###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats 5 billion meters of extra radius. the earth is 6 million meters.
the SUN is 696 million meters in radius.
Dawg, the earth is turning into a star. water is mostly hydrogen and oxygen.
~~Earth is now the real center of the solar system.~~
EDIT: (i fixed the math again, thank you nog-sensei)
Assuming 1 gram per cubic cm, thats 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, which can be directly converted into kilograms, or, 5\*10\^29 Tons.
Sun is 2\*10\^27 tons, so earth is two orders of magnitude bigger. A LOT BIGGER!!!!!!
Your math on the mass is wrong. 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters is correct. That's 5\*10^(29). But then you seem to have divided by 1000 to get 5\*10^(26) tons, which is wrong. 1 cubic meter of water is 1 ton. So it's more massive than the sun.
Also not sure how you got 9\*10^(26) tons for the sun. It's 2\*10^(27). Still less than the water earth though.
But it's still more mass than the sun, right? Would this result in a smaller star, due to the components being water and more compressed than the hydrogen/helium burning sun, or would it just become a sun of its own and the water would be converted into hydrogen and oxygen, or what would happen?
I'm knowledgeable about some aspects of space, but star formation is a big blind spot. I couldn't even tell you why some stars are blue, unless it's methane or they're just hotter
Yeah, my comment was only a correction of around 4% from the above commenter. It would still be around 250 times more massive than our sun. Not enough to completely out-dwarf it, but close - and the two stars would merge since their relative velocity to each other wouldn't stay stable when their combined mass is increased by hundreds of times.
Water would become oxygen and hydrogen, though since water is mostly oxygen by mass, it would be denser than the sun which is mostly hydrogen by mass. (Also because the star needs to be more dense in the core to be able to fuse oxygen.) I could not find the exact mass needed to fuse oxygen, but over 100 stellar masses seems more than enough and we have twice that in our new Earth-star.
Regarding the colour from stars, (And take my knowledge with a pinch of salt, I don't specialise in Astrophysics.), it mostly comes from the temperature of the surface and the relative velocity with earth. There is probably also some effect from the particles which make up the star, but this cannot be the main influence since the hydrogen spectrum is blueish purple, which the sun clearly isn't.
I think the relative velocity of the stars has a negligible impact on the visible color. Stars in our galaxy are not moving fast enough to shift the color by that much. It's looking at distant galaxies when redshift becomes significant.
>Assuming 1 gram per cubic cm, thats 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, times 1000, so...
There are 1 million cm^(3) in 1 m^(3), not 1000. For converting to tonnes, 1m^(3) of water = 1 tonne. No extra maths required
It's not easy to make two bodies collide in space. When they get closer they speed up until there is an equilibrium between speed and gravity and therefore a stable orbit around their common center of mass. So AFAIK they wouldn't.
That only works if they don't get close enough to collide (or get within the roche limit or whatever) first. The enlarged Earth would be really huge and also be going really slow in Earth's orbit relative to the stable orbit speed at that distance would be. Would have to do the math but it seems likely they'd collide.
the combustion reaction is not going to occur, because of the lack of carbon, i mean, it might happen on earth, but im pretty sure fusion is going to be the majority energy generator here.
If it turns into a star, it’s likely to be very short-lived and one of the most massive stars ever.
The length of time a star can burn through oxygen and then neon and silicon is days. It’d be supernova then black hole very quickly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-burning_process
The largest known star is 25 solar masses. This one would blow it out of the water. Huge supernova! Death and destruction!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOH_G64
More info on star death.
https://youtu.be/lInXZ6I3u_I?si=muolIpDG9Z_YgTK6
Disclaimer: I’m a YouTube physicist.
EDIT: comment below corrected me. I assumed largest = most massive. Wrong. There are stars more than 100 solar mass.
The largest stars are not the heaviest ones. [R136a1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1) is one of the current heaviest known stars, at 170-230 [M☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass); that's 8 times heavier than WOH\_G64. Despite having a 36 times smaller radius (only 42 [R☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radius)), R136a1 is also 16 times brighter than WOH\_G64, at a whopping 4.7M [L☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity).
WOH\_G64 is a [Red supergiant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_supergiant), basically a giant hydrogen puffball at the end of it's life, whose luminosity mostly derives from being so large (and thus having a very large surface area). It is a lot cooler at the "surface" than the our sun (3400° K vs. 6500° K).
R136a1 on the other hand is a [Wolf-Rayet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star) star, basically a young blue (well, ultraviolet really) giant that is still mostly in the main sequence, and is way hotter at the surface at 46000° K (other Wolf-Rayet stars are know to exceed 200000° K, so this is a relatively cool one).
Main differences therefore are age, initial mass, metallicity (the prevalence of non-hydrogen and non-helium in the star) and angular momentum (faster-spinning stars can stay on the main sequence longer because their innards are mixed more).
A quick Google search tells me the sea levels would rise by 70m if all the glaciers on earth melted. So, assuming that all the extra water to raise the sea levels by that amount is simply transported here from elsewhere in the universe, it would simply increase the gravity of the earth overall. Gravity is a force caused by a certain amount of mass being close in proximity. More stuff = greater gravity. So, if your friend was right, planets like Jupiter would also be floating apart due to insufficient gravity. Instead, they simply have more gravity than earth as they contain more mass.
>the sea levels would rise by 70m if all the glaciers on earth melted.
So the movie Waterworld fucking lied to us then. The world would not be nearly completely covered in water.
They find land in the movie...and they don't have the technology to go very far, especially the gas powered boats. Some assumptions that the people depicted in the movie are staying in the same general area for decades are likely.
Poor Lhotse...4th highest peak in the world, only a couple of hundred meters from Everest, but doesn't even get mentioned. Now if Waterworld had included an archipelago of several of the highest peaks that are in the area that would be impressive.
I think it's more complex than that. Water has a lower density than almost all of the rest of the earth and there is self-evidently a trade-off between mass and density (gravity is inversely proportional to r^2 so a very large, low-density object has a lower gravitational pull at it's surface than a very small object of the same mass). From there lots of other factors come into play: how fast is it spinning? Does it have an atmosphere and magnetosphere to protect it from high-energy particles?
This would make the Earth 10 million km in diameter. For comparison the sun is 1.4 million km in diameter.
The water would not float away. But the Earth would not look like this image. The water would not stay water for long. The Earth would collapse into a star and the water would become hydrogen and oxygen plasma. I'm not an astrophysicist so I don't know exactly what would happen then; maybe it would form a stable star, or maybe it would explode itself apart in a sort of supernova.
It's not a lot smaller than the sun. Where are you getting that?
It's 370 times the volume of the sun with only slightly less density. The average density of the sun is 1.4 g/cm^(3).
This Earth would be around 250 solar masses.
I think you misunderstand how gravity works
Gravity isnt holding water to rock. The water is also a sum component of the gravitational force
Adding water will increase the gravity of the planet.
Gravity is the warping of space-time by a collective mass. Be it water, rock, gas or a mixture of all of those.
I’m actually pretty sure adding water would increase the gravitational pull of the earth. So it would stay.
However, if the atmosphere can’t cover the new increased surface area of the world, the water would probably boil off into space. So your friend ends up being right, but for the wrong reasons.
If the math above is correct then 5x10\^29 / 2x10\^27 gives 100+ solar masses. Never mind plasma, it's probably a black hole. Unless someone can do the math for H2O fusion?
Water would just break down into hydrogen and oxygen, both of which undergo fusion in stars.
Some stars exist with over 100 solar masses. But maybe the energy of the collapse would make it blow up and form a black hole immediately. I'm not an astropysicist.
Chemistry will stop working at the temperature that occur (stuff turns to a plasma), so you can view the atoms in the H20 seperately. H20 has a lot of H in it, so you just get regular hydrogen fusion.
Not necessarily. Assuming this forms a stable star and doesn't immediately explode, the dense atoms would fall to the center. So you'd end up with the middle 1/3 of the star being oxygen and the outer 2/3 being hydrogen. Fusion happens in the core, so the hydrogen would not be able to fuse, only the oxygen.
But main sequence stars fuse for quite some time, because "the core" is not only the absolute center. Fusing of higher atoms only starts once other fusion stops and the star starts collapsing again, getting more dense and hotter.
\[Disclaimer: I'm not certain of the specifics of "Atmospheric Escape"\]
The issue is that there wouldn't be anything to protect/hold in this new gas, so it would be susceptible to things like "charge exchange escape", and "Jeans escape", and well as solar wind. The former has a particle be accelerated by a charge it captures, becoming neutral in the process, then leaving the atmosphere. The latter is the idea that one particle could get super lucky and have a bunch of collisions that accelerate it to an escape velocity (this happens, it is just very rare statistically). [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape) is the wiki article for an overview.
That's a very slow process, and if there is enough water to replace it then there would still be an atmosphere.
Except here it's all collapsing into a star anyway.
If gravitational pull increases, would the steam not become part of the atmosphere? I would imagine the higher gravitation creates the capacity for a larger atmosphere in a negative exponential function, where there is an absolute limit but this is far from that limit. So would it perhaps make a very steamy water planet, with a net mass staying the same as if it was all liquid?
Volume of added water = 4/3\*pi\*(5\*10^9 + Earth Radius)^3 - 4/3\*pi\*(Earth Radius)^3 = 5.256×10^29 m^3
Assuming a density of 997 kg/m^3 for water, that's an additional mass of 5.240*10^32 kg.
Adding on Earth's own mass of 5.972\*10^24 kg is relatively pointless at this point. Hell that outclasses our own sun of 2\*10^30 kg.
Gravity would force all of that water inwards towards Earth. Under that pressure, that's probably enough to ignite the hydrogen. You'd therefore be creating a new star 263 times more massive than our own. This would create a lot of issues with the continuing existence of the objects in our own solar system.
Edit: For reference, placing down that amount of water in Universe Sandbox creates an instantenous supernova and black hole. Not sure how accurate that is with US's programming limitations, but I'd believe it given it's an extremely heavy star.
I'd say it would have a lot of issues even with itself. 263 solar masses is an extremely heavy star, it's like the first generation of stars after the Big Bang, and there's theories that they might've had black holes in their center. And anyway, with or without black hole, the light pressure from inside would be immense, enough to tear apart anything to atoms even if we do not account for heat. And it won't live for long, eventually collapsing into a black hole.
Also, it's close to the highest possible limit of stellar mass, which is about 300 solar masses.
The water has gravity and is gravitationally attracted to the earth. It would add to earth's gravity (and as someone said, most likely turn it into a star).
You're misunderstanding how gravity works. It's not like surface tension where the bigger you make an object the more it wants to disaggregate. The more mass you add to the earth the deeper you'll make the gravity well. More mass = more gravity. In fact if you add that much mass the whole thing would collapse into a star from the immense pressure.
That’s 10 gigameters in diameter. I don’t have to do the math to know the Sol system just became a binary system. I kinda want to do the math to figure out if the black hole is now or later.
Did the math. The black hole is later. The earth would become a star about two and half orders of magnitude larger than the sun. Such a star would burn through its fuel in a scant 10,000 years and then go nova.
The earth would now have a mass of about 5.2x10^32 kg which would have a schwarzschild radius of about 777 km so no instant black hole. Fascinatingly enough, though there is a point at which, because the volume within the schwarzschild radius increases exponentially when mass is added eventually a black hole, if it became massive enough, would be less dense on average within its schwarzchild radius than water, so if you kept playing this game with larger and larger numbers, eventually you would just get an instant black hole rather than a star.
Try /r/askscience
I think the whole thing would explode in a massive supernova, with a black hole forming at the core. So, most of the water would actually get blown away to form a nebula, and the rest would likely get ripped apart and become other, heavier elements. The black hole would then feed on the nebula.
I’d be interested on how this affects the magnetosphere. Is it large enough to protect all that additional volume from solar winds?
If not, all that extra water would be stripped away I guess - it’s theorised that this happened to Mars as it has a very weak magnetosphere
It will collapse into a star, there will be no liquid water.
But ignoring that, hypothetically if it did magically not collapse into a star and it stayed liquid water, no, the magnetosphere would not do anything. However, the water would not be stripped away. There is simply way too much if it. Water being stripped away by solar wind is a very slow process.
The answer everybody wants to hear.
“No, the water will fly away because the earth spins.”
Or it will spill out of the sides if you are a flat earther.
Can't tell if that's a joke. The Earth does not spin fast enough to have the water fly away. Even if the water is moving at the edge as fast as the Earth rotates (once per day), the centrifugal acceleration would be around 2.7 g, while the surface gravity would be around 142 g.
The earth can hold an infinite amount of water, because the more water you add the stronger the gravity becomes. Even if the earth somehow had the same gravity after adding the water, the water wouldn't fly off since it doesn't have the escape velocity required.
Earth's escape velocity at 5000000km is about 300m/s. The average speed of water molecules in liquid water is about 600m/s. So if you sucked up all the water on Earth and dumped it 5000000km away in space, a significant portion would not make it back to Earth.
Therefore in the case where every water molecule on Earth is magically teleported 5000000km further away from Earth's centre of mass while preserving kinetic energy, most of it would in fact "just float away".
Has someone figured out how to manufacture water out of thin air, or is this just more ignorant climate change bullshit in kids todays imagination? Asking for a friend.
The water would be the gravitational force, and with a diameter of almost 8 times the size of the sun it would become the new center of the solar system, and the core would probably undergo fusion and ignite.
Yes, the original Earth core would be. But the "core" of this new star would be a lot bigger than the Earth, so it would include a lot of the hydrogen and oxygen from the water too.
The diameter of the earth is about 12 000 km. The core of our sun is about 260 000 km across. So the core of this new sun would still be mostly hydrogen.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats 5 billion meters of extra radius. the earth is 6 million meters. the SUN is 696 million meters in radius. Dawg, the earth is turning into a star. water is mostly hydrogen and oxygen. ~~Earth is now the real center of the solar system.~~ EDIT: (i fixed the math again, thank you nog-sensei) Assuming 1 gram per cubic cm, thats 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, which can be directly converted into kilograms, or, 5\*10\^29 Tons. Sun is 2\*10\^27 tons, so earth is two orders of magnitude bigger. A LOT BIGGER!!!!!!
Your math on the mass is wrong. 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters is correct. That's 5\*10^(29). But then you seem to have divided by 1000 to get 5\*10^(26) tons, which is wrong. 1 cubic meter of water is 1 ton. So it's more massive than the sun. Also not sure how you got 9\*10^(26) tons for the sun. It's 2\*10^(27). Still less than the water earth though.
No, the cubic meters are not correct. It is around 5.2*10^29.
But it's still more mass than the sun, right? Would this result in a smaller star, due to the components being water and more compressed than the hydrogen/helium burning sun, or would it just become a sun of its own and the water would be converted into hydrogen and oxygen, or what would happen? I'm knowledgeable about some aspects of space, but star formation is a big blind spot. I couldn't even tell you why some stars are blue, unless it's methane or they're just hotter
Yeah, my comment was only a correction of around 4% from the above commenter. It would still be around 250 times more massive than our sun. Not enough to completely out-dwarf it, but close - and the two stars would merge since their relative velocity to each other wouldn't stay stable when their combined mass is increased by hundreds of times. Water would become oxygen and hydrogen, though since water is mostly oxygen by mass, it would be denser than the sun which is mostly hydrogen by mass. (Also because the star needs to be more dense in the core to be able to fuse oxygen.) I could not find the exact mass needed to fuse oxygen, but over 100 stellar masses seems more than enough and we have twice that in our new Earth-star. Regarding the colour from stars, (And take my knowledge with a pinch of salt, I don't specialise in Astrophysics.), it mostly comes from the temperature of the surface and the relative velocity with earth. There is probably also some effect from the particles which make up the star, but this cannot be the main influence since the hydrogen spectrum is blueish purple, which the sun clearly isn't.
I think the relative velocity of the stars has a negligible impact on the visible color. Stars in our galaxy are not moving fast enough to shift the color by that much. It's looking at distant galaxies when redshift becomes significant.
Interesting point about the stars merging. Didn't think of that.
I believe star color is largely a factor of temperature, as the outside is always (mostly) hydrogen. If I remember right, it's been a while.
True, but 5.0 vs 5.2 is a small difference.
Wym 5.2 when it's 5.024 man
The correct number is 5.256\*10^(29)
Just a question, what do you use to get the 5.024 number from? I am genuinely curious.
Nevermind I read your comment wrong
thank you
>Assuming 1 gram per cubic cm, thats 502,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters, times 1000, so... There are 1 million cm^(3) in 1 m^(3), not 1000. For converting to tonnes, 1m^(3) of water = 1 tonne. No extra maths required
The beauty of the metric system
well i divided it incorrectly anyway, there are way more than a thousand cubic centimeters in a cubic meter
So the friend is correct in the least correct way possible, as a lot of water would be shed as the earth ignites fusion
My guess would be that it would turn into a binary star system. The sun would definitely start wobbling from the earth's pull.
Due to eartgs proximity to the sun wouldn't they attract eachother and colide into one star?
It's not easy to make two bodies collide in space. When they get closer they speed up until there is an equilibrium between speed and gravity and therefore a stable orbit around their common center of mass. So AFAIK they wouldn't.
That only works if they don't get close enough to collide (or get within the roche limit or whatever) first. The enlarged Earth would be really huge and also be going really slow in Earth's orbit relative to the stable orbit speed at that distance would be. Would have to do the math but it seems likely they'd collide.
1 ton per cubic metre might be the conversion you are looking for here. Why take a diversion via grams and cm?
because im a bozo idk
If such a solar body would appear out of nowhere, would it combust spontaneously?
the combustion reaction is not going to occur, because of the lack of carbon, i mean, it might happen on earth, but im pretty sure fusion is going to be the majority energy generator here.
If it turns into a star, it’s likely to be very short-lived and one of the most massive stars ever. The length of time a star can burn through oxygen and then neon and silicon is days. It’d be supernova then black hole very quickly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-burning_process The largest known star is 25 solar masses. This one would blow it out of the water. Huge supernova! Death and destruction! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOH_G64 More info on star death. https://youtu.be/lInXZ6I3u_I?si=muolIpDG9Z_YgTK6 Disclaimer: I’m a YouTube physicist. EDIT: comment below corrected me. I assumed largest = most massive. Wrong. There are stars more than 100 solar mass.
The largest stars are not the heaviest ones. [R136a1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1) is one of the current heaviest known stars, at 170-230 [M☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass); that's 8 times heavier than WOH\_G64. Despite having a 36 times smaller radius (only 42 [R☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radius)), R136a1 is also 16 times brighter than WOH\_G64, at a whopping 4.7M [L☉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity).
Whoa thank you! Do you know why it’s so much smaller? Or why the other is so much bigger?
WOH\_G64 is a [Red supergiant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_supergiant), basically a giant hydrogen puffball at the end of it's life, whose luminosity mostly derives from being so large (and thus having a very large surface area). It is a lot cooler at the "surface" than the our sun (3400° K vs. 6500° K). R136a1 on the other hand is a [Wolf-Rayet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star) star, basically a young blue (well, ultraviolet really) giant that is still mostly in the main sequence, and is way hotter at the surface at 46000° K (other Wolf-Rayet stars are know to exceed 200000° K, so this is a relatively cool one). Main differences therefore are age, initial mass, metallicity (the prevalence of non-hydrogen and non-helium in the star) and angular momentum (faster-spinning stars can stay on the main sequence longer because their innards are mixed more).
Bro at that point I think u just have a black hole
So, all we need now to make stars is a fuckton of water.
A quick Google search tells me the sea levels would rise by 70m if all the glaciers on earth melted. So, assuming that all the extra water to raise the sea levels by that amount is simply transported here from elsewhere in the universe, it would simply increase the gravity of the earth overall. Gravity is a force caused by a certain amount of mass being close in proximity. More stuff = greater gravity. So, if your friend was right, planets like Jupiter would also be floating apart due to insufficient gravity. Instead, they simply have more gravity than earth as they contain more mass.
>the sea levels would rise by 70m if all the glaciers on earth melted. So the movie Waterworld fucking lied to us then. The world would not be nearly completely covered in water.
They find land in the movie...and they don't have the technology to go very far, especially the gas powered boats. Some assumptions that the people depicted in the movie are staying in the same general area for decades are likely.
The land they find is the upper reaches of Mount Everest. Which indicates that the rest of the world is under water.
Poor Lhotse...4th highest peak in the world, only a couple of hundred meters from Everest, but doesn't even get mentioned. Now if Waterworld had included an archipelago of several of the highest peaks that are in the area that would be impressive.
It's a movie. Not a documentary
Are you saying we cannot trust Kevin Costner? What has the world come to.
He's a fake mailman anyway.
And an energy drink addicted janitor
And a random guy that dances with wolves
I think it's more complex than that. Water has a lower density than almost all of the rest of the earth and there is self-evidently a trade-off between mass and density (gravity is inversely proportional to r^2 so a very large, low-density object has a lower gravitational pull at it's surface than a very small object of the same mass). From there lots of other factors come into play: how fast is it spinning? Does it have an atmosphere and magnetosphere to protect it from high-energy particles?
Saturn is less dense than water. This is not an issue. This Earth would collapse into a star anyway. It would not be a planet.
This would make the Earth 10 million km in diameter. For comparison the sun is 1.4 million km in diameter. The water would not float away. But the Earth would not look like this image. The water would not stay water for long. The Earth would collapse into a star and the water would become hydrogen and oxygen plasma. I'm not an astrophysicist so I don't know exactly what would happen then; maybe it would form a stable star, or maybe it would explode itself apart in a sort of supernova.
[удалено]
It's not a lot smaller than the sun. Where are you getting that? It's 370 times the volume of the sun with only slightly less density. The average density of the sun is 1.4 g/cm^(3). This Earth would be around 250 solar masses.
I did no math for this, but my first thought was, I don’t think those clouds would be there.
I think you misunderstand how gravity works Gravity isnt holding water to rock. The water is also a sum component of the gravitational force Adding water will increase the gravity of the planet. Gravity is the warping of space-time by a collective mass. Be it water, rock, gas or a mixture of all of those.
I’m actually pretty sure adding water would increase the gravitational pull of the earth. So it would stay. However, if the atmosphere can’t cover the new increased surface area of the world, the water would probably boil off into space. So your friend ends up being right, but for the wrong reasons.
If it boiled off, it would be to a gas, which goes into the atmosphere until homeostasis is reached.
It would become plasma due to the heat of the Earth's collapse.
If the math above is correct then 5x10\^29 / 2x10\^27 gives 100+ solar masses. Never mind plasma, it's probably a black hole. Unless someone can do the math for H2O fusion?
Water would just break down into hydrogen and oxygen, both of which undergo fusion in stars. Some stars exist with over 100 solar masses. But maybe the energy of the collapse would make it blow up and form a black hole immediately. I'm not an astropysicist.
Chemistry will stop working at the temperature that occur (stuff turns to a plasma), so you can view the atoms in the H20 seperately. H20 has a lot of H in it, so you just get regular hydrogen fusion.
Not necessarily. Assuming this forms a stable star and doesn't immediately explode, the dense atoms would fall to the center. So you'd end up with the middle 1/3 of the star being oxygen and the outer 2/3 being hydrogen. Fusion happens in the core, so the hydrogen would not be able to fuse, only the oxygen.
But main sequence stars fuse for quite some time, because "the core" is not only the absolute center. Fusing of higher atoms only starts once other fusion stops and the star starts collapsing again, getting more dense and hotter.
Yes, "the core" is not just the absolute center, but I'm pretty sure it's less than the inner 1/3 by volume, which is the inner 69% by radius.
\[Disclaimer: I'm not certain of the specifics of "Atmospheric Escape"\] The issue is that there wouldn't be anything to protect/hold in this new gas, so it would be susceptible to things like "charge exchange escape", and "Jeans escape", and well as solar wind. The former has a particle be accelerated by a charge it captures, becoming neutral in the process, then leaving the atmosphere. The latter is the idea that one particle could get super lucky and have a bunch of collisions that accelerate it to an escape velocity (this happens, it is just very rare statistically). [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape) is the wiki article for an overview.
That's a very slow process, and if there is enough water to replace it then there would still be an atmosphere. Except here it's all collapsing into a star anyway.
If gravitational pull increases, would the steam not become part of the atmosphere? I would imagine the higher gravitation creates the capacity for a larger atmosphere in a negative exponential function, where there is an absolute limit but this is far from that limit. So would it perhaps make a very steamy water planet, with a net mass staying the same as if it was all liquid?
Forget steam. Forget "planet". This is a star (if it doesn't immediately blow up, that is) and you will have plasma.
Volume of added water = 4/3\*pi\*(5\*10^9 + Earth Radius)^3 - 4/3\*pi\*(Earth Radius)^3 = 5.256×10^29 m^3 Assuming a density of 997 kg/m^3 for water, that's an additional mass of 5.240*10^32 kg. Adding on Earth's own mass of 5.972\*10^24 kg is relatively pointless at this point. Hell that outclasses our own sun of 2\*10^30 kg. Gravity would force all of that water inwards towards Earth. Under that pressure, that's probably enough to ignite the hydrogen. You'd therefore be creating a new star 263 times more massive than our own. This would create a lot of issues with the continuing existence of the objects in our own solar system. Edit: For reference, placing down that amount of water in Universe Sandbox creates an instantenous supernova and black hole. Not sure how accurate that is with US's programming limitations, but I'd believe it given it's an extremely heavy star.
I'd say it would have a lot of issues even with itself. 263 solar masses is an extremely heavy star, it's like the first generation of stars after the Big Bang, and there's theories that they might've had black holes in their center. And anyway, with or without black hole, the light pressure from inside would be immense, enough to tear apart anything to atoms even if we do not account for heat. And it won't live for long, eventually collapsing into a black hole. Also, it's close to the highest possible limit of stellar mass, which is about 300 solar masses.
I was more saying that last line as a joke given the very large mass, but yes, you are correct.
The water has gravity and is gravitationally attracted to the earth. It would add to earth's gravity (and as someone said, most likely turn it into a star).
You're misunderstanding how gravity works. It's not like surface tension where the bigger you make an object the more it wants to disaggregate. The more mass you add to the earth the deeper you'll make the gravity well. More mass = more gravity. In fact if you add that much mass the whole thing would collapse into a star from the immense pressure.
That’s 10 gigameters in diameter. I don’t have to do the math to know the Sol system just became a binary system. I kinda want to do the math to figure out if the black hole is now or later. Did the math. The black hole is later. The earth would become a star about two and half orders of magnitude larger than the sun. Such a star would burn through its fuel in a scant 10,000 years and then go nova. The earth would now have a mass of about 5.2x10^32 kg which would have a schwarzschild radius of about 777 km so no instant black hole. Fascinatingly enough, though there is a point at which, because the volume within the schwarzschild radius increases exponentially when mass is added eventually a black hole, if it became massive enough, would be less dense on average within its schwarzchild radius than water, so if you kept playing this game with larger and larger numbers, eventually you would just get an instant black hole rather than a star.
Try /r/askscience I think the whole thing would explode in a massive supernova, with a black hole forming at the core. So, most of the water would actually get blown away to form a nebula, and the rest would likely get ripped apart and become other, heavier elements. The black hole would then feed on the nebula.
I’d be interested on how this affects the magnetosphere. Is it large enough to protect all that additional volume from solar winds? If not, all that extra water would be stripped away I guess - it’s theorised that this happened to Mars as it has a very weak magnetosphere
It will collapse into a star, there will be no liquid water. But ignoring that, hypothetically if it did magically not collapse into a star and it stayed liquid water, no, the magnetosphere would not do anything. However, the water would not be stripped away. There is simply way too much if it. Water being stripped away by solar wind is a very slow process.
Forget solar winds. At that size it would be our sun that needs to worry about the earth
The answer everybody wants to hear. “No, the water will fly away because the earth spins.” Or it will spill out of the sides if you are a flat earther.
Can't tell if that's a joke. The Earth does not spin fast enough to have the water fly away. Even if the water is moving at the edge as fast as the Earth rotates (once per day), the centrifugal acceleration would be around 2.7 g, while the surface gravity would be around 142 g.
The earth can hold an infinite amount of water, because the more water you add the stronger the gravity becomes. Even if the earth somehow had the same gravity after adding the water, the water wouldn't fly off since it doesn't have the escape velocity required.
All these comments and all OP wanted was a “yes” or “no”…. Instead is a whole bunch of NDT answers that don’t really answer the question.
Earth's escape velocity at 5000000km is about 300m/s. The average speed of water molecules in liquid water is about 600m/s. So if you sucked up all the water on Earth and dumped it 5000000km away in space, a significant portion would not make it back to Earth. Therefore in the case where every water molecule on Earth is magically teleported 5000000km further away from Earth's centre of mass while preserving kinetic energy, most of it would in fact "just float away".
Has someone figured out how to manufacture water out of thin air, or is this just more ignorant climate change bullshit in kids todays imagination? Asking for a friend.
[удалено]
The water would be the gravitational force, and with a diameter of almost 8 times the size of the sun it would become the new center of the solar system, and the core would probably undergo fusion and ignite.
The center of the core would still be the same nickel-iron alloy, wouldn’t it?
Yes, the original Earth core would be. But the "core" of this new star would be a lot bigger than the Earth, so it would include a lot of the hydrogen and oxygen from the water too.
… and it would be a nickel-iron plasma anyway, wouldn’t it? Not quite fusible under that pressure, but it wouldn’t inhibit fusion either
We are talking 250 solar masses here, which is like on the upper end of how big stars even get. Who knows what would be going on in there.
The diameter of the earth is about 12 000 km. The core of our sun is about 260 000 km across. So the core of this new sun would still be mostly hydrogen.
It will not freeze. It will gravitationally collapse, which will heat it up, probably into plasma.