Stephen Hawkings decided we are probably in a two-dimensional hologram

Somebody named Balenchek before him made a theorem on the information in the black holes.

Trouble is the math the math of Balechek is what steered Hawking in the saying what he said ...

So the information of the black holes they see it all going in and they can't figure out why Balencheks theorem.... the math only works on this area the two-dimensional area instead of using all the volume of the three dimensions.

It's in the math Hawkins can't figure out why it's not free dimensions for volume instead the math works out with length and width only

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Somebody named Balenchek before him made a theorem on the information in the black holes.

Trouble is the math the math of Balechek is what steered Hawking in the saying what he said ...

So the information of the black holes they see it all going in and they can't figure out why balance 6 theorem the math only works on this area the two-dimensional area instead of using all the volume of the three dimensions.

It's in the math Hawkins can't figure out why it's not free dimensions for volume instead the math works out with length and width only

Who is Stephen Hawkings?



Stephen Hawking said that one possiblility is that what we call our universe is actually holographically encoded. That is different than saying it probably is.

Of course, if you think that this universe is encoded on another universe, then there is also the possibility that that universe is also encoded on another universe, that is also encoded on another, and so on ad-infinitum.

It's turtles all the way down...

Hawking said it's as if it's a hologram projector from a great distance

Elon Musk shot him into space in his car to cruise the galaxy. I cannot prove it, but im pretty sure of it. He supposedly died around the same time as that launch. Even if he did die it was probably his dying wish.

And up, sideways from and back.a reply to: chr0naut

Steven also said something about black holes,but his theory was WRONG.

The best part of this, to me.

If you believe in the hologram, simulation, or any other computer based u inverse. That means that their has to be a programmer who created the world.
Ot
In other words, a GOD

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The best part of this, to me.

If you believe in the hologram, simulation, or any other computer based u inverse. That means that their has to be a programmer who created the world.
Ot
In other words, a GOD

That's straw snatching at best.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The more we learn about the Universe and Quantum psychics the more the possibility of the holographic state of our reality becomes more compelling , personally I'm not convinced but am compelled to believe such a possibility is in fact likely and could be an answer to some questions we have regarding the Universe , Multiverse and reality itself.

A class of concrete examples of the holographic principle at work involves so-called antide Sitter spacetimes. The original de Sitter spacetime is a model universe first obtained by Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter in 1917 as a solution of Einstein's equations, including the repulsive force known as the cosmological constant. De Sitter spacetime is empty, expands at an accelerating rate and is very highly symmetrical. In 1997 astronomers studying distant supernova explosions concluded that our universe now expands in an accelerated fashion and will probably become increasingly like a de Sitter spacetime in the future. Now, if the repulsive cosmological constant is replaced by an attractive one, de Sitter's solution turns into antide Sitter spacetime, which has equally as much symmetry. More important for the holographic concept, it possesses a boundary, which is located at infinity and is a lot like our everyday spacetime.

Using antide Sitter spacetime, theorists have devised a concrete example of the holographic principle at work: a universe described by superstring theory functioning in an antide Sitter spacetime is completely equivalent to a quantum field theory operating on the boundary of that spacetime [see box below]. Thus, the full majesty of superstring theory in an antide Sitter universe is painted on the boundary of the universe. Juan Maldacena, then at Harvard University, first conjectured such a relation in 1997 for the 5-D antide Sitter case, and it was later confirmed for many situations by Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and Steven S. Gubser, Igor R. Klebanov and Alexander M. Polyakov of Princeton University. Examples of this holographic correspondence are now known for spacetimes with a variety of dimensions.

This result means that two ostensibly very different theories--not even acting in spaces of the same dimension--are equivalent. Creatures living in one of these universes would be incapable of determining if they inhabited a 5-D universe described by string theory or a 4-D one described by a quantum field theory of point particles. (Of course, the structures of their brains might give them an overwhelming commonsense prejudice in favor of one description or another, in just the way that our brains construct an innate perception that our universe has three spatial dimensions; see the illustration on the opposite page.)
www.scientificamerican.com...

Chuck Missler agrees on his vids....saying Scripture is sent to us from beyond our domain....our time domain....

i also think this and came to the conclusion through mediation.

You can literally mediate yourself into the state of mind where you can see it 2 dimensionally.

3d is a construct the mind creates to give us the illusion that our reality is actually "real" .

originally posted by: booyakasha
i also think this and came to the conclusion through mediation.

You can literally mediate yourself into the state of mind where you can see it 2 dimensionally.

3d is a construct the mind creates to give us the illusion that our reality is actually "real" .

SO those rocks are flat and a circle is a line huh? The ball is flat and not round. Hawkings was a idiot when it came to common sense.