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

[CheeryTulip]

Just curious Behind the sun or behind Pluto?

As you know, I was referring to the 1st law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of energy:
K1 + U1 + W = K2 + U2

or

ΔU = Q – W

What you have there is a version of the Einstein equation for the law of conservation of mass/energy. Similar law. Also physics. An elegant mathematical convergence of both the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass into a law of conservation of mass/energy.

I don't believe the Big Bang Theory. It is just a theory anyway.

I'm not sure you entirely grasp the meaning behind the scientific use of the word 'theory'.

Super splat!!

I am totally going with that. In the beginning there was nothing. And then the super splat happened.

Why are you so arrogant? It’s your tone specifically that’s ruining this thread. You’ve essentially high jacked the thread to prove yourself.

I don't believe the Big Bang Theory. It is just a theory anyway.

Ok, any takers for this one as an alternative:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

I heard Fred Hoyle lecturing on it once (yep, I’m that old)….he didn’t convince me then and it looks even more shaky now.

This is so interesting. I know nothing about it but following

I think it was called the Big Bang theory originally in a spirit of sarcasm by people who thought it was ridiculous

@SausageAndCash and simultaneously in my kitchen during a different TeenWeekend era. Gosh the universe is weird.

Energy is not conserved.

Fred Hoyle, IIRC.

There’s a plaque commemorating this in a village near my parents. That would annoy him immensely. Imagine being instrumental in theories of how stars created new elements, and instead being remembered for the thing you didn’t believe in.

Hoyle also came up with the hilarious 747 being created by a dust devil in a scrap yard analogy to evolution, so there's that.

Galaxy, not universe. Galaxy.

The number of grains of sand on Earth's beaches wouldn't touch the universe's number of stars, so it sure as hell ain't being outdone by bees.

@Liebig see my link upthread, sand and universe.

Cor there's some knowledgeable folks on here!

I find this fascinating but struggle with the complicated science stuff. I have to watch videos and read articles that basically break it down into pieces I can comprehend.

If anyone would like to post videos/articles along with your posts for a layman I'd be really grateful. Thank you.

Good catch. Was trying to remember if they did that once. And this is for the observable universe. There could easily be stuff beyond the light horizon that we can't even possibly contemplate now.

The PBS Spacetime YouTube channel is pretty good, and of course classics like Sagan's Cosmos and the Brian Cox shows.

Thanks @Liebig

In the spirit of the original question, I'm going to say behind Pluto. (Possible photographic proof supplied.)

Paul Davies always used to suggest in his pop sci accounts that people should think of the surface of a balloon with astronomical bodies drawn on it being blown up as a 2D analog of the actual 3D universe expansion to prevent people, quite understandably, thinking of the universe as an entity expanding into pre-existing space.

I was going to put the balloon analogy too, but people already used the muffin rising in an oven version. The "centre" of the universe is a funny idea people get, but the balloon example shows why it's also meaningless in reality.

Sorry, but can you please link me to where the 1st law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy has been disproved?

In thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy states that energy in a closed system cannot be destroyed, it can only be converted from one form into another. Einstein then proved that the resting mass of an object is a form of energy. So even under the law of conservation of mass/energy that you have confused with the law of conservation of energy, energy and mass are both still conserved because energy and mass both fluctuate in sync with each other- especially when studying objects travelling close to light speed.

@SausageAndCash I think you might be onto something, particularly where teenage boys are concerned. I mean, where does all that food matter go? It can't be energy when they sleep for 12 hours a day. And perhaps the trail of kitchen chaos is just the white holes spewing the mass/energy that comes from teenage black hole consumption?

DH said of the white-hole-being-found article 'very speculative, bordering on silly'.

What's his technical knowledge and understanding of the concept of being able to analyse the information ?

‘DH researches this stuff in his job’, from a pp.

I do genuinely think it’s great when people not in the field are interested enough to read and remember a range of ideas. Sometimes, though, the answer to ‘but why do/don’t you think that works as an idea?’ is going to involve several pages of very long winded maths, a hefty computer model and the sort of literature review that starts ‘Despite the adjustments to the Pitt-Bull model (refs 1-34) by numerous teams of researchers (refs 35-203), we argue here…’

What do you all think about higher dimensions?

I don't want to be woo but I truly believe we are all built and derived from the energy of the universe. We don't understand half of it.

Ready to be flamed 😂