21–30 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there you go... there's the answer to everything. A black hole on one side and, on the other side (the side we don't know), there's a whole new universe being sprung up. Each input goes to the output of a different black/white hole combo.
So basically, we're in a cable?
I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: " [...] our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries." What, exactly, do they mean with 'on its boundries'?
I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: " [...] our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries." What, exactly, do they mean with 'on its boundries'?
It's interesting that to a layman this seems like almost the exact opposite of what string theory proposes dimensionally. Holographic universe theory is stating there are effectively less dimensions, while string theory shows there could be significantly more.
It's interesting that to a layman this seems like almost the exact opposite of what string theory proposes dimensionally. Holographic universe theory is stating there are effectively less dimensions, while string theory shows there could be significantly more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the big bang bears a pretty striking resemblance to a white hole. That's the time-reversed version of a black hole. Whereas with a black hole, all paths lead toward the singularity at its core, with a white hole, all paths lead away from the singularity.
And there you go... there's the answer to everything. A black hole on one side and, on the other side (the side we don't know), there's a whole new universe being sprung up. Each input goes to the output of a different black/white hole combo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there you go... there's the answer to everything. A black hole on one side and, on the other side (the side we don't know), there's a whole new universe being sprung up. Each input goes to the output of a different black/white hole combo.
Tempting, but there's no evidence to support that.
I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: " [...] our 3-D ‘reality’ (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries." What, exactly, do they mean with 'on its boundries'?
What does this mean? The universe is fake? Is this along the same lines as "everything is a simulation"?
'appears' means that for us it is three dimensional.
'actually' means that the amount of stuff universe can hold is limited by 2d surface area, not 3d volume. Information/matter contained in universe is in '2d container surface' while interactions between them seem to happen in 3d universe.
In other words, the information/matter you can keep in volume of space is limited by it's surface area and not it's volume. If you try to add more, it becomes black hole.