How can a planet have a deadly eclipse-like “spotlight”?












3














A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. The result is a giant shadow that sweeps across the Earth's surface.



This world has the opposite phenomenon. Instead of a giant shadow, this world has a giant deadly "spotlight" sweep across its surface.



Must achieve these effects:




  1. Must produce enough thermal power to kill humans (who are not native) and some (or all) non-native animals efficiently enough that full exposure to the light is (near?) certain doom.

  2. Should have easily-observed warning signs allowing vulnerable creatures roughly one minute to find shelter. None of the lifeforms on the planet have developed its meteorology well enough to predict them except by visual/thermal observation.

  3. Must be natural/meteorological/astronomical in nature. (Nothing like a giant orbiting laser).

  4. Most or all plants, fungi, etc (non-animals) should be able to survive.


These would be a plus:




  1. The starlight should normally be white, but the spotlight should be red (best case), blue (next best) or orange (third best). Otherwise, just brighter.

  2. Should occur a few times per week in at least one area on the planet.

  3. Should not be precisely periodic. If two occurrences are 36 hours apart, the next one might be 34 hours after, or 50 hours after. There may be a complex pattern, but it shouldn't be plausible to figure out over the course of a couple of weeks.


A "spotlight" that covers part of the planet is preferred, but if being larger than the planet is easier, that may be acceptable.



Here are a few ideas I was toying with, but I'm not sure how realistic they are:




  1. There are multiple small (or distant) stars in the system, each white in color, and multiple red moons surrounding the planet. The stars are clustered around the center of the system so there is still a day/night cycle (is this possible?) with a roughly Earthlike luminosity. The red moons reflect light on the surface more or less constantly but the intensity is relatively small compared to the normal light from the stars... Until enough moons reflect light from enough stars to the same spot on the planet's surface! I don't know if they can really reflect enough light for this to work though.

  2. Because of chaotic atmospheric conditions, atmospheric refraction causes the (single) star's rays to focus on a small area. I don't know if the color objective can be accomplished this way though.

  3. There is very thick cloud cover, but sometimes a hole opens that allows the full light of the star through onto part of the surface. Also not sure if the color objective can be accomplished.










share|improve this question
























  • Natural is strongly preferred.
    – Devsman
    2 hours ago










  • How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
    – Battle
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago






  • 3




    Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
    – Devsman
    1 hour ago
















3














A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. The result is a giant shadow that sweeps across the Earth's surface.



This world has the opposite phenomenon. Instead of a giant shadow, this world has a giant deadly "spotlight" sweep across its surface.



Must achieve these effects:




  1. Must produce enough thermal power to kill humans (who are not native) and some (or all) non-native animals efficiently enough that full exposure to the light is (near?) certain doom.

  2. Should have easily-observed warning signs allowing vulnerable creatures roughly one minute to find shelter. None of the lifeforms on the planet have developed its meteorology well enough to predict them except by visual/thermal observation.

  3. Must be natural/meteorological/astronomical in nature. (Nothing like a giant orbiting laser).

  4. Most or all plants, fungi, etc (non-animals) should be able to survive.


These would be a plus:




  1. The starlight should normally be white, but the spotlight should be red (best case), blue (next best) or orange (third best). Otherwise, just brighter.

  2. Should occur a few times per week in at least one area on the planet.

  3. Should not be precisely periodic. If two occurrences are 36 hours apart, the next one might be 34 hours after, or 50 hours after. There may be a complex pattern, but it shouldn't be plausible to figure out over the course of a couple of weeks.


A "spotlight" that covers part of the planet is preferred, but if being larger than the planet is easier, that may be acceptable.



Here are a few ideas I was toying with, but I'm not sure how realistic they are:




  1. There are multiple small (or distant) stars in the system, each white in color, and multiple red moons surrounding the planet. The stars are clustered around the center of the system so there is still a day/night cycle (is this possible?) with a roughly Earthlike luminosity. The red moons reflect light on the surface more or less constantly but the intensity is relatively small compared to the normal light from the stars... Until enough moons reflect light from enough stars to the same spot on the planet's surface! I don't know if they can really reflect enough light for this to work though.

  2. Because of chaotic atmospheric conditions, atmospheric refraction causes the (single) star's rays to focus on a small area. I don't know if the color objective can be accomplished this way though.

  3. There is very thick cloud cover, but sometimes a hole opens that allows the full light of the star through onto part of the surface. Also not sure if the color objective can be accomplished.










share|improve this question
























  • Natural is strongly preferred.
    – Devsman
    2 hours ago










  • How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
    – Battle
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago






  • 3




    Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
    – Devsman
    1 hour ago














3












3








3







A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. The result is a giant shadow that sweeps across the Earth's surface.



This world has the opposite phenomenon. Instead of a giant shadow, this world has a giant deadly "spotlight" sweep across its surface.



Must achieve these effects:




  1. Must produce enough thermal power to kill humans (who are not native) and some (or all) non-native animals efficiently enough that full exposure to the light is (near?) certain doom.

  2. Should have easily-observed warning signs allowing vulnerable creatures roughly one minute to find shelter. None of the lifeforms on the planet have developed its meteorology well enough to predict them except by visual/thermal observation.

  3. Must be natural/meteorological/astronomical in nature. (Nothing like a giant orbiting laser).

  4. Most or all plants, fungi, etc (non-animals) should be able to survive.


These would be a plus:




  1. The starlight should normally be white, but the spotlight should be red (best case), blue (next best) or orange (third best). Otherwise, just brighter.

  2. Should occur a few times per week in at least one area on the planet.

  3. Should not be precisely periodic. If two occurrences are 36 hours apart, the next one might be 34 hours after, or 50 hours after. There may be a complex pattern, but it shouldn't be plausible to figure out over the course of a couple of weeks.


A "spotlight" that covers part of the planet is preferred, but if being larger than the planet is easier, that may be acceptable.



Here are a few ideas I was toying with, but I'm not sure how realistic they are:




  1. There are multiple small (or distant) stars in the system, each white in color, and multiple red moons surrounding the planet. The stars are clustered around the center of the system so there is still a day/night cycle (is this possible?) with a roughly Earthlike luminosity. The red moons reflect light on the surface more or less constantly but the intensity is relatively small compared to the normal light from the stars... Until enough moons reflect light from enough stars to the same spot on the planet's surface! I don't know if they can really reflect enough light for this to work though.

  2. Because of chaotic atmospheric conditions, atmospheric refraction causes the (single) star's rays to focus on a small area. I don't know if the color objective can be accomplished this way though.

  3. There is very thick cloud cover, but sometimes a hole opens that allows the full light of the star through onto part of the surface. Also not sure if the color objective can be accomplished.










share|improve this question















A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. The result is a giant shadow that sweeps across the Earth's surface.



This world has the opposite phenomenon. Instead of a giant shadow, this world has a giant deadly "spotlight" sweep across its surface.



Must achieve these effects:




  1. Must produce enough thermal power to kill humans (who are not native) and some (or all) non-native animals efficiently enough that full exposure to the light is (near?) certain doom.

  2. Should have easily-observed warning signs allowing vulnerable creatures roughly one minute to find shelter. None of the lifeforms on the planet have developed its meteorology well enough to predict them except by visual/thermal observation.

  3. Must be natural/meteorological/astronomical in nature. (Nothing like a giant orbiting laser).

  4. Most or all plants, fungi, etc (non-animals) should be able to survive.


These would be a plus:




  1. The starlight should normally be white, but the spotlight should be red (best case), blue (next best) or orange (third best). Otherwise, just brighter.

  2. Should occur a few times per week in at least one area on the planet.

  3. Should not be precisely periodic. If two occurrences are 36 hours apart, the next one might be 34 hours after, or 50 hours after. There may be a complex pattern, but it shouldn't be plausible to figure out over the course of a couple of weeks.


A "spotlight" that covers part of the planet is preferred, but if being larger than the planet is easier, that may be acceptable.



Here are a few ideas I was toying with, but I'm not sure how realistic they are:




  1. There are multiple small (or distant) stars in the system, each white in color, and multiple red moons surrounding the planet. The stars are clustered around the center of the system so there is still a day/night cycle (is this possible?) with a roughly Earthlike luminosity. The red moons reflect light on the surface more or less constantly but the intensity is relatively small compared to the normal light from the stars... Until enough moons reflect light from enough stars to the same spot on the planet's surface! I don't know if they can really reflect enough light for this to work though.

  2. Because of chaotic atmospheric conditions, atmospheric refraction causes the (single) star's rays to focus on a small area. I don't know if the color objective can be accomplished this way though.

  3. There is very thick cloud cover, but sometimes a hole opens that allows the full light of the star through onto part of the surface. Also not sure if the color objective can be accomplished.







astronomy weather






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







Devsman

















asked 2 hours ago









DevsmanDevsman

2,6701623




2,6701623












  • Natural is strongly preferred.
    – Devsman
    2 hours ago










  • How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
    – Battle
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago






  • 3




    Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
    – Devsman
    1 hour ago


















  • Natural is strongly preferred.
    – Devsman
    2 hours ago










  • How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
    – Battle
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago






  • 3




    Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
    – John Dvorak
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
    – Devsman
    1 hour ago
















Natural is strongly preferred.
– Devsman
2 hours ago




Natural is strongly preferred.
– Devsman
2 hours ago












How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
– Battle
2 hours ago




How about the moon's gravity acting like a lens, focusing its receiving light and hitting the planet at its focus point? The question would be how to justify that a moon focuses that much light... maybe its made out of some reflective element? Isn't something similar occurring during solar eclipses, but with much less effect?
– Battle
2 hours ago




1




1




Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
– John Dvorak
1 hour ago




Conservation of etendue. Can't have a moon that is brighter than its parent star using just ref*ction. The bigger issue is producing the spotlight effect though.
– John Dvorak
1 hour ago




3




3




Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
– John Dvorak
1 hour ago






Scratch that. Devising anything that kills animals reliably while leaving plants untouched is pretty much impossible. For one thing, you'd have to explain why the animals don't just fancy a coat of lichen from day zero of their evolution.
– John Dvorak
1 hour ago






1




1




@JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
– Devsman
1 hour ago




@JohnDvorak Point taken. I'll update so it's not necessary for native animals to be killed.
– Devsman
1 hour ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















5














A wobbling pulsar will do the trick.



Pulsars emit a lot of energy in narrow beams that come from their poles. The slowest ones fire every few seconds; make its tilt wobble so that it is not pointing at the planet all the time. In addition, wobbling causes the pulsar to shoot at different points of the planet's orbit through time. The planet is hit when the pulsar's beam path just happens to be passing by the planet.



If the pulsar is firing every few milliseconds (as is normal for them), it will seem like a continuous beam for observers.



Finally, to make the beam small enough that it doesn't cover the entire planet and more, justify it with lensing from nearby nebulas, the planet's atmosphere, and maybe a black hole between the pulsar and the planet.






share|improve this answer























  • Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
    – Devsman
    1 hour ago










  • Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
    – Phil Frost
    8 mins ago










  • @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
    – Renan
    1 min ago



















1














Not entirely sure about the feasibility of this, but it's an idea I had when I read your question. I wonder if something like this would be possible through Gravitational Lensing. Essentially, this is when black holes (with enormous gravitational pulls) bend light around them, causing telescopic effects. I've linked the Wikipedia page for gravitational lensing as well as an article from Space.com below which you could read up on to give you a better idea of how it all works.



My idea though is that what if, just outside the edge of what can be seen from the planet, there's a system of black holes which pull light in such a manner that it's focussed into a thin beam, which cuts across the galaxy and occasionally burns its way across your planet? This would explain the huge intensity of the light as well as allowing a 'natural' explanation for how it's focussed so tightly.



Having it at such a distance would also mean that the appearance of the beam of light can't be predicted, as the people on the planet don't have the technology to either see that far into space, or understand what they're seeing. Besides, at such a distance that the black holes don't mess with the solar system's structure, the light would take very long to reach the planet. So when the beam lines up, its effects are only seen on the planet later (how much later depends on the distance. Centuries, or even millennia maybe).



As for the colour of the beam, we can assume the source of light is moving away from the black holes and the planet, which would cause Redshift. This would make a white light source look red to the observer. Frequency wise, we could assume that other objects in space (planets, dust clouds etc) often block the light from hitting our planet, but occasionally it slips through the gaps (like when you see the sun for a couple of seconds through a clearing in the clouds before it gets blocked again).



For non-animals to survive, perhaps they've evolved to feed on the huge light intensity and maybe even need it every few days to live? Or (depending on the history of the 'humans' on your planet) maybe everything else is evolved to survive the intense light to an extent, while humans aren't. Perhaps this is similar to how we have to wear clothes - we can't handle Earth's natural climates without external help. Maybe those caught outside of their radiation booths are killed rapidly, while those who stay inside are fine?



There's a lot of ways you can go with this idea and I think the rest is up to you. I've included a few links at the bottom you might be interested in.



Further Reading:



Gravitational lensing:



https://www.space.com/39999-how-gravitational-lenses-work.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



Red and blue shift:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html






share|improve this answer





















  • +1 for redshift
    – Devsman
    51 mins ago






  • 3




    Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
    – Dubukay
    42 mins ago






  • 1




    @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
    – user43712
    33 mins ago






  • 1




    However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
    – JBH
    28 mins ago






  • 1




    Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
    – JBH
    19 mins ago



















0














A transparent sphere works as a burning glass so a moon of (impossible) clear material should do the trick by concentrating the rays from the sun if it orbited at the right distance.



Trouble is that absorbtion would eat most of the light if the diameter was more than a kilometer. A thin ice-shell might work, but good luck with explaining the origin (and stability!!) of that ;-)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
    – Gryphon
    1 hour ago










  • A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
    – John Dvorak
    58 mins ago










  • "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
    – AlexP
    43 mins ago












  • Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
    – Phil Frost
    27 mins ago





















0














The remains of an ancient Dyson swarm



Not quite natural, but mostly non-technological. If a prior civilization had constructed a Dyson swarm around the system's star, the light coming from the star might be heavily occluded. Assume the sun is >10X hotter than ours (or the planet is much closer in), and there are enough collector bodies in the swarm to block some 90% of the sun's light at any time. If they are close enough in toward the sun, there will be enough diffraction around each collector that they wouldn't cast visible shadows, and could only be observed by direct observation of the sun, which requires a minimum level of technology to avoid blinding yourself.



The spotlight effect would occur when resonances in the orbital periods of the different bodies in the swarm cause gaps in coverage. The creating civilization could have arranged this purposefully to provide sunlight to further flung planets/stations, or be coincidental. The apparent brightness would grow gradually as more pieces of the swarm leave the "hole" in the field, so the warning sign would just be a rapid but gradual increase in brightness.



The spotlight color would probably be the same as the normal sunlight. However, if the star is very hot, heading toward blue spectrum, the swarm might occlude the blue/UV portion of the spectrum more and let redder light through (imagine if each collector is a giant solar array panel with no backing, e.g. microns of silicon). At the very least they would radiate heat in the infrared. If natives to the planet are used to these conditions, that might be their normal "white" light.





share





























    0














    Any sort of passive light-focusing (with lenses, mirrors, etc) scheme is unlikely do more than to make slightly warm spots. The fundamental reason has to do with the conservation of etendue, and you can read more about it at Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?



    As such, if you want the spotlight to come from a moon, the moon would either need some kind of power source (which starts to sound like "giant lasers") or would need some natural mechanism to eject jets of energy or matter. As far as I know, all kinds of astrophysical jets would require something much more massive than a moon, so this seems like a dead-end.



    I think the most feasible explanation is a planet which is ordinarily protected by its atmosphere and/or magnetosphere, but on occasion the weather aligns such that the protection is lost in an area. We to experience this to a small extent on earth: both the sun and earth have magnetic fields that vary over time. One trouble is if the earth's magnetosphere were periodically penetrated by the solar wind, the atmosphere would be stripped away. Though it could take a very long time -- perhaps it is interesting for your story to have a "dying planet".





    share





















      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135840%2fhow-can-a-planet-have-a-deadly-eclipse-like-spotlight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5














      A wobbling pulsar will do the trick.



      Pulsars emit a lot of energy in narrow beams that come from their poles. The slowest ones fire every few seconds; make its tilt wobble so that it is not pointing at the planet all the time. In addition, wobbling causes the pulsar to shoot at different points of the planet's orbit through time. The planet is hit when the pulsar's beam path just happens to be passing by the planet.



      If the pulsar is firing every few milliseconds (as is normal for them), it will seem like a continuous beam for observers.



      Finally, to make the beam small enough that it doesn't cover the entire planet and more, justify it with lensing from nearby nebulas, the planet's atmosphere, and maybe a black hole between the pulsar and the planet.






      share|improve this answer























      • Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
        – Devsman
        1 hour ago










      • Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
        – Phil Frost
        8 mins ago










      • @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
        – Renan
        1 min ago
















      5














      A wobbling pulsar will do the trick.



      Pulsars emit a lot of energy in narrow beams that come from their poles. The slowest ones fire every few seconds; make its tilt wobble so that it is not pointing at the planet all the time. In addition, wobbling causes the pulsar to shoot at different points of the planet's orbit through time. The planet is hit when the pulsar's beam path just happens to be passing by the planet.



      If the pulsar is firing every few milliseconds (as is normal for them), it will seem like a continuous beam for observers.



      Finally, to make the beam small enough that it doesn't cover the entire planet and more, justify it with lensing from nearby nebulas, the planet's atmosphere, and maybe a black hole between the pulsar and the planet.






      share|improve this answer























      • Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
        – Devsman
        1 hour ago










      • Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
        – Phil Frost
        8 mins ago










      • @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
        – Renan
        1 min ago














      5












      5








      5






      A wobbling pulsar will do the trick.



      Pulsars emit a lot of energy in narrow beams that come from their poles. The slowest ones fire every few seconds; make its tilt wobble so that it is not pointing at the planet all the time. In addition, wobbling causes the pulsar to shoot at different points of the planet's orbit through time. The planet is hit when the pulsar's beam path just happens to be passing by the planet.



      If the pulsar is firing every few milliseconds (as is normal for them), it will seem like a continuous beam for observers.



      Finally, to make the beam small enough that it doesn't cover the entire planet and more, justify it with lensing from nearby nebulas, the planet's atmosphere, and maybe a black hole between the pulsar and the planet.






      share|improve this answer














      A wobbling pulsar will do the trick.



      Pulsars emit a lot of energy in narrow beams that come from their poles. The slowest ones fire every few seconds; make its tilt wobble so that it is not pointing at the planet all the time. In addition, wobbling causes the pulsar to shoot at different points of the planet's orbit through time. The planet is hit when the pulsar's beam path just happens to be passing by the planet.



      If the pulsar is firing every few milliseconds (as is normal for them), it will seem like a continuous beam for observers.



      Finally, to make the beam small enough that it doesn't cover the entire planet and more, justify it with lensing from nearby nebulas, the planet's atmosphere, and maybe a black hole between the pulsar and the planet.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 1 hour ago









      Gryphon

      3,05822354




      3,05822354










      answered 1 hour ago









      RenanRenan

      43.8k1199223




      43.8k1199223












      • Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
        – Devsman
        1 hour ago










      • Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
        – Phil Frost
        8 mins ago










      • @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
        – Renan
        1 min ago


















      • Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
        – Devsman
        1 hour ago










      • Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
        – Phil Frost
        8 mins ago










      • @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
        – Renan
        1 min ago
















      Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
      – Gryphon
      1 hour ago




      Gah, I can't believe I didn't think of this. You got my +1.
      – Gryphon
      1 hour ago












      +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
      – Devsman
      1 hour ago




      +1, even easier if it CAN cover the whole planet, which I think might work for the story.
      – Devsman
      1 hour ago












      Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
      – Phil Frost
      8 mins ago




      Pulsars are stars that have previously exploded as supernovae: explaining life on a planet after a supernova is either a problem or interesting, depending on how you look at it.
      – Phil Frost
      8 mins ago












      @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
      – Renan
      1 min ago




      @PhilFrost the nova may have happened milliona of years ago in the other side of the galaxy. Our own sun goes full circle every 200-something million years, who knows what we had nearby when dinos walked around?
      – Renan
      1 min ago











      1














      Not entirely sure about the feasibility of this, but it's an idea I had when I read your question. I wonder if something like this would be possible through Gravitational Lensing. Essentially, this is when black holes (with enormous gravitational pulls) bend light around them, causing telescopic effects. I've linked the Wikipedia page for gravitational lensing as well as an article from Space.com below which you could read up on to give you a better idea of how it all works.



      My idea though is that what if, just outside the edge of what can be seen from the planet, there's a system of black holes which pull light in such a manner that it's focussed into a thin beam, which cuts across the galaxy and occasionally burns its way across your planet? This would explain the huge intensity of the light as well as allowing a 'natural' explanation for how it's focussed so tightly.



      Having it at such a distance would also mean that the appearance of the beam of light can't be predicted, as the people on the planet don't have the technology to either see that far into space, or understand what they're seeing. Besides, at such a distance that the black holes don't mess with the solar system's structure, the light would take very long to reach the planet. So when the beam lines up, its effects are only seen on the planet later (how much later depends on the distance. Centuries, or even millennia maybe).



      As for the colour of the beam, we can assume the source of light is moving away from the black holes and the planet, which would cause Redshift. This would make a white light source look red to the observer. Frequency wise, we could assume that other objects in space (planets, dust clouds etc) often block the light from hitting our planet, but occasionally it slips through the gaps (like when you see the sun for a couple of seconds through a clearing in the clouds before it gets blocked again).



      For non-animals to survive, perhaps they've evolved to feed on the huge light intensity and maybe even need it every few days to live? Or (depending on the history of the 'humans' on your planet) maybe everything else is evolved to survive the intense light to an extent, while humans aren't. Perhaps this is similar to how we have to wear clothes - we can't handle Earth's natural climates without external help. Maybe those caught outside of their radiation booths are killed rapidly, while those who stay inside are fine?



      There's a lot of ways you can go with this idea and I think the rest is up to you. I've included a few links at the bottom you might be interested in.



      Further Reading:



      Gravitational lensing:



      https://www.space.com/39999-how-gravitational-lenses-work.html



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



      Red and blue shift:



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



      https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html






      share|improve this answer





















      • +1 for redshift
        – Devsman
        51 mins ago






      • 3




        Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
        – Dubukay
        42 mins ago






      • 1




        @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
        – user43712
        33 mins ago






      • 1




        However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
        – JBH
        28 mins ago






      • 1




        Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
        – JBH
        19 mins ago
















      1














      Not entirely sure about the feasibility of this, but it's an idea I had when I read your question. I wonder if something like this would be possible through Gravitational Lensing. Essentially, this is when black holes (with enormous gravitational pulls) bend light around them, causing telescopic effects. I've linked the Wikipedia page for gravitational lensing as well as an article from Space.com below which you could read up on to give you a better idea of how it all works.



      My idea though is that what if, just outside the edge of what can be seen from the planet, there's a system of black holes which pull light in such a manner that it's focussed into a thin beam, which cuts across the galaxy and occasionally burns its way across your planet? This would explain the huge intensity of the light as well as allowing a 'natural' explanation for how it's focussed so tightly.



      Having it at such a distance would also mean that the appearance of the beam of light can't be predicted, as the people on the planet don't have the technology to either see that far into space, or understand what they're seeing. Besides, at such a distance that the black holes don't mess with the solar system's structure, the light would take very long to reach the planet. So when the beam lines up, its effects are only seen on the planet later (how much later depends on the distance. Centuries, or even millennia maybe).



      As for the colour of the beam, we can assume the source of light is moving away from the black holes and the planet, which would cause Redshift. This would make a white light source look red to the observer. Frequency wise, we could assume that other objects in space (planets, dust clouds etc) often block the light from hitting our planet, but occasionally it slips through the gaps (like when you see the sun for a couple of seconds through a clearing in the clouds before it gets blocked again).



      For non-animals to survive, perhaps they've evolved to feed on the huge light intensity and maybe even need it every few days to live? Or (depending on the history of the 'humans' on your planet) maybe everything else is evolved to survive the intense light to an extent, while humans aren't. Perhaps this is similar to how we have to wear clothes - we can't handle Earth's natural climates without external help. Maybe those caught outside of their radiation booths are killed rapidly, while those who stay inside are fine?



      There's a lot of ways you can go with this idea and I think the rest is up to you. I've included a few links at the bottom you might be interested in.



      Further Reading:



      Gravitational lensing:



      https://www.space.com/39999-how-gravitational-lenses-work.html



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



      Red and blue shift:



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



      https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html






      share|improve this answer





















      • +1 for redshift
        – Devsman
        51 mins ago






      • 3




        Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
        – Dubukay
        42 mins ago






      • 1




        @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
        – user43712
        33 mins ago






      • 1




        However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
        – JBH
        28 mins ago






      • 1




        Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
        – JBH
        19 mins ago














      1












      1








      1






      Not entirely sure about the feasibility of this, but it's an idea I had when I read your question. I wonder if something like this would be possible through Gravitational Lensing. Essentially, this is when black holes (with enormous gravitational pulls) bend light around them, causing telescopic effects. I've linked the Wikipedia page for gravitational lensing as well as an article from Space.com below which you could read up on to give you a better idea of how it all works.



      My idea though is that what if, just outside the edge of what can be seen from the planet, there's a system of black holes which pull light in such a manner that it's focussed into a thin beam, which cuts across the galaxy and occasionally burns its way across your planet? This would explain the huge intensity of the light as well as allowing a 'natural' explanation for how it's focussed so tightly.



      Having it at such a distance would also mean that the appearance of the beam of light can't be predicted, as the people on the planet don't have the technology to either see that far into space, or understand what they're seeing. Besides, at such a distance that the black holes don't mess with the solar system's structure, the light would take very long to reach the planet. So when the beam lines up, its effects are only seen on the planet later (how much later depends on the distance. Centuries, or even millennia maybe).



      As for the colour of the beam, we can assume the source of light is moving away from the black holes and the planet, which would cause Redshift. This would make a white light source look red to the observer. Frequency wise, we could assume that other objects in space (planets, dust clouds etc) often block the light from hitting our planet, but occasionally it slips through the gaps (like when you see the sun for a couple of seconds through a clearing in the clouds before it gets blocked again).



      For non-animals to survive, perhaps they've evolved to feed on the huge light intensity and maybe even need it every few days to live? Or (depending on the history of the 'humans' on your planet) maybe everything else is evolved to survive the intense light to an extent, while humans aren't. Perhaps this is similar to how we have to wear clothes - we can't handle Earth's natural climates without external help. Maybe those caught outside of their radiation booths are killed rapidly, while those who stay inside are fine?



      There's a lot of ways you can go with this idea and I think the rest is up to you. I've included a few links at the bottom you might be interested in.



      Further Reading:



      Gravitational lensing:



      https://www.space.com/39999-how-gravitational-lenses-work.html



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



      Red and blue shift:



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



      https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html






      share|improve this answer












      Not entirely sure about the feasibility of this, but it's an idea I had when I read your question. I wonder if something like this would be possible through Gravitational Lensing. Essentially, this is when black holes (with enormous gravitational pulls) bend light around them, causing telescopic effects. I've linked the Wikipedia page for gravitational lensing as well as an article from Space.com below which you could read up on to give you a better idea of how it all works.



      My idea though is that what if, just outside the edge of what can be seen from the planet, there's a system of black holes which pull light in such a manner that it's focussed into a thin beam, which cuts across the galaxy and occasionally burns its way across your planet? This would explain the huge intensity of the light as well as allowing a 'natural' explanation for how it's focussed so tightly.



      Having it at such a distance would also mean that the appearance of the beam of light can't be predicted, as the people on the planet don't have the technology to either see that far into space, or understand what they're seeing. Besides, at such a distance that the black holes don't mess with the solar system's structure, the light would take very long to reach the planet. So when the beam lines up, its effects are only seen on the planet later (how much later depends on the distance. Centuries, or even millennia maybe).



      As for the colour of the beam, we can assume the source of light is moving away from the black holes and the planet, which would cause Redshift. This would make a white light source look red to the observer. Frequency wise, we could assume that other objects in space (planets, dust clouds etc) often block the light from hitting our planet, but occasionally it slips through the gaps (like when you see the sun for a couple of seconds through a clearing in the clouds before it gets blocked again).



      For non-animals to survive, perhaps they've evolved to feed on the huge light intensity and maybe even need it every few days to live? Or (depending on the history of the 'humans' on your planet) maybe everything else is evolved to survive the intense light to an extent, while humans aren't. Perhaps this is similar to how we have to wear clothes - we can't handle Earth's natural climates without external help. Maybe those caught outside of their radiation booths are killed rapidly, while those who stay inside are fine?



      There's a lot of ways you can go with this idea and I think the rest is up to you. I've included a few links at the bottom you might be interested in.



      Further Reading:



      Gravitational lensing:



      https://www.space.com/39999-how-gravitational-lenses-work.html



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



      Red and blue shift:



      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



      https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 1 hour ago









      user43712user43712

      812




      812












      • +1 for redshift
        – Devsman
        51 mins ago






      • 3




        Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
        – Dubukay
        42 mins ago






      • 1




        @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
        – user43712
        33 mins ago






      • 1




        However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
        – JBH
        28 mins ago






      • 1




        Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
        – JBH
        19 mins ago


















      • +1 for redshift
        – Devsman
        51 mins ago






      • 3




        Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
        – Dubukay
        42 mins ago






      • 1




        @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
        – user43712
        33 mins ago






      • 1




        However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
        – JBH
        28 mins ago






      • 1




        Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
        – JBH
        19 mins ago
















      +1 for redshift
      – Devsman
      51 mins ago




      +1 for redshift
      – Devsman
      51 mins ago




      3




      3




      Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
      – Dubukay
      42 mins ago




      Sadly, the conservation of etendue makes this system of black hole lenses unworkable. If you're concentrating the light to a smaller output area, then it must also be distributed across a larger angle as it leaves the lens. XKCD's Randall Munroe did an excellent post on this topic: what-if.xkcd.com/145
      – Dubukay
      42 mins ago




      1




      1




      @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
      – user43712
      33 mins ago




      @Dubukay wow, never heard of that conservation law before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Love learning stuff on here haha
      – user43712
      33 mins ago




      1




      1




      However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
      – JBH
      28 mins ago




      However, if what we're going for is suspension-of-disbelief, make it a mini black hole in an inner orbit of the same system. Each time that BH passes between your unfortunate planet and the sun, lensing burns a scar right across the planet. If there's enough sunlight to start a fire with a magnifying glass, there's enough to do it through gravitational lensing (note that most of the planet will be nearly dark due to the lensing effect).
      – JBH
      28 mins ago




      1




      1




      Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
      – JBH
      19 mins ago




      Also, keep in mind that the mini black hole could also be one half of a binary star, in which case the orbits are preserved and the effect is the same, if a bit more complicated to calculate.
      – JBH
      19 mins ago











      0














      A transparent sphere works as a burning glass so a moon of (impossible) clear material should do the trick by concentrating the rays from the sun if it orbited at the right distance.



      Trouble is that absorbtion would eat most of the light if the diameter was more than a kilometer. A thin ice-shell might work, but good luck with explaining the origin (and stability!!) of that ;-)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
        – John Dvorak
        58 mins ago










      • "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
        – AlexP
        43 mins ago












      • Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
        – Phil Frost
        27 mins ago


















      0














      A transparent sphere works as a burning glass so a moon of (impossible) clear material should do the trick by concentrating the rays from the sun if it orbited at the right distance.



      Trouble is that absorbtion would eat most of the light if the diameter was more than a kilometer. A thin ice-shell might work, but good luck with explaining the origin (and stability!!) of that ;-)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
        – John Dvorak
        58 mins ago










      • "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
        – AlexP
        43 mins ago












      • Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
        – Phil Frost
        27 mins ago
















      0












      0








      0






      A transparent sphere works as a burning glass so a moon of (impossible) clear material should do the trick by concentrating the rays from the sun if it orbited at the right distance.



      Trouble is that absorbtion would eat most of the light if the diameter was more than a kilometer. A thin ice-shell might work, but good luck with explaining the origin (and stability!!) of that ;-)






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      A transparent sphere works as a burning glass so a moon of (impossible) clear material should do the trick by concentrating the rays from the sun if it orbited at the right distance.



      Trouble is that absorbtion would eat most of the light if the diameter was more than a kilometer. A thin ice-shell might work, but good luck with explaining the origin (and stability!!) of that ;-)







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered 1 hour ago









      Mads HornMads Horn

      91




      91




      New contributor




      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Mads Horn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
        – John Dvorak
        58 mins ago










      • "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
        – AlexP
        43 mins ago












      • Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
        – Phil Frost
        27 mins ago




















      • Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
        – Gryphon
        1 hour ago










      • A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
        – John Dvorak
        58 mins ago










      • "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
        – AlexP
        43 mins ago












      • Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
        – Phil Frost
        27 mins ago


















      Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
      – Gryphon
      1 hour ago




      Welcome to Worldbuilding, Mads Horn! If you have a moment, please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site. You may also find Worldbuilding Meta and The Sandbox useful. Here is a meta post on the culture and style of Worldbuilding.SE, just to help you understand our scope and methods, and how we do things here. Have fun!
      – Gryphon
      1 hour ago












      A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
      – John Dvorak
      58 mins ago




      A thin layer of ice may let enough light through, but it won't have any significant lensing effect, not to mention it wouldn't survive without collapsing spectacularly for more than a few days after being conjured at best, let alone form naturally in the first place.
      – John Dvorak
      58 mins ago












      "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
      – AlexP
      43 mins ago






      "If it orbited at the right distance": the focal distance of a ball lens is $f = nD / 4(n - 1)$, with n being the index of refraction of the material and D the diameter of the sphere. For glass, this works out at about 0.8 D, so that orbit must be very close to the surface. Not to mention that the focus lies on the optical axis, so that it wont fall on the surface unless the moon is in conjuction with the Sun. And ball lenses are horrible lenses, they won't focus the light in a nice focal spot.
      – AlexP
      43 mins ago














      Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
      – Phil Frost
      27 mins ago






      Won't work, for reasons more than just absorption. See Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?
      – Phil Frost
      27 mins ago













      0














      The remains of an ancient Dyson swarm



      Not quite natural, but mostly non-technological. If a prior civilization had constructed a Dyson swarm around the system's star, the light coming from the star might be heavily occluded. Assume the sun is >10X hotter than ours (or the planet is much closer in), and there are enough collector bodies in the swarm to block some 90% of the sun's light at any time. If they are close enough in toward the sun, there will be enough diffraction around each collector that they wouldn't cast visible shadows, and could only be observed by direct observation of the sun, which requires a minimum level of technology to avoid blinding yourself.



      The spotlight effect would occur when resonances in the orbital periods of the different bodies in the swarm cause gaps in coverage. The creating civilization could have arranged this purposefully to provide sunlight to further flung planets/stations, or be coincidental. The apparent brightness would grow gradually as more pieces of the swarm leave the "hole" in the field, so the warning sign would just be a rapid but gradual increase in brightness.



      The spotlight color would probably be the same as the normal sunlight. However, if the star is very hot, heading toward blue spectrum, the swarm might occlude the blue/UV portion of the spectrum more and let redder light through (imagine if each collector is a giant solar array panel with no backing, e.g. microns of silicon). At the very least they would radiate heat in the infrared. If natives to the planet are used to these conditions, that might be their normal "white" light.





      share


























        0














        The remains of an ancient Dyson swarm



        Not quite natural, but mostly non-technological. If a prior civilization had constructed a Dyson swarm around the system's star, the light coming from the star might be heavily occluded. Assume the sun is >10X hotter than ours (or the planet is much closer in), and there are enough collector bodies in the swarm to block some 90% of the sun's light at any time. If they are close enough in toward the sun, there will be enough diffraction around each collector that they wouldn't cast visible shadows, and could only be observed by direct observation of the sun, which requires a minimum level of technology to avoid blinding yourself.



        The spotlight effect would occur when resonances in the orbital periods of the different bodies in the swarm cause gaps in coverage. The creating civilization could have arranged this purposefully to provide sunlight to further flung planets/stations, or be coincidental. The apparent brightness would grow gradually as more pieces of the swarm leave the "hole" in the field, so the warning sign would just be a rapid but gradual increase in brightness.



        The spotlight color would probably be the same as the normal sunlight. However, if the star is very hot, heading toward blue spectrum, the swarm might occlude the blue/UV portion of the spectrum more and let redder light through (imagine if each collector is a giant solar array panel with no backing, e.g. microns of silicon). At the very least they would radiate heat in the infrared. If natives to the planet are used to these conditions, that might be their normal "white" light.





        share
























          0












          0








          0






          The remains of an ancient Dyson swarm



          Not quite natural, but mostly non-technological. If a prior civilization had constructed a Dyson swarm around the system's star, the light coming from the star might be heavily occluded. Assume the sun is >10X hotter than ours (or the planet is much closer in), and there are enough collector bodies in the swarm to block some 90% of the sun's light at any time. If they are close enough in toward the sun, there will be enough diffraction around each collector that they wouldn't cast visible shadows, and could only be observed by direct observation of the sun, which requires a minimum level of technology to avoid blinding yourself.



          The spotlight effect would occur when resonances in the orbital periods of the different bodies in the swarm cause gaps in coverage. The creating civilization could have arranged this purposefully to provide sunlight to further flung planets/stations, or be coincidental. The apparent brightness would grow gradually as more pieces of the swarm leave the "hole" in the field, so the warning sign would just be a rapid but gradual increase in brightness.



          The spotlight color would probably be the same as the normal sunlight. However, if the star is very hot, heading toward blue spectrum, the swarm might occlude the blue/UV portion of the spectrum more and let redder light through (imagine if each collector is a giant solar array panel with no backing, e.g. microns of silicon). At the very least they would radiate heat in the infrared. If natives to the planet are used to these conditions, that might be their normal "white" light.





          share












          The remains of an ancient Dyson swarm



          Not quite natural, but mostly non-technological. If a prior civilization had constructed a Dyson swarm around the system's star, the light coming from the star might be heavily occluded. Assume the sun is >10X hotter than ours (or the planet is much closer in), and there are enough collector bodies in the swarm to block some 90% of the sun's light at any time. If they are close enough in toward the sun, there will be enough diffraction around each collector that they wouldn't cast visible shadows, and could only be observed by direct observation of the sun, which requires a minimum level of technology to avoid blinding yourself.



          The spotlight effect would occur when resonances in the orbital periods of the different bodies in the swarm cause gaps in coverage. The creating civilization could have arranged this purposefully to provide sunlight to further flung planets/stations, or be coincidental. The apparent brightness would grow gradually as more pieces of the swarm leave the "hole" in the field, so the warning sign would just be a rapid but gradual increase in brightness.



          The spotlight color would probably be the same as the normal sunlight. However, if the star is very hot, heading toward blue spectrum, the swarm might occlude the blue/UV portion of the spectrum more and let redder light through (imagine if each collector is a giant solar array panel with no backing, e.g. microns of silicon). At the very least they would radiate heat in the infrared. If natives to the planet are used to these conditions, that might be their normal "white" light.






          share











          share


          share










          answered 8 mins ago









          thegreatemuthegreatemu

          94029




          94029























              0














              Any sort of passive light-focusing (with lenses, mirrors, etc) scheme is unlikely do more than to make slightly warm spots. The fundamental reason has to do with the conservation of etendue, and you can read more about it at Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?



              As such, if you want the spotlight to come from a moon, the moon would either need some kind of power source (which starts to sound like "giant lasers") or would need some natural mechanism to eject jets of energy or matter. As far as I know, all kinds of astrophysical jets would require something much more massive than a moon, so this seems like a dead-end.



              I think the most feasible explanation is a planet which is ordinarily protected by its atmosphere and/or magnetosphere, but on occasion the weather aligns such that the protection is lost in an area. We to experience this to a small extent on earth: both the sun and earth have magnetic fields that vary over time. One trouble is if the earth's magnetosphere were periodically penetrated by the solar wind, the atmosphere would be stripped away. Though it could take a very long time -- perhaps it is interesting for your story to have a "dying planet".





              share


























                0














                Any sort of passive light-focusing (with lenses, mirrors, etc) scheme is unlikely do more than to make slightly warm spots. The fundamental reason has to do with the conservation of etendue, and you can read more about it at Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?



                As such, if you want the spotlight to come from a moon, the moon would either need some kind of power source (which starts to sound like "giant lasers") or would need some natural mechanism to eject jets of energy or matter. As far as I know, all kinds of astrophysical jets would require something much more massive than a moon, so this seems like a dead-end.



                I think the most feasible explanation is a planet which is ordinarily protected by its atmosphere and/or magnetosphere, but on occasion the weather aligns such that the protection is lost in an area. We to experience this to a small extent on earth: both the sun and earth have magnetic fields that vary over time. One trouble is if the earth's magnetosphere were periodically penetrated by the solar wind, the atmosphere would be stripped away. Though it could take a very long time -- perhaps it is interesting for your story to have a "dying planet".





                share
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  Any sort of passive light-focusing (with lenses, mirrors, etc) scheme is unlikely do more than to make slightly warm spots. The fundamental reason has to do with the conservation of etendue, and you can read more about it at Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?



                  As such, if you want the spotlight to come from a moon, the moon would either need some kind of power source (which starts to sound like "giant lasers") or would need some natural mechanism to eject jets of energy or matter. As far as I know, all kinds of astrophysical jets would require something much more massive than a moon, so this seems like a dead-end.



                  I think the most feasible explanation is a planet which is ordinarily protected by its atmosphere and/or magnetosphere, but on occasion the weather aligns such that the protection is lost in an area. We to experience this to a small extent on earth: both the sun and earth have magnetic fields that vary over time. One trouble is if the earth's magnetosphere were periodically penetrated by the solar wind, the atmosphere would be stripped away. Though it could take a very long time -- perhaps it is interesting for your story to have a "dying planet".





                  share












                  Any sort of passive light-focusing (with lenses, mirrors, etc) scheme is unlikely do more than to make slightly warm spots. The fundamental reason has to do with the conservation of etendue, and you can read more about it at Would a Moon made of water pose a threat to Earth during eclipses?



                  As such, if you want the spotlight to come from a moon, the moon would either need some kind of power source (which starts to sound like "giant lasers") or would need some natural mechanism to eject jets of energy or matter. As far as I know, all kinds of astrophysical jets would require something much more massive than a moon, so this seems like a dead-end.



                  I think the most feasible explanation is a planet which is ordinarily protected by its atmosphere and/or magnetosphere, but on occasion the weather aligns such that the protection is lost in an area. We to experience this to a small extent on earth: both the sun and earth have magnetic fields that vary over time. One trouble is if the earth's magnetosphere were periodically penetrated by the solar wind, the atmosphere would be stripped away. Though it could take a very long time -- perhaps it is interesting for your story to have a "dying planet".






                  share











                  share


                  share










                  answered 2 mins ago









                  Phil FrostPhil Frost

                  1,826159




                  1,826159






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135840%2fhow-can-a-planet-have-a-deadly-eclipse-like-spotlight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      濃尾地震

                      How to rewrite equation of hyperbola in standard form

                      No ethernet ip address in my vocore2