How could a planet have a sky without stars at night?
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
I'm looking for some kind of natural phenomena that would hide the stars, but allow the sun to rise and fall as normal. The atmosphere and day/night cycles should be unaffected.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space, and is located relative near to our solar system. So that travelers from Earth make first contact to a modern society that had no idea there was an outer space.
This can be a solar system with only one planet.
space astronomy solar-system galactic
|
show 5 more comments
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
I'm looking for some kind of natural phenomena that would hide the stars, but allow the sun to rise and fall as normal. The atmosphere and day/night cycles should be unaffected.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space, and is located relative near to our solar system. So that travelers from Earth make first contact to a modern society that had no idea there was an outer space.
This can be a solar system with only one planet.
space astronomy solar-system galactic
10
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
14
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
30
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
2
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
2
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
I'm looking for some kind of natural phenomena that would hide the stars, but allow the sun to rise and fall as normal. The atmosphere and day/night cycles should be unaffected.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space, and is located relative near to our solar system. So that travelers from Earth make first contact to a modern society that had no idea there was an outer space.
This can be a solar system with only one planet.
space astronomy solar-system galactic
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
I'm looking for some kind of natural phenomena that would hide the stars, but allow the sun to rise and fall as normal. The atmosphere and day/night cycles should be unaffected.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space, and is located relative near to our solar system. So that travelers from Earth make first contact to a modern society that had no idea there was an outer space.
This can be a solar system with only one planet.
space astronomy solar-system galactic
space astronomy solar-system galactic
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
cgTag
1,341416
1,341416
10
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
14
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
30
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
2
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
2
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
10
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
14
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
30
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
2
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
2
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday
10
10
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
14
14
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
30
30
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
2
2
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
2
2
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
19 Answers
19
active
oldest
votes
Dust cloud.
The star may be residing in a dust cloud with no other stars nearby. This interstellar dust will create a faint nighttime glow, and can be thick enough that no other star's light can be visible on the planet.
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Perhaps their planet is on the inside of a giant Dyson sphere that was created by an ancient civilization.
This would be a vast solid shell that surrounds their entire solar system, the inside of which is covered with solar panels in order to collect as near as possible to 100% of the energy output of their sun. Naturally, this would block their view of the rest of the galaxy as well.
As for why the ancient civilization who built it left this one planet on the inside, that's up to you to decide. Maybe they saw that it had some life forms that might potentially develop intelligence some day and didn't want to just kill them off, so they left them where they were, while dismantling all the rest of the planets in the system to build the sphere?
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
One possibility is for the surface of the planet to be covered in highly luminous matter. Perhaps all the surface is an interconnected network of bioluminescent life.
There is no moon (assumed because you make no mention) and the high levels of light pollution at night will blot the stars out.
You could combine with a naturally hazy atmosphere and cloud cover to a) further blot the stars and b) reflect all that light pollution back to the surface, further brightening it at night.
Normal urban terrestrial light pollution (before and during the great 2003 Northeast Blackout) to give you an idea:
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
It is never night.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/midnight-sun-in-scandinavia-1626397
Your people live on the north pole of a tidally locked planet. Like the countries near the north pole on our planet, in summer the sun never sets. It is always summer for your people.
Why do they only live near the pole? Maybe it is hot farther south. Maybe there are scratchy monsters. Maybe there is no land to live on.
Maybe they are afraid of the dark.
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
add a comment |
The laziest answer is to just wait a while. If you wait an incomprehensibly-long while, eventually the expansion of the universe will move all currently near-by light generating bodies outside of our visual distance.
In other words, civilizations in the far-future may never realize that anything other than their own sun exists, because nothing else is close enough to interact with anymore. This video has a nice overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4vb-KH5F4
New contributor
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
add a comment |
there are many ways. especially if it's just you don't see the stars.
there could be a constant storm like on Jupiter and in 'All Summer In a Day' by Ray Bradbury.
Venus has an atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet.
basically, clouds covering the entire planet would do the trick.
'light pollution' would also make it so the stars can't be seen because the ground is so bright.
Night Sky in Las Vegas Which is always full of light especially at night
vs the Idaho dark sky preserve
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
It depends on what you mean by "our part" of the galaxy. If you point yourself in the direction of Sagittarius and travel a mere 2600 light years you will find yourself smack in the middle of the Great Rift, which is the dark patch you see covering the Milky Way.
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/the-great-rift-in-the-milky-way
This is an area where new stars are formed, but obviously the dust is thick enough that we cannot see through it in the visible spectrum. It seems plausible that there could be star systems in that large area where the dust is thick enough that no other star is visible.
Note that the "thick" dust is by Earth surface standards extremely dilute and would be considered a high-quality vacuum. It's only the fact that there are light years of the stuff that make it hard to see through.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space.
You might wish to research how the "space cloud" and "planet that doesn't know about space" tropes have been done before. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceClouds and https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Krikkit may be useful.
add a comment |
The sun takes up about half a degree in Earth's sky. Stars are less than one ten thousandths of that. If atmospheric blurring were to blur a star one hundredth of a degree, their light would be spread over an area hundreds of times larger, making them practically invisible, while the effect on the sun will be minuscule.
add a comment |
It's part of a rogue solar system ejected from any galaxy, somewhere in the middle of a large intergalactic void.
No stars would be visible until the inhabitants developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to be able to see the faint light of distant galaxies.
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
add a comment |
I don't know if that counts or not as 'affecting/messing with atmosphere', but I've decided to reply anyway.
There's a layer of gas in the atmosphere that diffuses the light.
Light is still capable of passing, but it is randomly diffused before getting into the surface of the planet. The day would still be very well illuminated, but they wouldn't see the sun itself: they wouldn't see a bright ball up in the sky as the source of such illumination. As for the night, no stars, and darkness.
If there's a moon, the same thing from the day will happen: one won't be able to see moon itself, and a far lower intensity light reaches the surface, faintly illuminating the surface.
add a comment |
The people have eyes that only see sharp nearby. Everything is blurry to them on (very) long distance. It would not be too much of a disadvantage in normal life, but it would prevent them from seeing stars. Only after they develop reliable lenses, they would discover that stars exist.
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
add a comment |
The sun is a star, but I know what you mean. Here are some other options:
- Multiple suns (such as Asimov's "Nightfall")
- One sun, and many moons
- Large amounts of very white (or reflective) dust, which reflects sunlight around the atmosphere.
- Underground or underwater societies.
- Regular volcanic eruptions causing volcanic ash in the atmosphere (or anything else in the atmosphere)
- Monsters that come out at sunset
- taboo/superstition/religion
- Your planet might be near a black hole, causing gravitational lensing, an accretion disk, unusually high speed orbits, and jets coming from the poles.
add a comment |
Most of the answers so far seem to be ignoring the requirements that there be sunset or that the atmosphere behave differently.
A large dust cloud surrounding the solar system seems like the most reasonable way to achieve what you want since it doesn't directly affect anything within it. Its origin and how long it will persist are for you to work out.
But whatever solution you decide on, it sounds like the driving force in the story will be the reaction of those people to this new revelation. If so, make sure you come up with something new and don't appear to be copying how society reacted in Asimov's "Nightfall" (which used multiple suns to make total darkness almost impossible).
New contributor
add a comment |
First idea: Their visual organs use a different method of "seeing".
You could make it so that your planet's inhabitants can't see, or some variant thereof.
I don't mean to say that the people are blind, but rather they have other organs that can "see" that would serve a similar purpose, but might seem magical to us. For example, if they were to inspect a sheet of paper, they might be able to easily detect tiny folds and creases in the paper, while the image on the sheet would be invisible to them.
To them, a pure-white rabbit on pure-white snow stands out clearly, whereas the pictures and text of a highway billboard sign are hidden to them, precisely because there is no "three-dimensional-ness" to distinguish the images from the board itself.
To them, the sky might look perfectly flat (or maybe even perfectly dome-shaped). As for their sun, they can either perceive it using another sense, or maybe its special case of being abnormally huge (compared to anything else they are familiar with) is enough to make them perceive it.
(If you can see those 3-D stereo images, you might understand what I'm getting at. When you succeed in seeing those images, you'll notice that you're perceiving three-dimensional shapes instead of colors. A starry sky wouldn't work too well in those 3-D stereo images, but a sun in the middle of the sky might.)
This could be similar to sonar; for example, a dolphin could detect a sheet of paper in the water no matter how dark or murky its surroundings -- however, it wouldn't be able to use sonar to perceive the picture drawn on the sheet of paper.
Second idea: Their visual organs perceive different wavelengths of light than ours do.
The inhabitants could have eyes (or similar organs), but see a different spectrum of light than us. And it just so happens that 99.9% of stars in the universe display light in the parts of the spectrum they can't see.
Their sun, however, is one of those 0.1% of stars that they can see.
You could even say that they evolved/adapted the ability to see their sun's light precisely because it comes from their own sun. (So why have a need to see other light?)
New contributor
add a comment |
If you are on an isolated star in the middle of the Boötes Void (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void) you would not see a single star or galaxy with the naked eye.
BTW - have you ever read Iain M. Banks' Against A Dark Background?
New contributor
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Since many good physical explanations were given, let me provide some lateral thinking sort of answer.
The reason there are no stars is that they live in a giant simulated universe and there's not enough processing power and memory to simulate a full universe, just that solar system with just that one planet. So the sky is dark at night. The humans which are visiting are in fact those running the simulator.
add a comment |
I would suggest that their solar system is passing through a relatively very dense dust cloud in interstellar space, as others have suggested.
Their solar system would have been passing through it for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, long enough that the intelligent beings living there have no possible way to remember that their pre-intelligent ancestors ever saw stars in the sky.
The gravity of their star system has been pulling in the interstellar dust so that there is a clear cylinder of space pointing out of the dust cloud back the way they came. So that direction should point out toward intergalactic space with only a few stars in their galaxy and no globular star clusters, other galaxies, or intergalactic stars in the light of sight.
The in falling dust doesn't fall all the way to the star, however. At at certain distance range light from the star and particles in the stellar wind from the star hit most of the in falling particles and bounce them back out a bit before they fall back and are bounced out again. Thus there is a relatively dense shell of dust particles at the outer edge of the star system, dense enough to block all light that comes in through the clear cylinder of space and hide the relatively few stars that would have been visible through it.
The inhabited planet could be the only planet in its star system. But maybe there used to be two large planetoids or asteroids orbiting outside the orbit of the inhabited planet, worlds that collided and shattered into dust. Thus there could be an inner dust ring around the star outside the orbit of the planet, a dust ring that might also help to block out the light from the stars.
The atmosphere of the planet should be similar enough to Earth's for the natives, and maybe visiting earthlings, to breath without problems. But the atmosphere doesn't have to be identical to Earth's.
The atmosphere could be naturally foggier, or dustier, or something, than Earth's, thus making it slightly less transparent. And the intelligent natives might be greatly polluting their atmosphere and making it less transparent.
And if the planet has a slightly smaller surface gravity than Earth's, and a slightly higher atmospheric pressure at the surface than Earth's, the atmosphere will extend a bit higher than Earth's. Thus there were be more atmosphere for the light from the stars to pass through and be dimmed than on Earth.
It is possible that there are bioluminescent organisms on land or sea or perhaps in the air that emit a faint glow in most parts of that world. And if the atmosphere is foggier or cloudier at night that glow will be reflected down to the surface, further hiding the stars.
And of course in the cities of the intelligent natives and their suburbs artificial lighting may increase the light pollution as it does on Earth, hiding the stars even more.
The intelligent natives may depend mainly on echolocation and less on their vision, which might not be as good as human vision. And perhaps they have evolved a slightly more close range and less long range visual focus, for fine handiwork, making it slightly harder for them to see the stars.
Aquatic aliens, such as intelligent cephalopods or cetaceans, might have good vision in water but not so good in air and might not be able to see the stars.
And some combination of several of the above factors may prevent the aliens from seeing the stars, whether humans with possibly superior vision can see the stars from the alien planet or the stars are equally hidden from humans.
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You could toy around with the idea that your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian Point of a very large, non-reflective planet. As the society's planet orbits on its axis and brings the society to their own planet's dark side, they would see only the large dark planet in their sky, which would appear to them only as pitch black.
However, there is a significant window of time (particularly around sunrise and sunset) where they could still see the dark of night (including the stars) which is not covered by the large dark planet. If you're daring, you could make the dark planet a very non-dense, stretched out object that acts as a sort of visual shield around the dark side of the society's planet.
Sure, having such a large object in a non-spherical shape seems like a stretch, but maybe there are some special cases in this universe where that could happen. (After all, we already have Saturn, whose rings are quite visibly wider than Jupiter itself, but definitely not spherical.) Maybe the large, un-dense planet could have a large set of (seemingly solid) pitch-black rings. Or maybe it could have some other sort of shape anomaly more common than planetary rings, but that we're not familiar with simply because no planet in our own solar system happens to have it.
To put it another way, if Saturn didn't exist, we wouldn't have all those pretty artistic night-sky renderings with ringed planets (despite the fact that ringed planets do exist outside our solar system). So what other pretty astronomical sights are we not including in our artistic night-sky renderings, simply because they don't exist in our solar system, making us not aware of them?
In other words, just because something is planet-sized, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shaped like a sphere.
Some ancient civilizations (here on Earth) thought that our sky was literally a dome. So maybe your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian point of a non-light-reflecting partial dome.
New contributor
add a comment |
The population have rigid necks that won't allow them to look up. Or they only see in infrared, therefore they likely wouldn't be able to see the
New contributor
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135411%2fhow-could-a-planet-have-a-sky-without-stars-at-night%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
19 Answers
19
active
oldest
votes
19 Answers
19
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Dust cloud.
The star may be residing in a dust cloud with no other stars nearby. This interstellar dust will create a faint nighttime glow, and can be thick enough that no other star's light can be visible on the planet.
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Dust cloud.
The star may be residing in a dust cloud with no other stars nearby. This interstellar dust will create a faint nighttime glow, and can be thick enough that no other star's light can be visible on the planet.
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Dust cloud.
The star may be residing in a dust cloud with no other stars nearby. This interstellar dust will create a faint nighttime glow, and can be thick enough that no other star's light can be visible on the planet.
Dust cloud.
The star may be residing in a dust cloud with no other stars nearby. This interstellar dust will create a faint nighttime glow, and can be thick enough that no other star's light can be visible on the planet.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Alexander
19.1k43173
19.1k43173
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
12
12
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
An answer that Hactar would be proud of
– Chronocidal
yesterday
26
26
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
@jpmc26 consider the people on the planet. The "glow" wouldn't be anything interesting really, just a dark gray (almost black). With nothing to compare it to, this would just be normal, and they wouldn't know that that 'glow' isn't normal.
– Riker
yesterday
3
3
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
@jpmc26 The main reason we're pushing for space travel is the prospect of eventually reaching the stars and either finding other planets to live on, or finding other beings like us to interact with. We already know we can't live on the sun, so if it was the only celestial object we knew about we'd be a lot less interested in space travel.
– IndigoFenix
yesterday
12
12
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
@jpmc26 - uniformity. Our sky has bright points within black, in an uneven distribution. That creates curiosity - what are these points? What does it mean? Does their distribution mean something (e.g. star signs)? -- a uniform grey would not spark such curiosity.
– Tom
yesterday
3
3
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
Didn't Douglas Adams already come up with this answer?
– T.E.D.
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Perhaps their planet is on the inside of a giant Dyson sphere that was created by an ancient civilization.
This would be a vast solid shell that surrounds their entire solar system, the inside of which is covered with solar panels in order to collect as near as possible to 100% of the energy output of their sun. Naturally, this would block their view of the rest of the galaxy as well.
As for why the ancient civilization who built it left this one planet on the inside, that's up to you to decide. Maybe they saw that it had some life forms that might potentially develop intelligence some day and didn't want to just kill them off, so they left them where they were, while dismantling all the rest of the planets in the system to build the sphere?
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Perhaps their planet is on the inside of a giant Dyson sphere that was created by an ancient civilization.
This would be a vast solid shell that surrounds their entire solar system, the inside of which is covered with solar panels in order to collect as near as possible to 100% of the energy output of their sun. Naturally, this would block their view of the rest of the galaxy as well.
As for why the ancient civilization who built it left this one planet on the inside, that's up to you to decide. Maybe they saw that it had some life forms that might potentially develop intelligence some day and didn't want to just kill them off, so they left them where they were, while dismantling all the rest of the planets in the system to build the sphere?
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Perhaps their planet is on the inside of a giant Dyson sphere that was created by an ancient civilization.
This would be a vast solid shell that surrounds their entire solar system, the inside of which is covered with solar panels in order to collect as near as possible to 100% of the energy output of their sun. Naturally, this would block their view of the rest of the galaxy as well.
As for why the ancient civilization who built it left this one planet on the inside, that's up to you to decide. Maybe they saw that it had some life forms that might potentially develop intelligence some day and didn't want to just kill them off, so they left them where they were, while dismantling all the rest of the planets in the system to build the sphere?
Perhaps their planet is on the inside of a giant Dyson sphere that was created by an ancient civilization.
This would be a vast solid shell that surrounds their entire solar system, the inside of which is covered with solar panels in order to collect as near as possible to 100% of the energy output of their sun. Naturally, this would block their view of the rest of the galaxy as well.
As for why the ancient civilization who built it left this one planet on the inside, that's up to you to decide. Maybe they saw that it had some life forms that might potentially develop intelligence some day and didn't want to just kill them off, so they left them where they were, while dismantling all the rest of the planets in the system to build the sphere?
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Admiral Jota
740214
740214
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
3
3
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
Paint the inner surface matte black and you have a winner. It's not a natural phenomena, but a decent alternative. Well done!
– JBH
yesterday
9
9
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
For the (relatively) primitive people on the planet, it is a natural phenomenon! It's literally the edge of the universe!
– elemtilas
yesterday
3
3
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
You don't have to paint the surface of the dyson sphere black if it has 100% (or even 99%+) efficient solar panels on it, since very little of the light would be reflected.
– ltmauve
yesterday
5
5
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
@n0rd I think it's reasonable to posit that by the time a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere it has figured out such pesky details.
– chrylis
yesterday
3
3
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
An advanced dyson sphere would also be a perfect reason why the future earthlings would be interested in that specific system and travel all the way there. Only to be confused and let down by the more primitive inhabitants, and no super intelligent life left.
– Virusbomb
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
One possibility is for the surface of the planet to be covered in highly luminous matter. Perhaps all the surface is an interconnected network of bioluminescent life.
There is no moon (assumed because you make no mention) and the high levels of light pollution at night will blot the stars out.
You could combine with a naturally hazy atmosphere and cloud cover to a) further blot the stars and b) reflect all that light pollution back to the surface, further brightening it at night.
Normal urban terrestrial light pollution (before and during the great 2003 Northeast Blackout) to give you an idea:
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
One possibility is for the surface of the planet to be covered in highly luminous matter. Perhaps all the surface is an interconnected network of bioluminescent life.
There is no moon (assumed because you make no mention) and the high levels of light pollution at night will blot the stars out.
You could combine with a naturally hazy atmosphere and cloud cover to a) further blot the stars and b) reflect all that light pollution back to the surface, further brightening it at night.
Normal urban terrestrial light pollution (before and during the great 2003 Northeast Blackout) to give you an idea:
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
One possibility is for the surface of the planet to be covered in highly luminous matter. Perhaps all the surface is an interconnected network of bioluminescent life.
There is no moon (assumed because you make no mention) and the high levels of light pollution at night will blot the stars out.
You could combine with a naturally hazy atmosphere and cloud cover to a) further blot the stars and b) reflect all that light pollution back to the surface, further brightening it at night.
Normal urban terrestrial light pollution (before and during the great 2003 Northeast Blackout) to give you an idea:
One possibility is for the surface of the planet to be covered in highly luminous matter. Perhaps all the surface is an interconnected network of bioluminescent life.
There is no moon (assumed because you make no mention) and the high levels of light pollution at night will blot the stars out.
You could combine with a naturally hazy atmosphere and cloud cover to a) further blot the stars and b) reflect all that light pollution back to the surface, further brightening it at night.
Normal urban terrestrial light pollution (before and during the great 2003 Northeast Blackout) to give you an idea:
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
elemtilas
11.3k22655
11.3k22655
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
6
6
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
@Alexander I believe that's why bioluminescent life was mentioned.
– Andon
yesterday
1
1
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
@Andon bioluminescent life needs to be spread quite universally, leaving no big gaps at polar regions, deserts, mountain regions etc.
– Alexander
yesterday
3
3
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
@Alexander -- exactly as I said...
– elemtilas
yesterday
2
2
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
I like how the house has lights on during the blackout so big that it makes the stars visible.
– jpmc26
yesterday
2
2
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
@jpmc26 Candles?
– gerrit
yesterday
|
show 6 more comments
It is never night.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/midnight-sun-in-scandinavia-1626397
Your people live on the north pole of a tidally locked planet. Like the countries near the north pole on our planet, in summer the sun never sets. It is always summer for your people.
Why do they only live near the pole? Maybe it is hot farther south. Maybe there are scratchy monsters. Maybe there is no land to live on.
Maybe they are afraid of the dark.
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
add a comment |
It is never night.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/midnight-sun-in-scandinavia-1626397
Your people live on the north pole of a tidally locked planet. Like the countries near the north pole on our planet, in summer the sun never sets. It is always summer for your people.
Why do they only live near the pole? Maybe it is hot farther south. Maybe there are scratchy monsters. Maybe there is no land to live on.
Maybe they are afraid of the dark.
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
add a comment |
It is never night.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/midnight-sun-in-scandinavia-1626397
Your people live on the north pole of a tidally locked planet. Like the countries near the north pole on our planet, in summer the sun never sets. It is always summer for your people.
Why do they only live near the pole? Maybe it is hot farther south. Maybe there are scratchy monsters. Maybe there is no land to live on.
Maybe they are afraid of the dark.
It is never night.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/midnight-sun-in-scandinavia-1626397
Your people live on the north pole of a tidally locked planet. Like the countries near the north pole on our planet, in summer the sun never sets. It is always summer for your people.
Why do they only live near the pole? Maybe it is hot farther south. Maybe there are scratchy monsters. Maybe there is no land to live on.
Maybe they are afraid of the dark.
answered yesterday
Willk
102k25195428
102k25195428
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
add a comment |
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
4
4
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
Even better: a planet orbits the barycenter of a binary system within the binary's orbit, each face of the planet illuminated.
– B.fox
yesterday
4
4
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
There are a bunch of these nightless planet schemes here. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/135219/…
– Willk
yesterday
2
2
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
I'd point out that the OP specifically requests a day/night cycle.
– James♦
yesterday
1
1
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
@James - the sun in arctic summer does rise and fall as normal. Nighttime is just not as dark, because there is a midnight sun.
– Willk
20 hours ago
add a comment |
The laziest answer is to just wait a while. If you wait an incomprehensibly-long while, eventually the expansion of the universe will move all currently near-by light generating bodies outside of our visual distance.
In other words, civilizations in the far-future may never realize that anything other than their own sun exists, because nothing else is close enough to interact with anymore. This video has a nice overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4vb-KH5F4
New contributor
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
add a comment |
The laziest answer is to just wait a while. If you wait an incomprehensibly-long while, eventually the expansion of the universe will move all currently near-by light generating bodies outside of our visual distance.
In other words, civilizations in the far-future may never realize that anything other than their own sun exists, because nothing else is close enough to interact with anymore. This video has a nice overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4vb-KH5F4
New contributor
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
add a comment |
The laziest answer is to just wait a while. If you wait an incomprehensibly-long while, eventually the expansion of the universe will move all currently near-by light generating bodies outside of our visual distance.
In other words, civilizations in the far-future may never realize that anything other than their own sun exists, because nothing else is close enough to interact with anymore. This video has a nice overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4vb-KH5F4
New contributor
The laziest answer is to just wait a while. If you wait an incomprehensibly-long while, eventually the expansion of the universe will move all currently near-by light generating bodies outside of our visual distance.
In other words, civilizations in the far-future may never realize that anything other than their own sun exists, because nothing else is close enough to interact with anymore. This video has a nice overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4vb-KH5F4
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Nick
1892
1892
New contributor
New contributor
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
add a comment |
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
6
6
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
:D equating "a while" with "incomprehensibly long while" Good answer though.
– AMADANON Inc.
yesterday
5
5
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
Gravity holds galaxies together. Expansion of the universe will not break up galaxies, unless you go for the big rip scenario, but that would probably make some kind of ultimate doomsday story...
– hyde
yesterday
1
1
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
hard for earth to be nearby in that case, though
– Sdarb
yesterday
add a comment |
there are many ways. especially if it's just you don't see the stars.
there could be a constant storm like on Jupiter and in 'All Summer In a Day' by Ray Bradbury.
Venus has an atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet.
basically, clouds covering the entire planet would do the trick.
'light pollution' would also make it so the stars can't be seen because the ground is so bright.
Night Sky in Las Vegas Which is always full of light especially at night
vs the Idaho dark sky preserve
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
add a comment |
there are many ways. especially if it's just you don't see the stars.
there could be a constant storm like on Jupiter and in 'All Summer In a Day' by Ray Bradbury.
Venus has an atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet.
basically, clouds covering the entire planet would do the trick.
'light pollution' would also make it so the stars can't be seen because the ground is so bright.
Night Sky in Las Vegas Which is always full of light especially at night
vs the Idaho dark sky preserve
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
add a comment |
there are many ways. especially if it's just you don't see the stars.
there could be a constant storm like on Jupiter and in 'All Summer In a Day' by Ray Bradbury.
Venus has an atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet.
basically, clouds covering the entire planet would do the trick.
'light pollution' would also make it so the stars can't be seen because the ground is so bright.
Night Sky in Las Vegas Which is always full of light especially at night
vs the Idaho dark sky preserve
there are many ways. especially if it's just you don't see the stars.
there could be a constant storm like on Jupiter and in 'All Summer In a Day' by Ray Bradbury.
Venus has an atmosphere made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet.
basically, clouds covering the entire planet would do the trick.
'light pollution' would also make it so the stars can't be seen because the ground is so bright.
Night Sky in Las Vegas Which is always full of light especially at night
vs the Idaho dark sky preserve
answered yesterday
Rowyn Alloway
5111214
5111214
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
add a comment |
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
6
6
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
I don't think those photos are proper comparisons though. Each would be made to highlight the subject of the photo so would have different settings wrt aperture, exposure time, etc.
– ratchet freak
yesterday
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
@ratchetfreak: You're correct that this isn't a completely fair comparison, however, if you were to go to those two places you would see a clear difference between how many stars you see in the sky. It really is striking how many stars you can see when you get somewhere with a truly dark sky.
– Jack Aidley
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
It depends on what you mean by "our part" of the galaxy. If you point yourself in the direction of Sagittarius and travel a mere 2600 light years you will find yourself smack in the middle of the Great Rift, which is the dark patch you see covering the Milky Way.
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/the-great-rift-in-the-milky-way
This is an area where new stars are formed, but obviously the dust is thick enough that we cannot see through it in the visible spectrum. It seems plausible that there could be star systems in that large area where the dust is thick enough that no other star is visible.
Note that the "thick" dust is by Earth surface standards extremely dilute and would be considered a high-quality vacuum. It's only the fact that there are light years of the stuff that make it hard to see through.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space.
You might wish to research how the "space cloud" and "planet that doesn't know about space" tropes have been done before. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceClouds and https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Krikkit may be useful.
add a comment |
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
It depends on what you mean by "our part" of the galaxy. If you point yourself in the direction of Sagittarius and travel a mere 2600 light years you will find yourself smack in the middle of the Great Rift, which is the dark patch you see covering the Milky Way.
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/the-great-rift-in-the-milky-way
This is an area where new stars are formed, but obviously the dust is thick enough that we cannot see through it in the visible spectrum. It seems plausible that there could be star systems in that large area where the dust is thick enough that no other star is visible.
Note that the "thick" dust is by Earth surface standards extremely dilute and would be considered a high-quality vacuum. It's only the fact that there are light years of the stuff that make it hard to see through.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space.
You might wish to research how the "space cloud" and "planet that doesn't know about space" tropes have been done before. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceClouds and https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Krikkit may be useful.
add a comment |
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
It depends on what you mean by "our part" of the galaxy. If you point yourself in the direction of Sagittarius and travel a mere 2600 light years you will find yourself smack in the middle of the Great Rift, which is the dark patch you see covering the Milky Way.
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/the-great-rift-in-the-milky-way
This is an area where new stars are formed, but obviously the dust is thick enough that we cannot see through it in the visible spectrum. It seems plausible that there could be star systems in that large area where the dust is thick enough that no other star is visible.
Note that the "thick" dust is by Earth surface standards extremely dilute and would be considered a high-quality vacuum. It's only the fact that there are light years of the stuff that make it hard to see through.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space.
You might wish to research how the "space cloud" and "planet that doesn't know about space" tropes have been done before. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceClouds and https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Krikkit may be useful.
Is it possible for a planet in our part of the galaxy to have a night without stars?
It depends on what you mean by "our part" of the galaxy. If you point yourself in the direction of Sagittarius and travel a mere 2600 light years you will find yourself smack in the middle of the Great Rift, which is the dark patch you see covering the Milky Way.
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/the-great-rift-in-the-milky-way
This is an area where new stars are formed, but obviously the dust is thick enough that we cannot see through it in the visible spectrum. It seems plausible that there could be star systems in that large area where the dust is thick enough that no other star is visible.
Note that the "thick" dust is by Earth surface standards extremely dilute and would be considered a high-quality vacuum. It's only the fact that there are light years of the stuff that make it hard to see through.
It is the basis for a society that develops into the modern age without an interest in outer space.
You might wish to research how the "space cloud" and "planet that doesn't know about space" tropes have been done before. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceClouds and https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Krikkit may be useful.
answered yesterday
Eric Lippert
37116
37116
add a comment |
add a comment |
The sun takes up about half a degree in Earth's sky. Stars are less than one ten thousandths of that. If atmospheric blurring were to blur a star one hundredth of a degree, their light would be spread over an area hundreds of times larger, making them practically invisible, while the effect on the sun will be minuscule.
add a comment |
The sun takes up about half a degree in Earth's sky. Stars are less than one ten thousandths of that. If atmospheric blurring were to blur a star one hundredth of a degree, their light would be spread over an area hundreds of times larger, making them practically invisible, while the effect on the sun will be minuscule.
add a comment |
The sun takes up about half a degree in Earth's sky. Stars are less than one ten thousandths of that. If atmospheric blurring were to blur a star one hundredth of a degree, their light would be spread over an area hundreds of times larger, making them practically invisible, while the effect on the sun will be minuscule.
The sun takes up about half a degree in Earth's sky. Stars are less than one ten thousandths of that. If atmospheric blurring were to blur a star one hundredth of a degree, their light would be spread over an area hundreds of times larger, making them practically invisible, while the effect on the sun will be minuscule.
answered yesterday
Acccumulation
43014
43014
add a comment |
add a comment |
It's part of a rogue solar system ejected from any galaxy, somewhere in the middle of a large intergalactic void.
No stars would be visible until the inhabitants developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to be able to see the faint light of distant galaxies.
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
add a comment |
It's part of a rogue solar system ejected from any galaxy, somewhere in the middle of a large intergalactic void.
No stars would be visible until the inhabitants developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to be able to see the faint light of distant galaxies.
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
add a comment |
It's part of a rogue solar system ejected from any galaxy, somewhere in the middle of a large intergalactic void.
No stars would be visible until the inhabitants developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to be able to see the faint light of distant galaxies.
It's part of a rogue solar system ejected from any galaxy, somewhere in the middle of a large intergalactic void.
No stars would be visible until the inhabitants developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to be able to see the faint light of distant galaxies.
answered yesterday
Logan R. Kearsley
9,94112949
9,94112949
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
add a comment |
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
2
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
The question asks for "A planet in our part of the galaxy"
– Andon
yesterday
1
1
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
Aren't a bunch of our 'stars' actually other galaxies? If the ambient light is akin to Earth's, there's no where to go that you wouldn't see some 'stars'.
– Mazura
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
@Andon Oops, I overlooked that part....
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
2
2
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
@Mazura No. There are only 3 naked-eye visible galaxies, two of which are only visible from the southern hemisphere, and all of which are among the very closest to us. Out in a cosmic void, there would be none.
– Logan R. Kearsley
yesterday
add a comment |
I don't know if that counts or not as 'affecting/messing with atmosphere', but I've decided to reply anyway.
There's a layer of gas in the atmosphere that diffuses the light.
Light is still capable of passing, but it is randomly diffused before getting into the surface of the planet. The day would still be very well illuminated, but they wouldn't see the sun itself: they wouldn't see a bright ball up in the sky as the source of such illumination. As for the night, no stars, and darkness.
If there's a moon, the same thing from the day will happen: one won't be able to see moon itself, and a far lower intensity light reaches the surface, faintly illuminating the surface.
add a comment |
I don't know if that counts or not as 'affecting/messing with atmosphere', but I've decided to reply anyway.
There's a layer of gas in the atmosphere that diffuses the light.
Light is still capable of passing, but it is randomly diffused before getting into the surface of the planet. The day would still be very well illuminated, but they wouldn't see the sun itself: they wouldn't see a bright ball up in the sky as the source of such illumination. As for the night, no stars, and darkness.
If there's a moon, the same thing from the day will happen: one won't be able to see moon itself, and a far lower intensity light reaches the surface, faintly illuminating the surface.
add a comment |
I don't know if that counts or not as 'affecting/messing with atmosphere', but I've decided to reply anyway.
There's a layer of gas in the atmosphere that diffuses the light.
Light is still capable of passing, but it is randomly diffused before getting into the surface of the planet. The day would still be very well illuminated, but they wouldn't see the sun itself: they wouldn't see a bright ball up in the sky as the source of such illumination. As for the night, no stars, and darkness.
If there's a moon, the same thing from the day will happen: one won't be able to see moon itself, and a far lower intensity light reaches the surface, faintly illuminating the surface.
I don't know if that counts or not as 'affecting/messing with atmosphere', but I've decided to reply anyway.
There's a layer of gas in the atmosphere that diffuses the light.
Light is still capable of passing, but it is randomly diffused before getting into the surface of the planet. The day would still be very well illuminated, but they wouldn't see the sun itself: they wouldn't see a bright ball up in the sky as the source of such illumination. As for the night, no stars, and darkness.
If there's a moon, the same thing from the day will happen: one won't be able to see moon itself, and a far lower intensity light reaches the surface, faintly illuminating the surface.
answered yesterday
Physicist137
54628
54628
add a comment |
add a comment |
The people have eyes that only see sharp nearby. Everything is blurry to them on (very) long distance. It would not be too much of a disadvantage in normal life, but it would prevent them from seeing stars. Only after they develop reliable lenses, they would discover that stars exist.
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
add a comment |
The people have eyes that only see sharp nearby. Everything is blurry to them on (very) long distance. It would not be too much of a disadvantage in normal life, but it would prevent them from seeing stars. Only after they develop reliable lenses, they would discover that stars exist.
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
add a comment |
The people have eyes that only see sharp nearby. Everything is blurry to them on (very) long distance. It would not be too much of a disadvantage in normal life, but it would prevent them from seeing stars. Only after they develop reliable lenses, they would discover that stars exist.
The people have eyes that only see sharp nearby. Everything is blurry to them on (very) long distance. It would not be too much of a disadvantage in normal life, but it would prevent them from seeing stars. Only after they develop reliable lenses, they would discover that stars exist.
answered yesterday
fishinear
20114
20114
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
add a comment |
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
A short-sighted specie is the perfect food for any large enough predator. How would the species survive and develop?
– cmaster
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
I was going to answer the same, except I was going to say "no night vision". Stars come out at night because our eyes adapt. No dark adaption, no stars.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
To avoid predators you only need to see sharp until about 500m. Humans developed sharp vision because we were hunting. If these people were vegetarians, then sharp vision at a distance would not have a particular advantage.
– fishinear
5 hours ago
add a comment |
The sun is a star, but I know what you mean. Here are some other options:
- Multiple suns (such as Asimov's "Nightfall")
- One sun, and many moons
- Large amounts of very white (or reflective) dust, which reflects sunlight around the atmosphere.
- Underground or underwater societies.
- Regular volcanic eruptions causing volcanic ash in the atmosphere (or anything else in the atmosphere)
- Monsters that come out at sunset
- taboo/superstition/religion
- Your planet might be near a black hole, causing gravitational lensing, an accretion disk, unusually high speed orbits, and jets coming from the poles.
add a comment |
The sun is a star, but I know what you mean. Here are some other options:
- Multiple suns (such as Asimov's "Nightfall")
- One sun, and many moons
- Large amounts of very white (or reflective) dust, which reflects sunlight around the atmosphere.
- Underground or underwater societies.
- Regular volcanic eruptions causing volcanic ash in the atmosphere (or anything else in the atmosphere)
- Monsters that come out at sunset
- taboo/superstition/religion
- Your planet might be near a black hole, causing gravitational lensing, an accretion disk, unusually high speed orbits, and jets coming from the poles.
add a comment |
The sun is a star, but I know what you mean. Here are some other options:
- Multiple suns (such as Asimov's "Nightfall")
- One sun, and many moons
- Large amounts of very white (or reflective) dust, which reflects sunlight around the atmosphere.
- Underground or underwater societies.
- Regular volcanic eruptions causing volcanic ash in the atmosphere (or anything else in the atmosphere)
- Monsters that come out at sunset
- taboo/superstition/religion
- Your planet might be near a black hole, causing gravitational lensing, an accretion disk, unusually high speed orbits, and jets coming from the poles.
The sun is a star, but I know what you mean. Here are some other options:
- Multiple suns (such as Asimov's "Nightfall")
- One sun, and many moons
- Large amounts of very white (or reflective) dust, which reflects sunlight around the atmosphere.
- Underground or underwater societies.
- Regular volcanic eruptions causing volcanic ash in the atmosphere (or anything else in the atmosphere)
- Monsters that come out at sunset
- taboo/superstition/religion
- Your planet might be near a black hole, causing gravitational lensing, an accretion disk, unusually high speed orbits, and jets coming from the poles.
answered yesterday
AMADANON Inc.
1,10138
1,10138
add a comment |
add a comment |
Most of the answers so far seem to be ignoring the requirements that there be sunset or that the atmosphere behave differently.
A large dust cloud surrounding the solar system seems like the most reasonable way to achieve what you want since it doesn't directly affect anything within it. Its origin and how long it will persist are for you to work out.
But whatever solution you decide on, it sounds like the driving force in the story will be the reaction of those people to this new revelation. If so, make sure you come up with something new and don't appear to be copying how society reacted in Asimov's "Nightfall" (which used multiple suns to make total darkness almost impossible).
New contributor
add a comment |
Most of the answers so far seem to be ignoring the requirements that there be sunset or that the atmosphere behave differently.
A large dust cloud surrounding the solar system seems like the most reasonable way to achieve what you want since it doesn't directly affect anything within it. Its origin and how long it will persist are for you to work out.
But whatever solution you decide on, it sounds like the driving force in the story will be the reaction of those people to this new revelation. If so, make sure you come up with something new and don't appear to be copying how society reacted in Asimov's "Nightfall" (which used multiple suns to make total darkness almost impossible).
New contributor
add a comment |
Most of the answers so far seem to be ignoring the requirements that there be sunset or that the atmosphere behave differently.
A large dust cloud surrounding the solar system seems like the most reasonable way to achieve what you want since it doesn't directly affect anything within it. Its origin and how long it will persist are for you to work out.
But whatever solution you decide on, it sounds like the driving force in the story will be the reaction of those people to this new revelation. If so, make sure you come up with something new and don't appear to be copying how society reacted in Asimov's "Nightfall" (which used multiple suns to make total darkness almost impossible).
New contributor
Most of the answers so far seem to be ignoring the requirements that there be sunset or that the atmosphere behave differently.
A large dust cloud surrounding the solar system seems like the most reasonable way to achieve what you want since it doesn't directly affect anything within it. Its origin and how long it will persist are for you to work out.
But whatever solution you decide on, it sounds like the driving force in the story will be the reaction of those people to this new revelation. If so, make sure you come up with something new and don't appear to be copying how society reacted in Asimov's "Nightfall" (which used multiple suns to make total darkness almost impossible).
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Ray Butterworth
413
413
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
First idea: Their visual organs use a different method of "seeing".
You could make it so that your planet's inhabitants can't see, or some variant thereof.
I don't mean to say that the people are blind, but rather they have other organs that can "see" that would serve a similar purpose, but might seem magical to us. For example, if they were to inspect a sheet of paper, they might be able to easily detect tiny folds and creases in the paper, while the image on the sheet would be invisible to them.
To them, a pure-white rabbit on pure-white snow stands out clearly, whereas the pictures and text of a highway billboard sign are hidden to them, precisely because there is no "three-dimensional-ness" to distinguish the images from the board itself.
To them, the sky might look perfectly flat (or maybe even perfectly dome-shaped). As for their sun, they can either perceive it using another sense, or maybe its special case of being abnormally huge (compared to anything else they are familiar with) is enough to make them perceive it.
(If you can see those 3-D stereo images, you might understand what I'm getting at. When you succeed in seeing those images, you'll notice that you're perceiving three-dimensional shapes instead of colors. A starry sky wouldn't work too well in those 3-D stereo images, but a sun in the middle of the sky might.)
This could be similar to sonar; for example, a dolphin could detect a sheet of paper in the water no matter how dark or murky its surroundings -- however, it wouldn't be able to use sonar to perceive the picture drawn on the sheet of paper.
Second idea: Their visual organs perceive different wavelengths of light than ours do.
The inhabitants could have eyes (or similar organs), but see a different spectrum of light than us. And it just so happens that 99.9% of stars in the universe display light in the parts of the spectrum they can't see.
Their sun, however, is one of those 0.1% of stars that they can see.
You could even say that they evolved/adapted the ability to see their sun's light precisely because it comes from their own sun. (So why have a need to see other light?)
New contributor
add a comment |
First idea: Their visual organs use a different method of "seeing".
You could make it so that your planet's inhabitants can't see, or some variant thereof.
I don't mean to say that the people are blind, but rather they have other organs that can "see" that would serve a similar purpose, but might seem magical to us. For example, if they were to inspect a sheet of paper, they might be able to easily detect tiny folds and creases in the paper, while the image on the sheet would be invisible to them.
To them, a pure-white rabbit on pure-white snow stands out clearly, whereas the pictures and text of a highway billboard sign are hidden to them, precisely because there is no "three-dimensional-ness" to distinguish the images from the board itself.
To them, the sky might look perfectly flat (or maybe even perfectly dome-shaped). As for their sun, they can either perceive it using another sense, or maybe its special case of being abnormally huge (compared to anything else they are familiar with) is enough to make them perceive it.
(If you can see those 3-D stereo images, you might understand what I'm getting at. When you succeed in seeing those images, you'll notice that you're perceiving three-dimensional shapes instead of colors. A starry sky wouldn't work too well in those 3-D stereo images, but a sun in the middle of the sky might.)
This could be similar to sonar; for example, a dolphin could detect a sheet of paper in the water no matter how dark or murky its surroundings -- however, it wouldn't be able to use sonar to perceive the picture drawn on the sheet of paper.
Second idea: Their visual organs perceive different wavelengths of light than ours do.
The inhabitants could have eyes (or similar organs), but see a different spectrum of light than us. And it just so happens that 99.9% of stars in the universe display light in the parts of the spectrum they can't see.
Their sun, however, is one of those 0.1% of stars that they can see.
You could even say that they evolved/adapted the ability to see their sun's light precisely because it comes from their own sun. (So why have a need to see other light?)
New contributor
add a comment |
First idea: Their visual organs use a different method of "seeing".
You could make it so that your planet's inhabitants can't see, or some variant thereof.
I don't mean to say that the people are blind, but rather they have other organs that can "see" that would serve a similar purpose, but might seem magical to us. For example, if they were to inspect a sheet of paper, they might be able to easily detect tiny folds and creases in the paper, while the image on the sheet would be invisible to them.
To them, a pure-white rabbit on pure-white snow stands out clearly, whereas the pictures and text of a highway billboard sign are hidden to them, precisely because there is no "three-dimensional-ness" to distinguish the images from the board itself.
To them, the sky might look perfectly flat (or maybe even perfectly dome-shaped). As for their sun, they can either perceive it using another sense, or maybe its special case of being abnormally huge (compared to anything else they are familiar with) is enough to make them perceive it.
(If you can see those 3-D stereo images, you might understand what I'm getting at. When you succeed in seeing those images, you'll notice that you're perceiving three-dimensional shapes instead of colors. A starry sky wouldn't work too well in those 3-D stereo images, but a sun in the middle of the sky might.)
This could be similar to sonar; for example, a dolphin could detect a sheet of paper in the water no matter how dark or murky its surroundings -- however, it wouldn't be able to use sonar to perceive the picture drawn on the sheet of paper.
Second idea: Their visual organs perceive different wavelengths of light than ours do.
The inhabitants could have eyes (or similar organs), but see a different spectrum of light than us. And it just so happens that 99.9% of stars in the universe display light in the parts of the spectrum they can't see.
Their sun, however, is one of those 0.1% of stars that they can see.
You could even say that they evolved/adapted the ability to see their sun's light precisely because it comes from their own sun. (So why have a need to see other light?)
New contributor
First idea: Their visual organs use a different method of "seeing".
You could make it so that your planet's inhabitants can't see, or some variant thereof.
I don't mean to say that the people are blind, but rather they have other organs that can "see" that would serve a similar purpose, but might seem magical to us. For example, if they were to inspect a sheet of paper, they might be able to easily detect tiny folds and creases in the paper, while the image on the sheet would be invisible to them.
To them, a pure-white rabbit on pure-white snow stands out clearly, whereas the pictures and text of a highway billboard sign are hidden to them, precisely because there is no "three-dimensional-ness" to distinguish the images from the board itself.
To them, the sky might look perfectly flat (or maybe even perfectly dome-shaped). As for their sun, they can either perceive it using another sense, or maybe its special case of being abnormally huge (compared to anything else they are familiar with) is enough to make them perceive it.
(If you can see those 3-D stereo images, you might understand what I'm getting at. When you succeed in seeing those images, you'll notice that you're perceiving three-dimensional shapes instead of colors. A starry sky wouldn't work too well in those 3-D stereo images, but a sun in the middle of the sky might.)
This could be similar to sonar; for example, a dolphin could detect a sheet of paper in the water no matter how dark or murky its surroundings -- however, it wouldn't be able to use sonar to perceive the picture drawn on the sheet of paper.
Second idea: Their visual organs perceive different wavelengths of light than ours do.
The inhabitants could have eyes (or similar organs), but see a different spectrum of light than us. And it just so happens that 99.9% of stars in the universe display light in the parts of the spectrum they can't see.
Their sun, however, is one of those 0.1% of stars that they can see.
You could even say that they evolved/adapted the ability to see their sun's light precisely because it comes from their own sun. (So why have a need to see other light?)
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
J-L
1112
1112
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you are on an isolated star in the middle of the Boötes Void (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void) you would not see a single star or galaxy with the naked eye.
BTW - have you ever read Iain M. Banks' Against A Dark Background?
New contributor
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
add a comment |
If you are on an isolated star in the middle of the Boötes Void (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void) you would not see a single star or galaxy with the naked eye.
BTW - have you ever read Iain M. Banks' Against A Dark Background?
New contributor
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
add a comment |
If you are on an isolated star in the middle of the Boötes Void (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void) you would not see a single star or galaxy with the naked eye.
BTW - have you ever read Iain M. Banks' Against A Dark Background?
New contributor
If you are on an isolated star in the middle of the Boötes Void (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boötes_void) you would not see a single star or galaxy with the naked eye.
BTW - have you ever read Iain M. Banks' Against A Dark Background?
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
TonyOfTheWoods
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
add a comment |
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
OP is asking about a planet in our part of the galaxy. Boötes Void is outside our galaxy.
– L.Dutch♦
yesterday
add a comment |
Since many good physical explanations were given, let me provide some lateral thinking sort of answer.
The reason there are no stars is that they live in a giant simulated universe and there's not enough processing power and memory to simulate a full universe, just that solar system with just that one planet. So the sky is dark at night. The humans which are visiting are in fact those running the simulator.
add a comment |
Since many good physical explanations were given, let me provide some lateral thinking sort of answer.
The reason there are no stars is that they live in a giant simulated universe and there's not enough processing power and memory to simulate a full universe, just that solar system with just that one planet. So the sky is dark at night. The humans which are visiting are in fact those running the simulator.
add a comment |
Since many good physical explanations were given, let me provide some lateral thinking sort of answer.
The reason there are no stars is that they live in a giant simulated universe and there's not enough processing power and memory to simulate a full universe, just that solar system with just that one planet. So the sky is dark at night. The humans which are visiting are in fact those running the simulator.
Since many good physical explanations were given, let me provide some lateral thinking sort of answer.
The reason there are no stars is that they live in a giant simulated universe and there's not enough processing power and memory to simulate a full universe, just that solar system with just that one planet. So the sky is dark at night. The humans which are visiting are in fact those running the simulator.
answered yesterday
Ink blot
1814
1814
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would suggest that their solar system is passing through a relatively very dense dust cloud in interstellar space, as others have suggested.
Their solar system would have been passing through it for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, long enough that the intelligent beings living there have no possible way to remember that their pre-intelligent ancestors ever saw stars in the sky.
The gravity of their star system has been pulling in the interstellar dust so that there is a clear cylinder of space pointing out of the dust cloud back the way they came. So that direction should point out toward intergalactic space with only a few stars in their galaxy and no globular star clusters, other galaxies, or intergalactic stars in the light of sight.
The in falling dust doesn't fall all the way to the star, however. At at certain distance range light from the star and particles in the stellar wind from the star hit most of the in falling particles and bounce them back out a bit before they fall back and are bounced out again. Thus there is a relatively dense shell of dust particles at the outer edge of the star system, dense enough to block all light that comes in through the clear cylinder of space and hide the relatively few stars that would have been visible through it.
The inhabited planet could be the only planet in its star system. But maybe there used to be two large planetoids or asteroids orbiting outside the orbit of the inhabited planet, worlds that collided and shattered into dust. Thus there could be an inner dust ring around the star outside the orbit of the planet, a dust ring that might also help to block out the light from the stars.
The atmosphere of the planet should be similar enough to Earth's for the natives, and maybe visiting earthlings, to breath without problems. But the atmosphere doesn't have to be identical to Earth's.
The atmosphere could be naturally foggier, or dustier, or something, than Earth's, thus making it slightly less transparent. And the intelligent natives might be greatly polluting their atmosphere and making it less transparent.
And if the planet has a slightly smaller surface gravity than Earth's, and a slightly higher atmospheric pressure at the surface than Earth's, the atmosphere will extend a bit higher than Earth's. Thus there were be more atmosphere for the light from the stars to pass through and be dimmed than on Earth.
It is possible that there are bioluminescent organisms on land or sea or perhaps in the air that emit a faint glow in most parts of that world. And if the atmosphere is foggier or cloudier at night that glow will be reflected down to the surface, further hiding the stars.
And of course in the cities of the intelligent natives and their suburbs artificial lighting may increase the light pollution as it does on Earth, hiding the stars even more.
The intelligent natives may depend mainly on echolocation and less on their vision, which might not be as good as human vision. And perhaps they have evolved a slightly more close range and less long range visual focus, for fine handiwork, making it slightly harder for them to see the stars.
Aquatic aliens, such as intelligent cephalopods or cetaceans, might have good vision in water but not so good in air and might not be able to see the stars.
And some combination of several of the above factors may prevent the aliens from seeing the stars, whether humans with possibly superior vision can see the stars from the alien planet or the stars are equally hidden from humans.
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I would suggest that their solar system is passing through a relatively very dense dust cloud in interstellar space, as others have suggested.
Their solar system would have been passing through it for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, long enough that the intelligent beings living there have no possible way to remember that their pre-intelligent ancestors ever saw stars in the sky.
The gravity of their star system has been pulling in the interstellar dust so that there is a clear cylinder of space pointing out of the dust cloud back the way they came. So that direction should point out toward intergalactic space with only a few stars in their galaxy and no globular star clusters, other galaxies, or intergalactic stars in the light of sight.
The in falling dust doesn't fall all the way to the star, however. At at certain distance range light from the star and particles in the stellar wind from the star hit most of the in falling particles and bounce them back out a bit before they fall back and are bounced out again. Thus there is a relatively dense shell of dust particles at the outer edge of the star system, dense enough to block all light that comes in through the clear cylinder of space and hide the relatively few stars that would have been visible through it.
The inhabited planet could be the only planet in its star system. But maybe there used to be two large planetoids or asteroids orbiting outside the orbit of the inhabited planet, worlds that collided and shattered into dust. Thus there could be an inner dust ring around the star outside the orbit of the planet, a dust ring that might also help to block out the light from the stars.
The atmosphere of the planet should be similar enough to Earth's for the natives, and maybe visiting earthlings, to breath without problems. But the atmosphere doesn't have to be identical to Earth's.
The atmosphere could be naturally foggier, or dustier, or something, than Earth's, thus making it slightly less transparent. And the intelligent natives might be greatly polluting their atmosphere and making it less transparent.
And if the planet has a slightly smaller surface gravity than Earth's, and a slightly higher atmospheric pressure at the surface than Earth's, the atmosphere will extend a bit higher than Earth's. Thus there were be more atmosphere for the light from the stars to pass through and be dimmed than on Earth.
It is possible that there are bioluminescent organisms on land or sea or perhaps in the air that emit a faint glow in most parts of that world. And if the atmosphere is foggier or cloudier at night that glow will be reflected down to the surface, further hiding the stars.
And of course in the cities of the intelligent natives and their suburbs artificial lighting may increase the light pollution as it does on Earth, hiding the stars even more.
The intelligent natives may depend mainly on echolocation and less on their vision, which might not be as good as human vision. And perhaps they have evolved a slightly more close range and less long range visual focus, for fine handiwork, making it slightly harder for them to see the stars.
Aquatic aliens, such as intelligent cephalopods or cetaceans, might have good vision in water but not so good in air and might not be able to see the stars.
And some combination of several of the above factors may prevent the aliens from seeing the stars, whether humans with possibly superior vision can see the stars from the alien planet or the stars are equally hidden from humans.
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I would suggest that their solar system is passing through a relatively very dense dust cloud in interstellar space, as others have suggested.
Their solar system would have been passing through it for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, long enough that the intelligent beings living there have no possible way to remember that their pre-intelligent ancestors ever saw stars in the sky.
The gravity of their star system has been pulling in the interstellar dust so that there is a clear cylinder of space pointing out of the dust cloud back the way they came. So that direction should point out toward intergalactic space with only a few stars in their galaxy and no globular star clusters, other galaxies, or intergalactic stars in the light of sight.
The in falling dust doesn't fall all the way to the star, however. At at certain distance range light from the star and particles in the stellar wind from the star hit most of the in falling particles and bounce them back out a bit before they fall back and are bounced out again. Thus there is a relatively dense shell of dust particles at the outer edge of the star system, dense enough to block all light that comes in through the clear cylinder of space and hide the relatively few stars that would have been visible through it.
The inhabited planet could be the only planet in its star system. But maybe there used to be two large planetoids or asteroids orbiting outside the orbit of the inhabited planet, worlds that collided and shattered into dust. Thus there could be an inner dust ring around the star outside the orbit of the planet, a dust ring that might also help to block out the light from the stars.
The atmosphere of the planet should be similar enough to Earth's for the natives, and maybe visiting earthlings, to breath without problems. But the atmosphere doesn't have to be identical to Earth's.
The atmosphere could be naturally foggier, or dustier, or something, than Earth's, thus making it slightly less transparent. And the intelligent natives might be greatly polluting their atmosphere and making it less transparent.
And if the planet has a slightly smaller surface gravity than Earth's, and a slightly higher atmospheric pressure at the surface than Earth's, the atmosphere will extend a bit higher than Earth's. Thus there were be more atmosphere for the light from the stars to pass through and be dimmed than on Earth.
It is possible that there are bioluminescent organisms on land or sea or perhaps in the air that emit a faint glow in most parts of that world. And if the atmosphere is foggier or cloudier at night that glow will be reflected down to the surface, further hiding the stars.
And of course in the cities of the intelligent natives and their suburbs artificial lighting may increase the light pollution as it does on Earth, hiding the stars even more.
The intelligent natives may depend mainly on echolocation and less on their vision, which might not be as good as human vision. And perhaps they have evolved a slightly more close range and less long range visual focus, for fine handiwork, making it slightly harder for them to see the stars.
Aquatic aliens, such as intelligent cephalopods or cetaceans, might have good vision in water but not so good in air and might not be able to see the stars.
And some combination of several of the above factors may prevent the aliens from seeing the stars, whether humans with possibly superior vision can see the stars from the alien planet or the stars are equally hidden from humans.
I would suggest that their solar system is passing through a relatively very dense dust cloud in interstellar space, as others have suggested.
Their solar system would have been passing through it for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, long enough that the intelligent beings living there have no possible way to remember that their pre-intelligent ancestors ever saw stars in the sky.
The gravity of their star system has been pulling in the interstellar dust so that there is a clear cylinder of space pointing out of the dust cloud back the way they came. So that direction should point out toward intergalactic space with only a few stars in their galaxy and no globular star clusters, other galaxies, or intergalactic stars in the light of sight.
The in falling dust doesn't fall all the way to the star, however. At at certain distance range light from the star and particles in the stellar wind from the star hit most of the in falling particles and bounce them back out a bit before they fall back and are bounced out again. Thus there is a relatively dense shell of dust particles at the outer edge of the star system, dense enough to block all light that comes in through the clear cylinder of space and hide the relatively few stars that would have been visible through it.
The inhabited planet could be the only planet in its star system. But maybe there used to be two large planetoids or asteroids orbiting outside the orbit of the inhabited planet, worlds that collided and shattered into dust. Thus there could be an inner dust ring around the star outside the orbit of the planet, a dust ring that might also help to block out the light from the stars.
The atmosphere of the planet should be similar enough to Earth's for the natives, and maybe visiting earthlings, to breath without problems. But the atmosphere doesn't have to be identical to Earth's.
The atmosphere could be naturally foggier, or dustier, or something, than Earth's, thus making it slightly less transparent. And the intelligent natives might be greatly polluting their atmosphere and making it less transparent.
And if the planet has a slightly smaller surface gravity than Earth's, and a slightly higher atmospheric pressure at the surface than Earth's, the atmosphere will extend a bit higher than Earth's. Thus there were be more atmosphere for the light from the stars to pass through and be dimmed than on Earth.
It is possible that there are bioluminescent organisms on land or sea or perhaps in the air that emit a faint glow in most parts of that world. And if the atmosphere is foggier or cloudier at night that glow will be reflected down to the surface, further hiding the stars.
And of course in the cities of the intelligent natives and their suburbs artificial lighting may increase the light pollution as it does on Earth, hiding the stars even more.
The intelligent natives may depend mainly on echolocation and less on their vision, which might not be as good as human vision. And perhaps they have evolved a slightly more close range and less long range visual focus, for fine handiwork, making it slightly harder for them to see the stars.
Aquatic aliens, such as intelligent cephalopods or cetaceans, might have good vision in water but not so good in air and might not be able to see the stars.
And some combination of several of the above factors may prevent the aliens from seeing the stars, whether humans with possibly superior vision can see the stars from the alien planet or the stars are equally hidden from humans.
answered yesterday
M. A. Golding
7,596424
7,596424
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
add a comment |
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
electromagnetic waves and especially CMBR might still be noticeable, and once the planet dwellers go after the mysterious force of gravity, they'll end up with a couple of LIGO detectors.
– kagali-san
4 hours ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
goodreads.com/series/104200-warstrider - quite good approach with the spacefaring (Von N.-prope type) civilization which used no visual clues at all
– kagali-san
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You could toy around with the idea that your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian Point of a very large, non-reflective planet. As the society's planet orbits on its axis and brings the society to their own planet's dark side, they would see only the large dark planet in their sky, which would appear to them only as pitch black.
However, there is a significant window of time (particularly around sunrise and sunset) where they could still see the dark of night (including the stars) which is not covered by the large dark planet. If you're daring, you could make the dark planet a very non-dense, stretched out object that acts as a sort of visual shield around the dark side of the society's planet.
Sure, having such a large object in a non-spherical shape seems like a stretch, but maybe there are some special cases in this universe where that could happen. (After all, we already have Saturn, whose rings are quite visibly wider than Jupiter itself, but definitely not spherical.) Maybe the large, un-dense planet could have a large set of (seemingly solid) pitch-black rings. Or maybe it could have some other sort of shape anomaly more common than planetary rings, but that we're not familiar with simply because no planet in our own solar system happens to have it.
To put it another way, if Saturn didn't exist, we wouldn't have all those pretty artistic night-sky renderings with ringed planets (despite the fact that ringed planets do exist outside our solar system). So what other pretty astronomical sights are we not including in our artistic night-sky renderings, simply because they don't exist in our solar system, making us not aware of them?
In other words, just because something is planet-sized, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shaped like a sphere.
Some ancient civilizations (here on Earth) thought that our sky was literally a dome. So maybe your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian point of a non-light-reflecting partial dome.
New contributor
add a comment |
You could toy around with the idea that your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian Point of a very large, non-reflective planet. As the society's planet orbits on its axis and brings the society to their own planet's dark side, they would see only the large dark planet in their sky, which would appear to them only as pitch black.
However, there is a significant window of time (particularly around sunrise and sunset) where they could still see the dark of night (including the stars) which is not covered by the large dark planet. If you're daring, you could make the dark planet a very non-dense, stretched out object that acts as a sort of visual shield around the dark side of the society's planet.
Sure, having such a large object in a non-spherical shape seems like a stretch, but maybe there are some special cases in this universe where that could happen. (After all, we already have Saturn, whose rings are quite visibly wider than Jupiter itself, but definitely not spherical.) Maybe the large, un-dense planet could have a large set of (seemingly solid) pitch-black rings. Or maybe it could have some other sort of shape anomaly more common than planetary rings, but that we're not familiar with simply because no planet in our own solar system happens to have it.
To put it another way, if Saturn didn't exist, we wouldn't have all those pretty artistic night-sky renderings with ringed planets (despite the fact that ringed planets do exist outside our solar system). So what other pretty astronomical sights are we not including in our artistic night-sky renderings, simply because they don't exist in our solar system, making us not aware of them?
In other words, just because something is planet-sized, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shaped like a sphere.
Some ancient civilizations (here on Earth) thought that our sky was literally a dome. So maybe your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian point of a non-light-reflecting partial dome.
New contributor
add a comment |
You could toy around with the idea that your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian Point of a very large, non-reflective planet. As the society's planet orbits on its axis and brings the society to their own planet's dark side, they would see only the large dark planet in their sky, which would appear to them only as pitch black.
However, there is a significant window of time (particularly around sunrise and sunset) where they could still see the dark of night (including the stars) which is not covered by the large dark planet. If you're daring, you could make the dark planet a very non-dense, stretched out object that acts as a sort of visual shield around the dark side of the society's planet.
Sure, having such a large object in a non-spherical shape seems like a stretch, but maybe there are some special cases in this universe where that could happen. (After all, we already have Saturn, whose rings are quite visibly wider than Jupiter itself, but definitely not spherical.) Maybe the large, un-dense planet could have a large set of (seemingly solid) pitch-black rings. Or maybe it could have some other sort of shape anomaly more common than planetary rings, but that we're not familiar with simply because no planet in our own solar system happens to have it.
To put it another way, if Saturn didn't exist, we wouldn't have all those pretty artistic night-sky renderings with ringed planets (despite the fact that ringed planets do exist outside our solar system). So what other pretty astronomical sights are we not including in our artistic night-sky renderings, simply because they don't exist in our solar system, making us not aware of them?
In other words, just because something is planet-sized, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shaped like a sphere.
Some ancient civilizations (here on Earth) thought that our sky was literally a dome. So maybe your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian point of a non-light-reflecting partial dome.
New contributor
You could toy around with the idea that your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian Point of a very large, non-reflective planet. As the society's planet orbits on its axis and brings the society to their own planet's dark side, they would see only the large dark planet in their sky, which would appear to them only as pitch black.
However, there is a significant window of time (particularly around sunrise and sunset) where they could still see the dark of night (including the stars) which is not covered by the large dark planet. If you're daring, you could make the dark planet a very non-dense, stretched out object that acts as a sort of visual shield around the dark side of the society's planet.
Sure, having such a large object in a non-spherical shape seems like a stretch, but maybe there are some special cases in this universe where that could happen. (After all, we already have Saturn, whose rings are quite visibly wider than Jupiter itself, but definitely not spherical.) Maybe the large, un-dense planet could have a large set of (seemingly solid) pitch-black rings. Or maybe it could have some other sort of shape anomaly more common than planetary rings, but that we're not familiar with simply because no planet in our own solar system happens to have it.
To put it another way, if Saturn didn't exist, we wouldn't have all those pretty artistic night-sky renderings with ringed planets (despite the fact that ringed planets do exist outside our solar system). So what other pretty astronomical sights are we not including in our artistic night-sky renderings, simply because they don't exist in our solar system, making us not aware of them?
In other words, just because something is planet-sized, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shaped like a sphere.
Some ancient civilizations (here on Earth) thought that our sky was literally a dome. So maybe your society's planet could be in the L1 Lagrangian point of a non-light-reflecting partial dome.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 23 hours ago
J-L
1112
1112
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
The population have rigid necks that won't allow them to look up. Or they only see in infrared, therefore they likely wouldn't be able to see the
New contributor
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
The population have rigid necks that won't allow them to look up. Or they only see in infrared, therefore they likely wouldn't be able to see the
New contributor
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
The population have rigid necks that won't allow them to look up. Or they only see in infrared, therefore they likely wouldn't be able to see the
New contributor
The population have rigid necks that won't allow them to look up. Or they only see in infrared, therefore they likely wouldn't be able to see the
New contributor
New contributor
answered 34 mins ago
Jaron W
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
It looks like you were too quick to post and forgot some text. Please fix it, else the answer might be removed
– L.Dutch♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135411%2fhow-could-a-planet-have-a-sky-without-stars-at-night%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
No stars. No moon (I assume). You always have a sun. You'll have clouds. No asteroids? No meteors? I'm not convinced you can create the basis you're looking for. IMO, intelligent primates will always look at birds and want to fly, and they'll always want to fly higher, and God is almost always up where the sun is.... I'm not feeling this one.
– JBH
yesterday
14
I live in Ireland. Normally the weather here does a pretty good job of hiding the stars. :-)
– StephenG
yesterday
30
In The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a planet called Krikkit. Due to a dust cloud surrounding the planet, the inhabitants see no stars and are unaware of the existence of the larger universe. They had no interest in exploring the universe because they didn't realise it existed.
– CJ Dennis
yesterday
2
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally found where all the dark matter of the universe has been hiding....
– NofP
yesterday
2
@Renan Can you explain why it might be a duplicate? The two questions look very different to me. Individual answers might work for both, but the questions appear different.
– Ethan Kaminski
yesterday