Yes |
 |
79.2% (224) |
No |
|
20.8% (59) |
Poll: Could a sun still burn underwater? Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT | |
. | |
Assuming the water wouldn't evaporate for the star. (Surface temperature of the sun is about 10,000F/5,600C) The solar flares that would erupt would most certainly be spectacular. The sun runs all on its own, with no outside fuel. Its a self contained fusion powered fireball. So it shouldn't be affected by being underwater. In fact it may burn better considering the heat would instantly separate the water into their base atoms (Hydrogen and Oxygen) both of which are EXTREMELY flammable. | |
Stars form from giant behemoth dust clouds that become so super dense that mass itself "fuses" together in fusion to produce insane amounts of energy. The gravity formed is so intense at this moment that matter itself is converted into energy under the pressure. You cannt have a "mini" sun. Unless a man made pressure tank forces an "artificial" gravity pressure onto matter (what nuclear fusion reactors at the moment do) suns are ALWAYS reletively giant. Sure you could have a larger planet. But suns are SUPERdense at their core. The plannet would be crushed like an egg if the sun wasnt contained or man made, that dense core would crush the matter of the planet into an egg sized lump and consume it if it was THAT close to the planets surface. Not to mention the heat would basically turn the planet into a flaming molten ball of rock. Superheated molten rock. Nothing would survive. Unless man made and man contained (an "escaped" sun would act like a giant hydrogen bomb, same principle but much bigger) the sun would be giant and all consuming. No way a "naked" sun can survive underwater. | |
If you put aside the gravitational pull of the sun, and assume the heat somehow didn't make the water evaporate before the sun is remotely close, let alone be submerged, the fact is that a sun is far more complex then just a giant ball of fire. Sure if you had enough water you could put out anything, but that would require an amount beyond unimaginable. Knocking down a hotel with eggs is more likely then to put out a sun with water on some planet. | |
yes, steampower style, also yes: H2o = also hydrogen molecules and air. so the sun might somehow just use it as fuel. if it ever got close enough XD | |
The sun will probably get pulled apart by the larger gravitational force of your massive water world and you end up with a layer of hydrogen on the surface of the water. You might can get a nuclear reaction on the surface though as the crazy high gravity compresses the hydrogen. | |
Wouldn't the intense light and heat from the Star it self be a better constant source of power? Provided the planet's eco system could handle such a heat source just being dropped onto it If the amount of water on the planet is beyond thousands of times the size of the planet then maybe it might not destroy the eco-system and the planet but might be able to survive in the ocean but if the water is like earths it'll be drawn toward the star's gravity field while constantly evaporating likely killing most of the relatively close sea life. Provided the core of the planet is strong enough to withstand the heat, weight, and gravity of the Star it would just rest on the ocean floor otherwise it could likely weaken the planets core and maybe destroy the planet. Edit: Now if you wanna make like a artificial Star those can have new rules however you want while still being mostly the same like has the same light/heat but none of the mass so it doesn't have a gravity swell around it and such. | |
the bit of astronomy i had in highschool was quite a long time ago, but from what i remember no solid earth like planet could be as large as even the smallest possible star/sun. it would make the transformation to gas giant somewhere looooong before that. | |
If you have access to a sun, why would you worry about using steam for power? I mean you have effectively harnessed the sun to where you can pull it down onto a water planet, in theory you can use it as a power source for the next 5 billion years...... But those would be some really strong radiation suits. | |
Yes, as oxygen and hydrogen make excellent fuel for nuclear fusion. Here's a nice rule of thumb, as long as the atoms that make up the compound are smaller than iron, they make excellent star fuel. To be honest, a water world that large probably already would be a star. | |
The following is not meant cruelly. It is me trying to help you avoid making a humiliating mistake that the internet and pop culture will mock you for. You don't want to do this. It'd be an incredible research fail, for a long list of reasons. It's worse than anything in The Core. You would be embarrassing yourself by doing this. The most important is this: If you have a planet made of water that's bigger than the star (which yours must be to drown the it in the ocean), it would be massive enough to fuse its hydrogen and be a much brighter, hotter star on its own. It would simply absorb the dwarf star. Aside from that, the star's heat would evaporate any water within an area of say, oh, the orbit of Venus. Even if you could have a planet that big that wasn't a star, it would be completely evaporated before the star even got to it. If you had a ridiculous planet the size of Earth's orbit, then it would still eventually evaporate completely and add to the mass of the star, causing the star to become hotter and brighter (which again would bring about the question of why the water planet wasn't a star to begin with). Also, I'm pretty sure that since planets are composed of matter ejected out of a star's uppermost atmosphere and layers when it begins fusing hydrogen, you can't get a planet that's bigger than its own parent star. The smaller star would have to come from outside the system. Again, this is rendered ridiculous in the first place by having such a massive planet without it being a star. Those should be enough. It's a bad idea and you'd be doing yourself a favor by not pursuing it. | |
The water, if it somehow got close enough without evaporating and blowing away (or being of such mass that the gravity turns it into a start itself), would end up being broken apart and used for the nuclear fusion of the star. A star "burns" via nuclear fusion which is caused by a combination of great pressure and heat (caused by said pressure leading to friction.)
Close. Planets and smaller stars are created from a massive star that goes Supernova. This is because Supernovas are the only method of creating atoms heavier than iron. All lighter elements (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon) can be fused to make energy. Fusing iron requires more energy than is created so a star can only fuse such materials when it is dieing IE supernova. | |
Since the sun is burning in a vaccum, the fuel of itself and the explosive force fighting against the gravitational force of its own mass, there's the possibility that it could burn under water. The only obstacle would be, the depth of the water, how long the water would last, because if there were too much applied to the sun, the increased density could outweigh the explosive force of the sun, and cause a blackhole, alternatively, if there were too little water, it wouldn't last very long, and would likely evaporate into space. | |
Shit. Thanks so much for the awesome analysis everyone, I had no idea I'd get this amount of feedback. If I'm not too late to the party, I'l addd in a bit more info considering the large amount of responses. | |
Depends, if by "Sun" the OP means Helios, then yeah it would evaporate, but there are stars out there that aren't very hot when put in perspective. The coldest star known in the universe has been compared to that of a cup of hot coffee. | |
The lovely thing about prophecy is that it doesn't have to be literal. Your burning moon and drowning sun could in fact be an unusually low-on-the-horizon eclipse. | |
yes, | |
Why not have some kind of super heated metor crash into the ocean instead? It would make more sense and nobody would die, maybe, ok marginaly you would have a better chance of everything everywhere not dying. And i'm imagining it looking like a huge cylinder of steam and open space. Perhaps around the upper edge it would look like a giant circular waterfall with steam gushing out.. My brain is weird though, so pay no attention. | |
Easily, Nuclear Fusion reactions require immense heat to start and as long at they perpetuate generate the heat to self sustain providing fuel is available for consumption. We are looking at temperatures on the order of 1 billion kelvin give or take a few orders of magnitude depending on the state of reaction, also the fuel is heavy water, aka deuterium which does occur naturally in small quantities in the ocean. If a minute sun were to spawn in the ocean now the surrounding water would instantly enter the highest energy state of matter, plasma, thus freeing electrons of their bonds. For comparison, you only need to heat water up to about 12000 degrees kelvin to cause it to become plasma. | |
The intense heat would turn the water into steam and then plasma which would be sucked into the sun and then probably be used in fusion. The sun isn't really "burning" in any sense of the word as it is under going fusion not combustion. The planet would most likely be pulled into the sun as it approached and either it would be reduce to plasma and absorbed or it would disrupt the sun in some way before the sun eventually returned to its normal activity of fusion (which is a result of the intense mass of the sun which the absorbed planet would only increase, thus making the sun bigger and hotter.) In short, the sun would simply absorb the planet and you'd get a bigger sun, it wouldn't "go out". | |
The star could be 'born' in the water, at a massive depth the pressure would be high enough to start fusion, but like everyone has said, the star would not be able to approach the water, it would boil and evaporate in seconds, thousands of miles from the star. The star would not go out because of water, it's an explosive release of energy as nuclei combine, it's not a combustion. But there would be no water left by the time the star and planet reach. A giant meteor could be a more likely scenario, if the meteor is the size of say Mercury, and the planets atmosphere was incredibly thin (don't know what the opposite of dense would be) then it would be a similar scenario to a star crashing into the planet | |
First, let me say to count one less from the "No" pile. I missclicked, as I was thinking of "Such thing wouldn't be possible" and went for the negative answer. Yes, I do feel like an idiot now.
This. I wan't certain, but it seems more likely that planets that would be bigger than stars couldn't exist or something like that, although I don't know enough of the impact gravitational pressure has on the object that generates it, a massive force like that could start a nuclear reaction. I mean, our sun is not that large a star and its gravitational field influences things even trillions of miles away from it. That's an insane amount of distance and thus, an insane amount of force is necessary for it to have an impact on things so far away. I think the water would be pulled to the sun as it approaches and then turned to steam as it got close (but wouldn't nearly get close enough to the surface of the sun itself. Also, the planet would burn by the high temperature and then destroyed by the gravitational field of the star. | |
Yes and no, the fusion that makes a star burn is going on deep inside it's core, so even if you manage to cool down the crust it would still keep boiling, it would just look like a hunk of rock. But that's not very exciting so for the sake of sci-fi, let's say the ocean planet and the star have reached a delicate balance where the star evaporates all water on contact that then in turn holds more water back, effectively creating a steady film of vapor/gas around the star that isolates the world from eachother. Just don't let anyone ask about global warming... | |
thats what i was thinking as well.. said ball of water large enough to comfortably contain a star would collapse and form a star itself. that said.. cool to try though :D actually wouldnt a ball of water in space need some sort of shield to keep it from naturally dispersing in vacum? | |
A star isn't on fire, it "burns" through atomic fusion. You don't need oxygen for that. | |
This is correct. A star has the heat and pressure for fusion at its' center, while the surface radiates away the heat. In a red dwarf, there is not much fusion so the surface is fairly cool. A star could even be cold enough on the surface to freeze water. However, if this star is colliding with a planet, both of which are absolutely massive, the energy caused by collision will heat both bodies by many thousands of degrees. That said, the energy released will never be enough for all the steam to escape the gravity well of the two bodies. What you'll end up with is a larger body with even more hydrogen (from the water) and the mass is likely to end up burning brighter than ever. | |
Scientific explanation (roughly) Now, any body of water that can remain a liquid within proximity to the sun defies any kinds of science and would rip logic entirely in two for a sci-fi or fantasy. As the body of water and the star get closer, the molecules in water would start to rip apart at a quantum scale; creating plasma. This would get pulled into the star to feed more fusion reactions. My approach to this odd situation of a submerged sun In this impossible situation, anything is possible. So make it up. I would say the star creates its own singularity and event horizon with the plasma formed from water that was close by, thus creating a barrier of plasma holding back the rest of the water; where the is sun now in harmony with the liquid around it. Anything that passes the horizon gets pulled into the submerged sun and ripped apart. Anything beyond it just feels it's gravitational pull like planets in a solar system, and it's warmth radiating through the defiant liquid. | |
A planet larger than a red giant? If such a thing did even exist, evidence suggest that it would be a gas giant; i.e. existing completely out of water vapour (not liguid) already. All the presence of a star would do is expand the planet once it had been consummed by the gas giant. P.S. I voted "no" for the reason that in this situation you are describing, it's not feasible for there to even be any liquid water for the sun to burn under. P.P.S. I seem to have written down "red dwarf". I have no idea why I did that. I'll correct it now. | |
I disagree with this statement, at least as far as sci-fi goes. I think that fact that science fiction is grounded in actually science makes it that much more involving and wonderful. Moreover, it has the chance to actually teach people something about the way the universe works. | |
If we could somehow transplant the sun underwater, it would certainly still burn, and it would instantly evaporate all of the water with it. | |
It would definitely still burn underwater. The circumstances required to get a star submerged are definitely up for question, but why the hell not. I've never seen or read a sci-fi that doesn't take ludicrous liberties with science, actual science really doesn't let you get away with that much. | |
Based on no research or knowledge of how the sun works I'd say no. I simply assumed the gasses required to perform the chemical reactions to produce heat would no longer occur because of the dilution of the water. | |
I've read of some stars that are thought to be really cool. Like no hotter than your body temperature. So you could pretty much touch it without fear. They are incredibly small, too. Still bigger than a planet, though. If we assume it was a star such as this and say that it is possible for the star to exist in a planet without anything approaching Armageddon occurring, I see no reason that it wouldn't keep burning. It's a fusion reaction, not a fire. I don't even think this would cause steam, though the water would probably be fairly warm.
Actually if this is true (I confess I know next to nothing about nuclear fusion), it would be like a time bomb of sorts. Kinda cool idea. | |
the sun is, what, 5,500C on the surface? as others have said, the water would evaporate LOOOOONG before the sun got close to the water so, no, a sun could not burn underwater. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT | |
So given that a star is nuclear and not chemical, is the answer yes or no?
Because whilst it could burn underwater... there very quickly wouldn't be any water left for it to burn under.