It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# More evidence backs the idea of Universe = Hologram

page: 2
20
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Schmidt1989

Actually, YOU need to realize that some things ARE impossible.

I've used every ounce of brain power I possibly could for nearly an hour when I was 10 years old to teleport to an African savanna. It never happened.

I've also tried my absolute hardest to levitate. It's just not happening. I've done the same with trying to turn invisible.

You gave up too fast, you don't just try and give up. People tried to become millionaires but then they gave up just like you, the ones who didn't and looked for another approach managed it just fine.

Nothing is impossible:

What we are building up to is the fact that the law of gravity is called a "law" because, in billions and billions of observations, not once has any documented event occurred where two objects did not attract each other in precisely the way predicted (we now know that gravity may not behave exactly as Newton thought, but like Newton predicted, objects do attract one another in the sense that the theory of general relativity tells us that the gravitational effect "moves" objects toward one another). We can say with an absolutely incredible degree of statistical certainty that the gravitational "force" between two objects will always cause them to be attracted toward one another. At this point in time there is probably less than one chance in l,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10 raised to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th power that gravity will not act essentially as expected. Yet, despite the incredible certainty of gravity, we do not and cannot know whether it is or is not possible for one contrary event to occur, and thus for the law of gravity to be proven wrong!

What I am saying is no matter how many times something has been observed to be true, no matter how incredibly unlikely it is an unexpected event will occur, we have no way of knowing if such an event is possible or impossible! If the unexpected event is not possible, it will never occur, and it will never be observed. If the event is possible, and if it does occur, then it has happened, period.

Read the whole thing.... Interesting material

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM
Thats insane.

Thats like saying not everything might be made up of atoms.

In every viewable instance, atoms make up and object. But until we find an object that has no atoms in it, then we can never know if such object exists.

Which is ludicrous, because atoms are the building blocks of matter. Basic 4th grade material.

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
Thats insane.

Thats like saying not everything might be made up of atoms.

In every viewable instance, atoms make up and object. But until we find an object that has no atoms in it, then we can never know if such object exists.

Which is ludicrous, because atoms are the building blocks of matter. Basic 4th grade material.

I don't think your brain will be handling this but I will try to shove it in there, hope it doesn't explode:

We live in average 60-80 years
Our recorded history: maximum of 10000 years
Average star in our galaxy will live about 50 billion years

What do you suppose will happen after 50 billion years? just because at this time the universe is constructed of atoms, does it mean it will be the same 50 billion years later?

Now imagine a creature that has a lifespan of 0.000001 seconds:
How would this creature perceive the universe?

[edit on 4-10-2009 by oozyism]

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:56 AM

It is an assumption that the universe will stay the same for ever, we don't know if something will trigger the change, we just don't know that. All we can do is wait and see. But until then no assumptions are necessary because it would divert us from moving towards the right direction.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
Thats insane.

Thats like saying not everything might be made up of atoms.

In every viewable instance, atoms make up and object. But until we find an object that has no atoms in it, then we can never know if such object exists.

Which is ludicrous, because atoms are the building blocks of matter. Basic 4th grade material.

Then, since you're so educated (at least to the 4th grade) you should be able to grasp that the article implies that even the atoms that science learns to discover in matter would be part of the hologram. Everything is part of the hologram. You too. Science. Scientists. Labs. Microscopes. Viruses. Bacteria. Atoms. All a hologram. With your basic 4th grade knowledge I hope you ca understand the concept a bit better now.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Very interesting. But what Im wondering now is this : dont holograms require a projector ?
maybe black holes are not what we think they are?

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Here's some interesting info I found about the Universe being a Hologram.

twm.co.nz...

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:17 PM
Brilliant subject.

and a unification of all religions (well, the point of em all saying this reality is not really real), along with a bunch of quantum physics principles.

reflection of intent...* 4 u

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
whether it could prove true or not it reminds me of the people that thought the world was flat. just something that popped up in my mind while reading this.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:21 PM

Figured you might find the blog/article posted in this thread interesting.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:37 PM
A hologram is made up of light. And you claim that the Universe is a hologram. I would like to propose a simple test of that hypothesis. Let me try to cut off you head with a Samurai sword. If you are convinced everything is made of light, there should be no problem. Or might you want to reconsider the idea that the idea of solid matter might have some possible credibility?

If the Universe is a hologram, someone has their finger on the dimmer switch.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:22 PM

Umm GOOD response to that is by BaronVonGodzilla.

Then, since you're so educated (at least to the 4th grade) you should be able to grasp that the article implies that even the atoms that science learns to discover in matter would be part of the hologram. Everything is part of the hologram. You too. Science. Scientists. Labs. Microscopes. Viruses. Bacteria. Atoms. All a hologram. With your basic 4th grade knowledge I hope you ca understand the concept a bit better now.

Thanks BaronVonGodzilla for the simple explanation...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by oozyism]

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:35 PM

i guess that is the difference between theory and explanation. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever for this hologram theory, at least not evidence that has to be seriously mangled, massaged and twisted to fit into an a priori assumption. A competing theory that atoms are really angels has about as much experimental evidence and a lot more anecdotal stories I'm sure.

I can theorize anything I want to, but does it explain anything? That is the real test of solid empirical science. What you are pushing here is a new-age hand waving theory that has a bit of tangential support from a few burned out and second rate scientists who probably also think their phones are tapped by Venusians.

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Man, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Not to mention a observed preferance for strawman arguments.

Physicists Believe Our Universe Is One Big Hologram, And They May Have Spotted the Pixels
It's not until you acknowledge the world's greatest physicists do you realize how fundamentally useless our role here is. You and I will not uncover the secrets of the Universe. Luckily, someone's working on it.

One branch of theoretical physics believes that the Universe is just a holographic version of 2D information. And scientists have observed such being true, the 2D horizon around a black hole encoding the data from its earlier 3D star stage. You've observed the idea yourself as well, as it's not so different from a 3D movie playing from a DVD, or even music playing from data on a CD, really.

From New Scientist:

If space-time is a grainy hologram, then you can think of the universe as a sphere whose outer surface is papered in Planck length-sized [ed: uber tiny] squares, each containing one bit of information. The holographic principle says that the amount of information papering the outside must match the number of bits contained inside the volume of the universe.
Since the volume of the spherical universe is much bigger than its outer surface, how could this be true? Hogan realised that in order to have the same number of bits inside the universe as on the boundary, the world inside must be made up of grains bigger than the Planck length. "Or, to put it another way, a holographic universe is blurry," says Hogan.

We won't rewrite New Scientist's entire brilliant piece, but needless to say, that Hogan guy in the quote above not only thinks that a new experiment may have found that noise in our holographic signal—he predicted the experiment's results before they happened. Hit the link to blow your pea brain for the day. Then ask yourself if we're all just bits of information on God's hard drive. [New Scientist and image]

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by superrat

i guess that is the difference between theory and explanation. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever for this hologram theory, at least not evidence that has to be seriously mangled, massaged and twisted to fit into an a priori assumption. A competing theory that atoms are really angels has about as much experimental evidence and a lot more anecdotal stories I'm sure.

I can theorize anything I want to, but does it explain anything? That is the real test of solid empirical science. What you are pushing here is a new-age hand waving theory that has a bit of tangential support from a few burned out and second rate scientists who probably also think their phones are tapped by Venusians.

Uh rat?

Once again you are out of your depth. And you are making stuff up again. The fundamental nature of the Universe is not known and those who are looking at a sort of holographic basis are not on the fringe. Just setting the record straight.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by superrat

i guess that is the difference between theory and explanation. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever for this hologram theory, at least not evidence that has to be seriously mangled, massaged and twisted to fit into an a priori assumption.

Seriously ?? Did you read the thread? I'm not an expert, and I'm sure you are not a fancy Physics lecturer with a PHD also, but both of us have brains

Umm I didn't make the claim that the universe could be a hologram but Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia did.

Now for you to come here with absolutely nothing to offer in regards to the subject at hand, you should at least tell us that you know better than Craig Hogan, tell us that you have a PHD in physics, or any sciences so I can take you serious and go in debt.

A competing theory that atoms are really angels has about as much experimental evidence and a lot more anecdotal stories I'm sure.

I like how you debate, I will ignore this passage, and I'm sure you know why :p

I can theorize anything I want to, but does it explain anything? That is the real test of solid empirical science. What you are pushing here is a new-age hand waving theory that has a bit of tangential support from a few burned out and second rate scientists who probably also think their phones are tapped by Venusians.

A theory is suppose to explain something, if it didn't it wouldn't be regarded as a theory. Then they test it, traditional science.

Second rate scientists:

GEO600 Members

The Gravitation Group
Address: School of Physics and Astronomy
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom
Phone +44 (0) 121 41 XXXXX
Fax +44 (0) 121 414 3722

GEO600 Members

School of Physics and Astronomy
Phone:+44 (0)29 208 74458
Fax: +44 (0)29 208 74056
Cardiff School of Physics and Astronomy

Cardiff University
Queens Buildings
Cardiff
CF24 3AA

GEO600 Members

Institute for Gravitational Research, Kelvin Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ
tel: +44 (0)141-330 3340
fax: +44 (0)141-330 6833

GEO600 Members

Hannover

This one is not even English, I think German.

GEO600 Members

Albert Einstein Institute

Now contact all of these Universities who are members of the GEO600 and ask them if they hire any second rate scientists

Have fun, at least you have something to do now

[edit on 22-10-2009 by oozyism]

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:35 AM
I'll throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth. I see some people taking the word hologram for its literal meaning and not for a word that is being used to describe something that we don't quite understand. Also in this thread I've read talk of people saying they think we're here to learn a lesson. Well, lesson or no lesson a great man once said something close to "If you're in a burning house, you don't run around asking why the house is on fire or who built the house. you get out." of course i am paraphrasing from memory and can't find the exact quote but this is beyond the point. I encourage the growth and prosperity of science but there comes a moment where an individual must drop concepts and just breathe before they lose their sanity. Feel free to argue and eat me alive.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:05 AM

And I think you're reading a bit too much into it.

The entire universe is a hologram - Every single mote of anything in the entire breadth of the universe is comprised of nothing more than infinitely small energy particles that, properly arranged, form barriers against other energy matrices - forming what we call "matter." This is exactly what a hologram is - an arrangement of energy into a solid form.

We do not need to pretend there's some alien race of overlords playing Matrix here. It's more than enough for me to contemplate the notion that I, and everything I can even think of perceiving in any possible way... are nothing but flashes of energy, here then gone in what is, cosmically, far faster than the blink of an eye. It's profound enough.

Now if there were evidence of such aliens and us being nothing more than their silly MMORPG, that would be fascinating too. But there doesn't seem to be - and if there were, we'd still ahve to explain their universe and existence within it.. .Are htey some other race's version of an MMO?

Doubtful. Infinite recursion is a real bitch whether you're calling it god or holo-aliens.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:16 AM

I think your avatar changed three times during the time it took me to read this thread..or I just imagined it. Either way they were all cool.

I tend to agree with your idea that nothing is impossible - it's just a question of perspective, scale, and time. Probability dictates than nothing is absolute if given enough time.

Somebody threw out something earlier in the thread about atoms and angels. After reading a book by Jeremy Narby, The Cosmic Serpent, I think atoms very well could be thought of as spirits.

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:27 AM

Now if there were evidence of such aliens and us being nothing more than their silly MMORPG

Evidence? Isn't us being here enough evidence? Isn't the proliferation of our consciousness enough evidence? Sometimes you have to connect the dots to see the bigger picture rather then trying comprehend the absolute truth before making a conclusion.

new topics

top topics

20