Scientists Discover "Universe is Giant 3D Hologram"

Hold up, wait a second everyone. i just have one question, dose this have ANYthing to do with an afterlife?

There was a book back in the late 80's early 90's edited by Ken Wilber entitled the Holographic Pardiagm and other essays that discusses this idea in far more intelligent terms than anything else I have seen written on the subject since.

Strangely, Walter Russell released his theories of the Universal Mechanism in 1947, and subsequently, in 1953, sent it to over 500 fellow scientists throughout the world, and none showed any interest.

Never once did he mention the word, "holographic." His theory describes the holographic process in detail, leaves out a few words, but other than that, goes on to prove that it is indeed holographic, before the word was common usage.

In 1948, Dennis Gabor discovered the holographic process. His ground-breaking idea remained mostly theoretical until the invention of lasers in the 1960’s, which allowed his theory to be put into practice and championed as a major discovery.

He was known as the inventor of the holgograph. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1971.

Back to Walter Russell, who one year previously published his work, which went much further than Gabor's (describing the actual universe as the model), never having use or access to the word 'holographic,' as it was being discovered about that time for the whole world.

I don't know if there are any 'deep thinkers' on this thread, or folks who can follow erudite descriptions, with little background information, but his basic ideas can be put forth in just several short paragraphs, describing the holographic nature of the universe. He predates Bohm's 'Implicate Order' many years (1980 when he published his findings of the holographic model). Bohm had been only developing his ideas based on quantum interconnectedness, causal interpretation of quantum theory, which initially met with indifference or hostility from other physicists, who did not take kindly to Bohm's powerful challenge to the common consensus.

Anybody who wishes to peruse the true nature of the universal holographic model, is advised to study Walter Russell's works. There, all is revealed. It is not simple, however (would it be?).

Also, to the person who casts insults and uses the "F*" word on a public forum, which the Mods should be editing for personal directed abuse, you might want to read the opinions of other's regarding 'scientits,' some similar to my own views, in this thread:
alt.views of scientists
Here are some quotes:

"I freaking cant stand scientists.Biggest bull shi*ters on the planet."

"Well there maybe the odd one or two scientists that research things that actually might do some good,but the rest just take the pi*s.

Did you know that according to scientist bee's should not be able to fly?

Nutritionists constantly change their minds as to what is good for us and what gives us cancer.I could do that!Just pick a foodstuff and flip a coin.

I don't trust them.They are Greys in white coats."

I have a right to my opinion, and the scientists of Earth have disregarded the nature of moral & ethical preparedness, in their mindless desire forr discovery, regardless of consequences. Many of them (exceptions), regret some of their mistakes in their twilight years (published statements), but then, it is too late.

Already, it is too late.

"Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."

More bombs, anybody? Tea?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

reply to post by SS,Naga

Also, to a brute who casts insults and uses the (snip) word on a public forum, which the Mods should be editing for personal directed abuse

Brute who casts insults? What, pray tell, does that make you for calling ME a brute? Levying personal attacks? Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. To make no mention that you were the first to levy a personal attack against a wide swath of humanity by basically calling them soulless automatons fueled on money and ego. I would have thought that someone of your "evolved consciousness" would have been above petty hypocrisy. At the very least I would have thought you'd have not made it so blatantly obvious.

Further, I will not report it to the mods, but you may wish to edit your statement - as you are currently guilty of ALSO circumventing the censor by directly using the same truncation I did.

you might want to read the opinions of other's regarding 'scientits,' some similar to my own views, in this thread

So... idiocy in numbers makes false assertions somehow correct? Well, I guess we can ignore all the mountains of empirical evidence and millennial of acquired knowledge, because it seems the YEC's are right then after all. The world really is 6,000 years old and our biblical forefathers rode dinosaurs before the flood.

You... seriously... don't see a problem in this logic... do you?

I have a right to my opinion

I am neither in a position nor of the inclination to deny you your opinion. However, I also have a right to my opinion. My opinion of your opinion, is that your opinion sucks and is laughable at best. Don't even think of playing the "free speech" card, because it works both way and is by no means a shelter from critical inquiry or criticism.

the scientists of Earth have disregarded the nature of moral & ethical preparedness

Who's morals? Yours? Mine? Bob's? Christianities? Islams? Buddists? Taoists? America's? Japan's? South Africa's? Denmark's? Please, by all means, specify... because the last I recall by looking at the diversity of the cultures of the world, we all have very different perceptions on morality.

Many of them (exceptions), regret some of their mistakes in their twilight years (published statements), but then, it is too late.

How many is many? Got a number? A statistical analysis? How about we compare all of the myriad of *valid* deathbed refutations of science by prominent scientists - and compare that to the number of scientists currently working today. Since you'll be pulling some from history, no doubt, we should add the number of past scientists there as well in the comparison.

I will assure you, the number of refutations you can find will amount to less than .0001% of the practicing scientists in the last century. Yes, I know that is a fallacious number. I am, after all, being rather cursory and conservative here.

More bombs, anybody? Tea?

Scientists wouldn't create more bombs is there wasn't a demand for them. Seriously... think about that for a moment. You can no more blame a scientist for the bomb they create, than the poor slob on the factory floor smelting brass that will eventually go into a bullet.

Explosives, you should know, are not intrinsically death discoveries. There are innumerable uses for bombs and explosives, for missiles and guidance systems. Only one of them involves killing fellow human beings, and that is not the scientists call. The very computer you're using to post on the internet - and indeed the internet itself - was initially intended for military use to help facilitate the killing of other people.

Discovery, science, is morally inert. It is the application of which that makes all the difference.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Lasheic]

Now children behave or we are going to have to ask the mods to send you to your rooms.

Here are a few passages from Walter Russell's book,
"THE SECRET OF LIGHT"

"This ageless universe has no shape. It has a seeming infinite extension, but that extension is a reflected one. This electric universe of two-way extended light is but a series of mirrors which reflect into each other through curved lenses. Its seeming extension might be likened to light within a mirror-bound room."

"One light within such a mirrored enclosure would seemingly extend infinitely, but the light thus mirrored would be the same light. The reflected extension would have no reality."
("The Secret of Light," by Walter Russell, 1947)

See also this page:

(continued from page 243...)

"This curved universe consists of lenses and mirrors of light which reflect, bend, curve, concentrate and decentrate light into its countless forms. Any action anywhere is repeated everywhere by and through countless mirror planes of wave fields and the lenses of space."
("The Secret of Light," by Walter Russell, 1947)

Walter Russell went into "full illumination" for 39 days and nights in 1921.

I suggest purchasing Mr. Russell's book if you wish to know the truth on the Universe As Holograph, which it is, only a Living Holograph (projection/reflection). To not do so and deny the given facts, is to show indifference to what you believe as truth or not. Standing behind fallacy in the face of available provable knowledge is foolish. Proof may only be subjective, because the dissent is such that many 'scientific egos" will not even consider the facts of evidence. My subjective proof has been honestly obtained through personal experience. Perhaps you can do the same for yourself. Find out.

Thanks for your time.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by theresult

 

From what i read she/he is saying we cant prove it becouse we still have the question of god..

God is irrelevant to the equation though, because science can only ever describes what occurs in the natural world. It has nothing to say on the matter of the supernatural. You're free to believe whatever you want about the supernatural world, but you cannot argue a position from assertions of it because there is absolutely no evidence for it.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Lasheic]

Then this is why some are so upset. This theory if proven true would mean that something is in control of this 3d holographic universe/computer program...life.

So, if you being a scientist or at least an amateur scientist after many attempts to explain the findings which point to this theory actually being the case, could you, or would you, based on the empirical evidence reached through scientific means believe the evidence.

www.ssec.wisc.edu...

invasion has begun

reply to post by TH3ON3

This theory if proven true would mean that something is in control of this 3d holographic universe/computer program...life.

Not necessarily, and to say so would set up a false dichotomy. The truth is, that if this theory pans out, then we still wouldn't be any closer to knowing WHAT created or directs it all. We would still just have suppositions on what lay beyond based on physical evidence or mathmatics. It would be no more vindication of "God" than the Big Bang theory is a vindication of God in the act of creation. Note that there was no hint, innuendo, or suggestion of God or Gods in the OP article.

Even if it could be proven that it was "God", who's god is responsible? Just one, or multiple?

It's quite possible that no-one, no consciousness (collective or otherwise) is in control of it. It may all just be an emergent property of a complex system. It may be counter-intuitive to think that order on the macroscopic scale arises from disorder on the microscopic scale, but this seems to be the norm in nature - not an aberration. For instance, it's impossible to determine what a single gas molecule will do - we can predict very accurately the properties of the gas as a whole.

Or to put it in a more "ATS" term...



And he's right, although he wrongly attributes this to human nature when in fact it's simply an example of emergent behavior. It's impossible to simply look at a crowd and expect to predict what any single individual's response to a given stimuli will be, but we can fairly accurately predict what the crowd's combined reaction will be as a whole.

This principal of emergence does not rely on "gods" for it's design, but very simple rules governing large systems. Rules such as physics. If I had to lay my finger on a supposed designer, I would suspect emergence.

reply to post by super70


Yep, this just keeps getting better and better !
Does this relate to the 'web' or 'net' in any way ?

Originally posted by grover
There was a book back in the late 80's early 90's edited by Ken Wilber entitled the Holographic Pardiagm and other essays that discusses this idea in far more intelligent terms than anything else I have seen written on the subject since.

Yea, and I wanna ADD some scary # here, I saw Bush on tv just before Xmas saying : Its hard to create a new paradigm....

Originally posted by SS,Naga
Could you say that in holo lingo, instead of jesu box terminology?

I'm sort of tired of hearing the ol' jesu's gonna save the hologram
you stuff. Jesu was nothing but a composite used to overlay enough
information to mystify the truth in the sheep-masses minds.

I suppose that you blame Jesus for that... I suggest you read a little more and learn about the manipulation of Jesus' original teachings and the powers that did it....

Anyway, about the holographic universe theory, some seem to think it's a new theory.... It's not!!

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

At 58, I have read, researched, and experienced enough of the composite teachings of jesu to realize what a misconception it was. You should read more so you can understand how they not only manipulated the 'teachings,' but the very existence of this false 'god.'

Got enough gumph to do yourself what you suggested I do?
Here you go...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you really should leave religion to religion; this thread is about the plausibility of the Universe as holographic, not jesu is my lord (which it isn't, nor anyone else's [imo]).

Read it and weep.

What this means is they have received some unexpected results in some experiment so they look for some reason to explain it, and the Hologram one is the one they picked.

Just "educated" guess work to explain something they can´t explain, scientists!! they do have a vivid imagination.

reply to post by Lasheic


" You can no more blame a scientist for the bomb they create, than the poor slob on the factory floor smelting brass that will eventually go into a bullet."

Are you seriously trying to defend the moral high-ground, or lack thereof, of ANYBODY with that statement? The pot calling the kettle black?! "the poor slob?"!


Narrow-minded, unenlightened, self-righteous.

Oh, and a very big for telling someone that you think their opinion is smack. Especially in regards of a topic about God. (good lord, sometimes I really question my statements in the past about never using the ignore function.)

Editted to Avoid T&C

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by TH3ON3Then this is why some are so upset. This theory if proven true would mean that something is in control of this 3d holographic universe/computer program...life.

So, if you being a scientist or at least an amateur scientist after many attempts to explain the findings which point to this theory actually being the case, could you, or would you, based on the empirical evidence reached through scientific means believe the evidence.

Why does there need to be "something" in control of the hologram?

The way I read this, all these scientists are saying is that the universe is "like" a hologram -- meaning that the universe we see is only a "higher-dimensional projection" of the REAL universe, and the REAL universe is one that we are unable to see.

There doesn't need to be "something" controlling the hologram -- unless you mean that "something" to be the natural universe itself, and if that were the case, then nature isn't really 'controlling' anything -- it's simply the result of what nature "is".

I've often thought about similar -- but opposite -- theory. I've often said that the universe we "see" may only be a shadow of the 'real' universe that we can't see -- i.e. the 'real' universe we can NOT see is analogous to a sphere floating in 3D, while the universe we CAN see is analogous to the circular shadow that sphere casts on a 2D plane; We can experience the 2D circular shadow, but not the 3D sphere.

Of course this is just an analogy (since we can see 3D spheres), but the idea is that the real universe is in a higher dimension than we can see, and all we see is the lower-dimensional 'shadow' of the real universe...

...this theory in the OP seems to be similar to that idea, only simply the inverse of it -- i.e., the real universe is at a lower dimension than the "higher-dimensional illusion/projection" that we experience. My theory says "shadow"; the theory in the OP says "projection" -- opposite but similar ideas.

Again, there doesn't need to be anything or anyone in control of this projection -- this projection could simply be the way the natural universe works. It doesn't make us any less real -- it only makes us less dimsionsions than we think are.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

If this is a 3D projection what is really behind the curtain? Would it be so shocking that we could not comprehend as humans what we are seeing? Are we actually living in a bubble that encompasses a certain specific diameter of space travel outward?























D

reply to post by amari

See my post above, same page: '...wave field boundary planes.'

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by TH3ON3

 

This theory if proven true would mean that something is in control of this 3d holographic universe/computer program...life.

Not necessarily, and to say so would set up a false dichotomy.

False to you possibly. Not to me. I have experienced much more than most. And I must believe my own eyes and senses, when they tell me along with another witness that interaction happened between the God of the Bible and my physical state.

Why do you think I can say this with so much assurance. I have seen the laws of this physical realm broken by the God who dwells in heaven. This was acknowledged by more than one witness. It happened and that is a fact.

Believe what you want. I know that He is in charge. But just how is quite fascinating to say the least.

Originally posted by SS,Naga
Here are a few passages from Walter Russell's book,
"THE SECRET OF LIGHT"

"This ageless universe has no shape. It has a seeming infinite extension, but that extension is a reflected one. This electric universe of two-way extended light is but a series of mirrors which reflect into each other through curved lenses. Its seeming extension might be likened to light within a mirror-bound room."

"One light within such a mirrored enclosure would seemingly extend infinitely, but the light thus mirrored would be the same light. The reflected extension would have no reality."
("The Secret of Light," by Walter Russell, 1947)

See also this page:

(continued from page 243...)

"This curved universe consists of lenses and mirrors of light which reflect, bend, curve, concentrate and decentrate light into its countless forms. Any action anywhere is repeated everywhere by and through countless mirror planes of wave fields and the lenses of space."
("The Secret of Light," by Walter Russell, 1947)

Walter Russell went into "full illumination" for 39 days and nights in 1921.

I suggest purchasing Mr. Russell's book if you wish to know the truth on the Universe As Holograph, which it is, only a Living Holograph (projection/reflection). To not do so and deny the given facts, is to show indifference to what you believe as truth or not. Standing behind fallacy in the face of available provable knowledge is foolish. Proof may only be subjective, because the dissent is such that many 'scientific egos" will not even consider the facts of evidence. My subjective proof has been honestly obtained through personal experience. Perhaps you can do the same for yourself. Find out.

Thanks for your time.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

Thanks for that post.

"THE SECRET OF LIGHT" is on Public Domain and can be downloaded, printed, uploaded, etc...

Link to the download: www.archive.org...