It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
maybe black holes are not what we think they are?
Originally posted by bluemooone2
Very interesting. But what Im wondering now is this : dont holograms require a projector ?
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.
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]
Originally posted by superrat
reply to post by oozyism
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.
Originally posted by superrat
reply to post by oozyism
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.
Now if there were evidence of such aliens and us being nothing more than their silly MMORPG