Where was the epicentre of the big bang (universe) in relation to us?

[CheeryTulip]

Just curious Behind the sun or behind Pluto?

So generations of scientists who've spent their lives studying this are wrong but don't worry, you've done a bunch of physics reading.

I’ve never read anything to suggest that a “white hole” exists. The idea seems quite implausible; where have you seen evidence or proof of this?

The current understanding of black holes is that the mass goes to the singularity, why are you positing that it doesn’t remain there? Observations show it’s not going anywhere else.

The Big Bang didn’t happen anywhere.
Before the Big Bang there was nothing, there was nowhere for it to happen.
Time started after the Big Bang . There was no time for it to start.
5 billion years from now the sun will have used up all of its hydrogen and become a red giant. Swallowing up the inner planets.
There will be no sign left that the earth ever existed.
around the same time the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way will collide.

Are you thinking of a black hole as an actual hole, rather than a sphere from which not even light escapes, Discovereads?

? How long ago did you study physics? The Milky Way Galaxy has lots of satellite galaxies orbiting about it, the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy is the largest one.

I did not say a law was “above” a theory.

Big Bang Theory doesn’t explain all the data. Data I don’t think you are aware of as for example, scientists found a white hole back in March.

I think that you are getting yourself confused here. Do you have a link for this supposed “white hole”?

Do you actually have any physics degrees? You are writing like someone who doesn’t even have an undergraduate degree in the subject.

I completed my doctorate twenty years ago, but do still keep up on the subject, and still discuss it with friends who continue to do research.

Pick a currant, while expanding in the oven it will see every other currant moving away from it

How, when it is inside a bun?

Singularity….you must not know that Hawkings singularity theory regarding black hole matter has been disproven by a Canadian team of mathematicians. The current thinking is that the matter doesn’t stay in this universe. Physicist Carlo Rovelli thinks it ends up coming out a white hole.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg24833060-500-carlo-rovelli-where-does-the-stuff-that-falls-into-a-black-hole-go/

White holes appear in mathematical modelling but are physically impossible, so please point to the discovered white hole.

No, I have no physics degrees whatsoever. I may be writing like an undergraduate, but you are writing like someone who got their degree twenty years ago…

So, how about admitting you were wrong about the existence of satellite galaxies? Hmmm?

GRB 060614. NASA scientists think it was a white hole.

You think that never having a first degree makes you more expert than someone with a doctorate in the subject? I can’t agree, no.

This white hole that was found; are you just struggling to find the paper?

When I think about this stuff I can totally understand why religion happened. I don't believe in God personally, but I can also understand why its easier to believe that there was a creator guiding events than the universe just sort of happened.

Although the reason I didn't believe in God as a child was how did he get here, did he just appear out of nowhere, who made God etc etc. So basically I don't understand the universe or God

That’s very dishonest. That’s one fringe suggestion for the source of a gamma ray burst. You claimed that a white hole had been discovered.

This is what I mean by the problems of someone who doesn’t understand the subject trying to teach others about it. You are confusing speculation with evidence.

Can you point to a paper please, I can only find unsubstantiated speculation about a white hole causing the GRB. As I said, they are a mathematical curiosity, not something that exists.

Did you know that there are more bees on planet Earth than there are stars in the universe?

I learned that from More or Less, and it blew my mind.

Sigh. Actually, you said “white holes are physically impossible”. I beg to differ. Black holes were thought by Einstein to be physically impossible, so even he was wrong. So yes, past generations of scientists do get proven wrong as we further science. I’ve never said I’m more expert than you, but honestly, you’ve said a few inaccurate things on here to be fair. For example, even twenty years ago they knew black holes leaked matter and it didn’t all stay put in the singularity as you have said. And there’s the matter of you saying galaxies dont orbit about each other, when they do. And I dont think NASA is “fringe” either.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107611000790?via%3Dihub

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aae550

It’s the other way round. Many more stars in the universe than bees on Earth.

I think it was more bees than stars in our galaxy.

a) you seem to have attributed several different posts by other people incorrectly to me.
b) You've not demonstrated proof in the slightest. May I draw your attention to this from your first link. (see photo)
c)coming back to the GRB you mention.... I still see no evidence that it was from a white hole.

Im off to bed now.

Why isn't there a thread / room for this? Mumsnet offer space for a zillion chats about people in bikinis on ITV, but nothing for those of us whose daughters AREN'T aiming for itv.
I want to learn things from other posters.
Am I the only one?

Yes. The authors state the old view- consensus white holes do not exist, then they suggest that white holes do actually exist but cannot be observed because they do not last long. They are quick bursts of energy. And such energy would be gamma ray bursts which we have actually observed. Of which GRB 060614 is one such burst. What’s not to understand about it?

You haven’t read the actual paper….have you?
here is an easy read article about the paper I linked
earthsky.org/space/have-we-seen-a-white-hole/

You said that a white hole had been observed; are you walking back from that claim now? There has been nothing published to back up this claim.

God, must I do everything
”Recent observations suggest that there is a third new class of GRBs. The prototype of this group is GRB 060614. Its γ-ray emission lasted about 102 seconds similar to long GRBs, yet it shared many observational features with short GRBs. Despite its small red-shift, z=0.13, which means a relatively small distance to the observers, no supernova emission was seen from the source down to limits lower than any known supernova of its kind, and hundred of times fainter than the archetypical SN 1998bw. It was thus proposed that GRB 060614 as well as its twin GRB 060505 belong to a new class of bursters that require a novel model of explosion (Gal-Yam et al. 2006; Della Valle et al. 2006; Jakobsson & Fynbo 2007; Chattopadhyay et al. 2007; Caito et al. 2009). A new model for these GRBs was suggested, in which some cases of mergers between a massive white dwarf and a neutron star produce long-duration GRBs with no accompanying supernova (King et al. 2007). It was alternatively proposed that GRB 060614 might be produced by the tidal disruption of a star by an intermediate-mass black hole (Lu et al. 2008).
We propose that the new group of GRBs and many other GRBs can be explained by the instantaneous birth of white holes and the ejection of a large amount of matter. The white hole blast (or the probable formation of the black hole, which also happens in supernovae and compact stellar mergers) can account for the observed γ-ray emission as well as for other observational features of GRBs. White hole events are not connected with a supernova outburst, so this model easily explains the lack of supernova features in the members of the new class of GRBs. White holes seem like a natural explanation of GRBs that appear in isolated areas or voids, while merger scenarios between any various combinations of stars should only occur in populated areas. We thus further argue that many supernova-less GRBs at high red-shifts, in which the lack of supernova emission is explained by poor observability, may be white holes as well.”
earthsky.org/upl/2011/05/Retter_Heller.pdf

@MrsOwainGlyndŵr when Brian Cox comes out with those sorts of statements ‘there are eleventy drillion more stars than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth’ etc…..

how does he KNOW? Who counted all the sand, and who counted all the stars? And apparently the light from stars takes a while to get to us, so those stars probably aren’t stars any more, how do they know which ones are still alive and which ones to not include in the count?

and isn’t the phrase ‘but it’s just a theory’ a precursor to baby Jesus planting the dinosaur bones to trick us etc.

what was it a Big Bang of? What banged? What made it bang? So many questions. And in space you couldn’t hear anything, so why ‘bang’, why not super splat?