipedia). These steel wires would have to have a factor 10¹² higher ultimate tensile strength!!
The judgement is still out on whether a good enough mithril material could hypothetically exist.
Let me be honest: 10 billion years until the sun burns out is a lot. The world seems to change fast these last centuries and it's basically impossible to predict how it's gonna look in 2050. Therefore I believe crafting a solution that on its face seems to be rather impractical, solving something that will only become a problem in the very distant future, using very long theoretical causational links to predict the trend, and assuming the net gain could be worth it is not helpful. It's so far removed from normal science, it reminds me of conspiracy theories like the idea that you can somehow use the Giza pyramids as a power source.
You need to think about frame of reference first: you cannot speculate on what we might have and be able to do in the future. You are assuming a bunch of things, and science doesn't assume, in science you start with the assumption that all of your claims bullshit, and then disprove it. For your theories this will take centuries anyway because there is so many assumptions and some of them will take many papers in order to understand if and how they work.
Some examples:
You are hovering over your assumptions and this is exactly where quack theories live. That's why people are extremely suspicious. Everyone can make up a theory on how generating electricity might be possible in the future using technologies we haven't even invented yet. Sure, we might, but before anyone wants to actually think of that you need to put in the leg work to prove this technology is not only practical but at least one some scale it exists. And you have to do this for all of the things you are assuming.
Let me also stress that no one is annoyed that you think of solutions for problems. People are annoyed because you are the 100th guy dreaming up an incredibly outlandish solution to a problem that doesn't really affect us in any way currently, and then you are winging the parts that scientists spend most of their time on. Lots of math, lots of different ways to confirm the math, field studies, disproving, collaboration, etc., there's so much more to it.
Trust, if there's interesting aspects to it, and you find people outside of your circles that find your theories somewhat plausible, you should try to get a peer-review. And then you probably have to do a bunch of follow up research, but that's how scientific consensus moves: slowly and in tiny chunks.
And even then, we don't need to resort to this kind of stuff to get energy...
First, just move to a different star. Stars will keep forming and keep burning for long, long after our own sun is gone. And some smaller stars can keep going for a ridiculously long time, still outputting plenty of energy for you as long as you're close to it.
Even after the last stars have burned out, you could probably keep a modest, power-efficient civilization going for quite a while on residual heat energy, fission and fusion nuclear reactors, harvesting energy from black hole accretion disks, etc.
Even after that runs out, you may be able to harvest Hawking radiation by orbiting close to a black hole as it slowly evaporates.
And by the time the black holes have all evaporated and even that runs out ... well, that's so far in the future that maybe we should just all agree that we had a good run while it lasted and give up? That's such an unimaginably distant time in the future that the current entire age of the universe would seem like nothing in comparison. Our ~13 billion years we've had so far would be only a tiny invisible sliver at the very beginning of a timeline that long.
uhh, i get your point, but my point wasn't to "build a machine that works". rather, i'm having a mathematical background (personally) and doing an "existence proof" here: i show that something is possible, not that something is efficient or can be easily built. many such proofs exist throughout the field of mathematics, and also physics, to show the consistency or inconsistency of some other, more practical theory. this is often useful because even when you cannot find an object itself, knowing that it must exist can have distinct benefits.
i'm gonna exemplify this with the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. the proof assumes that two natural numbers a and b exist such that sqrt(2) = a / b. Then it derives a contradiction from that and that's how we know that sqrt(2) is irrational. At no point were the numbers a and b ever found. Hence, by your metrics, such a proof is "useless" (because it does not construct a or b). but, the value is not to find a number, but to proof that it does / does not exist. different category of goal here.
Well, there's a big difference between consistency and probability.
In that case you might wanna be careful to point out the very experimental ground this stands on.