Post-nova planetary hypothesis

I read a post on Google+ referencing an article about a supernova remnant. I looked at the picture, and as it happens, let my mind and imagination have a flight of fancy. Again. In a post comment, most of which I've brought up here, too.

The entire thing does look spherical, but the sphere is broken up, and its gravity—or that of the centre of the sphere—keeps the remnant elements around it.

I could posit, that it's simply a dwarf star or dwarf remnant of a star, apparently containing that shrapnel of silicon, as the title suggests.

As I looked closer, the silicon is right in the middle of the sphere, so this could either be what's left of the star's core, _or_ that surviving core is inside and in the middle of a surviving planet that moved in to take the former place of what's left of the old star. In the latter case — if it begins to gather new matter, then it will develop into a new star. A stellar renewal of sorts.

If it's a surviving planet, then a question becomes about whether it moved in, or was it pulled into the center—to the position of (around) the remnant core. It looks, like other spheres are also close, which suggests, that they have been pulled in, too.

An evolved star before nova contains concentric shells of silicon, so the silicon simply manifests the inner (surviving?) parts of the shell post-nova.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evolved_star_fusion_shells.svg

The silicon remnant might rejuvenate.

If its gravity remains greater than that of any surviving panets, it will catch a planet with enough size, enough elements, and a sufficiently strong rotating core. Or one or more planets that each carry one such component, or a combination of those.

My best guess is a gas giant, because, for example, movements of Jupiter's atmosphere are not dissimilar to movements in the Sun's atmosphere. All that differs, is the behaviour of elements because of differing parameters involving gravity and pressure, but general movements do not diverge all that much.

If post-nova, the remnant's gravity is lesser than that of the surviving planet with the greatest gravity, then eventually, these two will merge, and the solar system will reconstitute around the new body.

The trick is to find a matching planet to nest in. If my description is ever found to be accurate, then we're seeing a stellar hatchling.

----
As it is, a supernova usually destroys everything. I suppose, mini-novae can also happen, which might then allow for the stellar rejuvenation described above.

Antoher possibility is, that mini nova happened in another—perhaps neighboring or nearby solar system, and that system's nova wiped out much of its sibling's (or siblings'..) planets and it star. We might simply be looking at the remains of that surviving solar system, which might be trying to rebuild after the catastrophe.

So, a more powerful nova in the distance, or a mini- or micronova right there. The destruction must anyway be survivable enough to allow such processes to move forward.

----
(Unless I got the scale wrong, and the spherical remnant is many light-years in size. But what I see, sure looks what I've desribed above.)

Most supernovae are misclassified as nebulae...

...Because the calculations reflecting the speed of light en route to Earth are off, since they don't take into account the effects caused by the confluence of time dilation and dark matter across the long trip that the photons take.

The title refers to numerous photos of nebulae, which I think are really supernovas in progress. I attribute this misclassification the the sheer distance involved and what I think are inaccurate speed-of-light calculations, because the distance between an event and Earth is so great. So, even a quick event in a galaxy far, far away just appears to happen very, very slowly when viewed from here. — So slowly for that matter, that the event looks to be in a standstill.

Dark matter, black holes, and other crazy theories

What I think dark matter is

Dark matter, in turn, is gravity from black holes (aka singularities) not (yet) manifest in this realm. These black holes are singularities, but not black holes, because they haven't opened up yet, but are close enough to the 'wall' separating them and this universe to cause gravimetric emissions. Alternately, I can describe dark matter as just a gravimetric echo of a black hole not yet manifest.

Imagine putting small magnet pieces on paper and then moving them around using a big magnet on the other side of that sheet of paper. The sheet of paper is that wall.

The black holes themselves don't open up just like that. A typical process in the lifetime of a manifest black hole is first to collect enough matter. And well, if there's no matter, then the singularity won't bother either.

But — if there's enough matter, the gravity of the non-manifest black hole (the 'dark matter') will collect the matter together. The right elements that are easier to attract will congregate into one or more masses, of which one such mass is large enough to be solar-forming.

The catch is, that black holes rotate, and the solar material basically chafes at the fabric of the 'wall' separating ths realm from what is probably another one. One possibility is, that a certain small amount of solar material moves from this realm through an inner back hole (inside a sun) to the other side. Well, enter pulsars. Some pulsars are long-lasting and stable, but emit solar material from the other side transmogrified into very powerful pulsar emissions.

Now, the stars and the suns are just pimples of the universe, which are mostly stable. In some cases, a star runs out of fuel (collected matter) and becomes a dwarf.

In other cases, there is some kind of an imbalance that causes a supernova to happen.

An open black hole sucks everything in; imagine a drain, and water going through it is just space. But in space, it's totally 3-dimensional. |There might be more dimensions.|

For a supernova, one option is, that as the amount of solar material increases, a black hole within the stellar object gets more powerful (and maybe sucks more in). Or that it is sustained, along with the star around it. Once the stellar object runs out of fuel, the opening of the singularity inner to the stellar object cannot be sustained, and as that singularity leaves its 'nest' and closes within the stellar object, the remaining solar material that has so far made up that stellar object — unable to be to be sucked in anywhere — disperses. Often violently.

Imagine a rubber balloon and then applying pressure from its hind end. Apply too much pressure, and the ballooon pops. The rubber pieces of the balloon fly around quickly and sometimes violently, as they hit stuff in their way.

13.11.2016 update.

I later thought about actual open black holes that don't have any light around them. As I'd described stars as pimples of the universe, then I could think of not just one type of supernova, but more than one.

So, one type of supernova is likely to be caused by dispersing solar (and other) matter once a singularity has closed up, but the collected matter around the closing doesn't have anywhere to move. That's described above. To add to that, such a nova happens, if the closing is not safe, or if there's surplus material and gravity, and maybe an imbalance involved, but the hole itself closes.

The other type of supernova is caused by a tear in the continuum. The magnets and paper description might come into play here, as rotating black holes are covered by stars (note, that manifest singularities are circular, but instead of forming a mass, they are 3D drains when open), which avoid, prevent or delay the tear from happening.

So it could be, that a certain star runs out of fuel, but a greater imbalance causes the black hole to manifest.
What may be causes to the imbalance, are unknown. Perhaps lack of sufficent matter to close the hole, if the singularity is too powerful. In that case, it's not so much solar matter exploding outwards, but a violent opening, whereby normal gravity is pushed away, in the process also pushing outwards, but not destroying/extinguishing all extant matter that is in the way. That is disperesed before the hole opens.

At this point, I'm too tired, and the previous paragraph is too illogical even to me. I'd rather read up on Wikipedia about actual discoveries and proofs, but later.

All this from the crazy theories dept. I felt so giddy this hour, that I wanted to put out something off the wall with lots of non-sensical technobabble.

Added minor wording and idea updates a few days later.

Galaxy Note 7 and possible causes of fires

When thinking about the possible reasons why Samsung Galaxy Note 7 became flammable, I asked myself several questions: Can a magnet affect a phone battery? Are there magnets in the S Pen — the stylus that comes with the phone and that stays inside the phone case when not in use? Were users with phones that burned, using leather holsters with magnets (as many people do with other phones do)?

As a disclaimer: This blogpost is pure speculation rife with theories and hypotheses unconfirmed by hard facts (scientific or otherwise), much of which is original research. Neither do I know very much about how smartphone screens are made, and my knowledge of chemistry and physics is lacking. Many of the claims are qualified with terms, such as "likely", "possible", "probable", and so on. The intention of the post is to ruminate over what caused the fires, since finding the cause would be in the best interests of Samsung, other smartphone makers, and the public at large. In addition, I'm a user of two Samsung phones, one of which is a smartphone.

I began looking for news articles about Samsung Galaxy Note 7 and magnets, and came across this one from August 22, 2016 published by Korea Joongang Daily:
"Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 is marvel of waterproofing".

The article explains, that:

The Note 7 and its S-Pen can work under water, because the phone's LCD and the S-pen respond to one another through a magnetic field in much the same way pieces of iron move in the direction of a magnet, when said magnet and iron pieces are separated by paper.

Further:

Even with water between the display and the S-Pen, the device "recognizes and responds to the S-Pen’s magnetic field."

My conclusion is,

that the phone battery was susceptible to magnetism, because it wasn't sufficiently protected from magnetism inside the phone, where the S-Pen was housed. The additional reason could be, that the internal phone battery, apart from some plastic, seemed (according to teardown photos) to lack any other protective material to shield it from magnetism.

All this suggests, that the Note 7's LCD is a magnet, and the S-Pen is, too, and the battery in the phone is still about the same in terms of its own housing as used in earlier models.

This is based on the assumption, that the housing of this kind of internal battery has not changed much from earlier internal Galaxy Note and Galaxy S batteries. The fact, that batteries with similar housing didn't combust in earlier Galaxy models, was because magnets (or magnetism) were not used in the screen and the new S-Pen.

The possible design mistake in the Note 7 is, that the engineers probably forgot to account for the fact, that the battery, with its usual housing, was susceptible to magnetism that emanated from the phone's screen and the S-Pen, either during use or when idle.

Samsung won't refurbish the recalled devices, and won't reuse its components.

Whether the magnetic screen and the magnetic S-Pen are the reasons for fires in the batteries, is unknown. Whether Samsung is currently aware of these as the underlying issue(s), is also unknown. And if it is, the public should know when the company first realised this.

If I were a mobile phone manufacturer, and realised, that the magnetic screen and stylus were affecting the batteries, then as a matter of business, I would halt production of this model of device, and choose not to refurbish or reuse the magnetic screen and pen that would adversely affect any normal battery that's close by.

The most widespread photos of exploded Note 7 models show, that it was the screens that burned through the most, but not the backsides of the poor phones. Investigating the burned phones for the direction of the burns and fires should confirm this. Granted, the backsides of the phones were made of metal and other materials that were stronger than the screens, and explosions and fires would move towards the area that would first give way.

Another interesting thing that the photos of burned Note 7 phones show, is that the screens burned through completely at the location of the batteries. Part of this burn-through could be attributed to extreme heat from the burning batteries, but I'd imagine, that the displays, made of mostly glass, would stay intact.

I do not know, whether it was the S-Pen, or the screen, or both that were ultimately culpable for affecting the batteries.

No issues were probably found in testing, because the effect of the magnets was not immediate.

I can imagine, that both the phone and the S-Pen were developed by separate teams, and I think it inconceivable, that the S-Pen was never inside the phone during testing, or that they were not tested in conjunction.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission would be very smart to subpoena the carriers and Samsung for lots of Note 7 devices (not just tens, but more) to find out independently what went wrong.

In addition, The Times of Malta reported, that "a team scientists at New York University led by Alexej Jerschow, developed a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique to see inside the batteries as they are charging."

This new method could be used at the behest of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to investigate the extant Galaxy Note 7 devices—both original ones, and replacements. Care should be taken with the fact, that the screen and the S-Pen of Galaxy Note 7 phones are themselves magnetic.