What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.

the mind deceives*

According to physicists like Susskind, the information in the universe is proportional to the surface area, and not the volume. This holographic principle supposes the universe as a 2D projection or hologram.

there are some physicists that even think it could be binary or 1D

I'm no physicist but my personal viewpoint is that It may range from one singularity, to 1D, to 2D, to 3D, to 4D, and so on to ∞ infinity, then back to one sigularity. Rinse and repeat, the circle of life.

here's on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbZT9bJ1s4 this is a long one, the Dutch guys see it as binary.

and something really worth watching is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc

The entropy of a black hole is limited by the informational capacity of its surface area. I'm not sure he ever made the same claim about the entire universe.

No.

Does it feel like there's trillions of stars away at millions of different distances in all directions moving in the same patterns you would expect them to move if we were really were on a spinning ball rotating at 1000 mph, moving around the sun at 66,000 mph, with the sun moving around the Galaxy at 450,000 mph, and the entire galaxy just moving through the universe at 1.34 million mph? I mean why haven't the stars changed in tens of thousands of years if this is true?

The stars do change position, and are moving through the night around the north and south poles.

Yeah, they move in a circle every single night! If stars were truly random moving in every direction the star trails would just be utter craziness, but they're perfect circles.

The stars are VERY far away, and they spin because the Earth rotates.

Why don't the star trails ever move sideways then or up and down? If we're rotating on a sphere wouldn't the star trails make little corkscrews and constantly move right to left? If we were moving around the sun even FASTER than the speed we're rotating shouldn't some stars move in a straight line sideways? If we're moving around the milky way shouldn't some star trails make HUGE circles that wouldn't circle the Pole Star? Every motion should give a frame of reference but there's only one motion, the stars rotating in a circle above us.

I would suggest asking someone else. I'm not too knowledgeable about this stuff.

By the Copernican model (which I don't necessarily subscribe to) the answer would be that the circles we primarily see are solely caused by earth's spinning. Parallax caused by the supposed orbit around the sun is not observable with our eye, and is supposedly observable with highly magnified telescopes although I find zero evidence when I look tirelessly for it. What I do find are animations of supposed parallax and something called 'proper motion' (stars supposedly drifting through space) Never real footage/frames of parallax (sinusoidal oscillation of a star within some fixed time period.)

Now, you may ask about the other supposed rotations, for there are a few or more upper level 'fractals' of our system (our sun rotating around that, and that rotating around this etc.) They'd say that the time it takes for these orbits to be perceived by us here on our tiny little Earth are too long to observe.

Basically none of it has been observed or can be observed and it's based on fundamental statements about how one believes the universe to act, and what exists in said universe. Might there be mistakes? Maybe. Possibly. I'm not 100% sure. But if it can be observed by the fine telescopes of today, I'd like someone to prove it and show me real footage/frames of parallax (not an animation,) as it'd really help me make sense of many things.

Because space is way bigger than you think.

Stellar plausible deniability. The distance to stars and the size of our universe is far from fact, as much as you'd like to believe.

Have you ever learned about the phenomenon of Sonoluminescence?

So you are suggesting that space acts as a liquid which is excited by sound waves in order to produce the visual effect we call stars? That stars are not other suns that are just very far away?

Do you also go by IgnobleLie?

I am suggesting that, but it's just a theory that I've found and investigated quite a bit. I believe it deserves further thought, research and exploration etc. And it's even more interesting to me since there's still a few unanswered questions about the actual mechanism of sonoluminescence in the lab. Here's a good introductory video explaining the phenomenon for any who are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8UZ1-AqNcg

So you are suggesting that space acts as a liquid which is excited by sound waves in order to produce the visual effect we call stars?

I don't think we would be able to characterize it as "empty space." if this has any truth. The theory of stars being caused by sonoluminescence (currently) would require "stars" to be submerged in (probably) the purest type of water/liquid; no longer the definition of space. That is, unless this phenomenon can be manifested in more ways than we are aware of now (contained by liquid.) Perhaps it can be contained by something else...?

That stars are not other suns that are just very far away?

And yes, our sun would be a different type of manifestation of light than the other celestial stars. I recognize this demands an open mind ... and a re-evaluation of the red-shift -> distance theory; it's not an entirely difficult proposition to suggest that the data is mis-interpreted based on initially faulty premises. It also will most likely require a healthy skepticism of the modern state of space exploration and trustworthiness of space organizations (for if it is true, I believe someone/group within these organizations most likely know it)

And yes, I also go by IgnobleLie in a few places in addition to Nobalai (my artist name on soundcloud haha) Unimportant side note: I'm torn between the two. Some are offended by Noble Lie, as it may imply that I think societal 'big' lies are noble, but that's just how the perpetrators perceive them. I do think we should respect and be aware of the power that these lies have though.

And yes, our sun would be a different type of manifestation of light than the other celestial stars. I recognize this demands an open mind ... and a re-evaluation of the red-shift -> distance theory; it's not an entirely difficult proposition to suggest that the data is mis-interpreted based on initially faulty premises. It also will most likely require a healthy skepticism of the modern state of space exploration and trustworthiness of space organizations (for if it is true, I believe someone/group within these organizations most likely know it)

Why beat around the bush? This would seem to be a good opportunity to put forward the concave model in order to show how the conditions for sonoluminescence fit. Do you avoid advocating for the concave earth model on reddit for some reason?

Well I do indeed seem to be beating around the bush. I think that it may be a lot for some to take in, or even entertain. On the other hand, aspects like this phenomenon are a perfect way to get people thinking without shoving much more than first needed in their face. For example, I'd rather people watch that video above and learn about a proven real phenomenon, and then some night into the future, look up at the 'stars' in pure amazement; that there might still be open questions as to just what they are looking at. (And if the stars might not be what they seem... maybe many other things aren't what they seem either...)

And in the end, sonoluminescence could still apply even if the Earth wasn't concave. But it certainly does fit the concave model much better.

The glimmer of the stars look more like drops of water reflecting light than a sun trillions of miles away. I don't know what's up there but it's not what we've been told it was

sonoluminescence

Hi. Be sure to at least check this out.

What did you say your address was again? The FBI needs to speak with you NOW!