What if all the stars disappeared suddenly?
Not just a star, it is more than that.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if all the in the universe disappeared suddenly? Definitely, the consequences would be profound and catastrophic. Before talking about the disappearance of the stars, let us first understand why we need a star.
Stars are the beautiful white dots that we see in the sky but they are not in the size that we see on Earth. Each star's size is 460 billion Earths put together. Stars which are called the components of the galaxy play a crucial role in the universe by providing light, heat, and energy to sustain life on planets like Earth. Every human body is made up of many elements such as carbon, silicon, calcium, oxygen, iron, and many other elements. But, where did we get all these elements? All these elements are formed in large amounts because of a mechanism called nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion usually occurs in a highly dense place. The core of the stars is a very highly dense region where nuclear fusion takes place and vital elements are produced. So, stars are like furnaces that forge the elements. These elements are also essential building blocks that help in the formation of planets, and the moon. Stars also serve as navigational tools for sailors, travelers, and astronomers. They use the stars to determine their positions and navigate the vastness of space. Apart from all these practical applications, during ancient times, stars had significant cultural and symbolic importance. Stars since ancient times are described as forever, hope, destiny, heaven, and freedom. People also believed that falling stars would fulfill their wishes. As everyone knows sun is the biggest star in the universe, and it has an important role in the universe. It is the only natural source of heat and light. It gives us warmth and vital nutrients such as vitamin D and calcium for our survival. Sun not only helps humans but, helps every species found on Earth in some way.
Now, if all the stars disappear it indirectly says that the sun also disappears. Humans get to know the disappearance of the sun only after 8 minutes and 20 seconds after the last ray of light hits the surface of the Earth. The Earth would be entirely covered by darkness and eventually, the moon would become dark. The sun which is the center gravitational force of our solar system holds all the planets in orbit. If the sun disappears it makes all the planets fly off and may increase the chances of colliding with other planets or asteroids resulting in extreme devastation. All the plants will die within a day without sunlight as it is very necessary for the photosynthesis. As the plants start to die the oxygen rate would fall slowly succumbing people to death. Earth's temperature would fall sharply and quickly. It becomes almost 0 degrees Celsius and most plants and heat-loving animals will lose their lives. There will be no impact on the animals living in the water on the initial days. The organisms found near geothermal places(such as volcanoes) will not be affected much. Panic and chaos take over the people creating havoc all over the Earth. Within a month, Earth's temperature would fall about to -20 degrees Celsius making the surface of the ocean to freeze and slowly affecting the aquatic animals. Earth would have lost about 3/4 of all the living organisms. After one year, Earth's temperature will around be -150 degrees celcius and almost all the living organisms would be gone and there might be some bacteria still sustaining their lives. As all the stars vanish, the production of vital elements will also stop making people lose their lives. Without stars, the night sky would be a vast and empty void, devoid of the celestial beauty that has captivated humanity for millennia. This will prompt us the importance of cherishing the beauty and wonder of the natural world.
Finally, all this is just fantasy. It is very important to lead a happy and healthy life without affecting nature.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Vishnu pprasath and writers in Earth and other communities.
Black fuel turns into clean fuel
India's energy needs keep on increasing day by day. Coal is an important source of energy that covers more than half of the energy needs of India. But burning of coal is very harmful and causes several environmental issues. As India is on their path toward achieving a green economy through sustainable development it is very much important to have sustainable and cleaner energy sources. In the interim budget for 2024, the Government of India announced many development plans in the clean energy sector. Coal gasification of 100 metric tons by the year 2030 is one such plan. Coal gasification is an alternative and better way of using coal to produce energy. It’s also more environment-friendly and can reduce carbon emissions. As you know Coal releases a lot of energy upon combustion and is used in thermal power plants to generate electricity. Another major use of coal is to produce coal gas or town gas, but it’s not very prevalent nowadays. Coal is considered to be the most polluting fossil fuel. Its by-products include several greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2). But, Coal gasification is a process in which the coal is transformed into electricity, hydrogen, and other forms of energy through partial oxidation. The coal is subjected to a high-temperature pressurized container (which is called a gasifier) and combined with hot steam and controlled amounts of oxygen under high temperatures and high pressures to generate a new component called synthetic gas or syngas. The syngas is a mixture of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. The syngas is cooled, and as much as 99 percent of the pollutant-forming impurities are removed. Different coal gasification technologies such as the moving bed, fixed bed, and fluidized bed are widely used.
By Vishnu pprasath2 years ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Comments (1)
The Sun is the largest star in the UNIVERSE ? Ig you should rethink it.