Timeline for In the shadow of a planet (science fiction)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:17 | vote | accept | St0necr0w | ||
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:45 | vote | accept | St0necr0w | ||
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:45 | |||||
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:45 | vote | accept | St0necr0w | ||
| Apr 27, 2016 at 5:45 | |||||
| Apr 21, 2016 at 17:31 | comment | added | Chloe | @MichaelKarnerfors Never mind, I was thinking of our sun being replaced by a neutron star. Our sun won't turn into a neutron star, so I was thinking of a giant that turned into a neutron, as close as our sun. However, the other points need addressing Mt. Everest would only be 1cm tall on a neutron. Large irregularities may emit gravity waves that could destroy a rocky planet. Also, the star would have expanded and consumed close planets. I believe rocky planets exist in inner orbits. Perhaps it was captured after neutron formation? | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 10:39 | comment | added | MichaelK | @Chloe "A neutron star is not realistic either because the gravity will be so large". Eh, no. There is a huge misconception about things like black holes, neutron stars and such, which is that gravity around them is suddenly multiplied. That is not the case. Gravity still works as normal. If our Sun at this moment was compressed to a black hole or a neutron star, its gravity here would not change one bit. The difference is that since these things are very dense, then you can get very close to their center of gravity. And only then do you begin to have some real problems from gravity. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 8:06 | comment | added | SilverCookies | being tidally locked is not necessarily a problem; but I'm not even sure about that since a neutron star is so small and radiative the planet can still be somewhat far from it. Your second point does not stand since we have found exoplanet around neutron stars (search Pulsar planet). Also the planet could be a captured rouge planet, I'm sure for wanting to put a mining station on such an though spot the OP will surely have something interesting on the planet that justifies the choice | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 3:27 | comment | added | Chloe | If it is a heavy mass star like a neutron star the planet will be tidal locked and will not rotate. Only one side will face the star, always. A neutron star is not realistic either because the gravity will be so large, even as far away as an orbiting planet. I think the gravity waves/tidal forces will even break up nearby planets. The neutron star will have burned off the rocky planets when it went supernova and collapsed (not sure about the supernova for neutron stars, but stars do grow and consume their planets as their fuel runs out. The sun will consume the earth.) | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 16:40 | history | edited | SilverCookies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 102 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2016 at 16:08 | history | answered | SilverCookies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |