It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
The wording of the original article is ambiguous and has caused some misleading conjectures.
Black holes are very much 3 dimensional celestial bodies. They consist of a length, width, and depth. For obvious reasons the depth of a black hole cannot be measured, however scientists have found a means to determine a black holes gravitational pull using 2 dimensions I.E. Surface area based upon the theory of entropy across this surface area.
In short, they are using the entropy of the surface area of the black hole to determine its size; Instead of determining its size by volume. Its a step in the right direction for sure.
Once they figure out the ratio of matter compression based upon the size and spin of the black hole, then we'll be one step closer to deriving the true space-time constant for gravity, which means unlocking the gravitron.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TrueBrit
Since there is no such thing as a hologram which naturally occurs, one can safely assume that regardless of what is meant when a scientist uses the term, a black hole cannot be a hologram, or holographic.
What would you consider a rainbow to be then?
The case for Black holes being nothing but holograms just got even stronger