Will it?
(By "explode", I mean a violent supernova-like blow-up, not the usual explosions that accompany any stellar fusion process. You people are beyond pedantic.)
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ31 | |
| 2 | Ṁ25 | |
| 3 | Ṁ22 | |
| 4 | Ṁ14 | |
| 5 | Ṁ11 |
People are also trading
@jonsimon Yeah, actually, we might want a more specific definition of "explodes" to make sure that nuclear fusion and the outward radiation pressure opposing gravitational collapse don't count. I would say that, to qualify as an explosion, there has to be a rapid increase in volume, which doesn't occur in the Sun, since the outward and inward forces are balanced.
@ShitakiIntaki But that's only a very small portion of the Sun exploding. Presumably the entire Sun has to explode for it to count.
@JosephNoonan I don't like to presume, however, strictly speaking I think we agree that the sun exploded. Now the conversation has turned to degrees of "exploded" which is not something designated in the question. I agree that conventionally the idea of exploding would be an annihilation of the thing which exploded, or at least more completely than partially, but what is the point of a short term market for an outcome for which one side it is impossible to collect? So one has to wonder if there are some word games being played where there is a reasonable or valid, but perhaps not common, interpretation of the question posed.
@FranklinBaldo Updated description to clarify. I mean a violent supernova-like explosion. Not your everyday fusion reaction.