Dear Amrit,
You said "yes our universe is in a black hole only my finger is out of it"
Is that a joke? Recently I have been considering how scale invariance fits into my TOE model. I think it is possible that the 'singularity' of a Black Hole is isolated from the rest of the Universe by a fullerene-like M2-brane that surrounds it. Similarly, scale invariance may allow this M2-brane to be the graphene-like outer edge of a 'tiny' Universe within (with different values of h, c, etc,). I have compared it to Dr. Suess' "Horton Hears a Who" - only no one has ears large enough to hear the tiny Universe within our Universe (and - of course - it is also separated by a Black Hole horizon).
IMHO, the author's ideas are not 'too crazy', however I don't think neutrinos will reveal the secrets of the Universe, but rather, the Higgs effect will (and I don't expect a simple Standard Model Higgs - it is far too simple a theory to explain the masses of three different generations). Quite frankly, I also expect a heavier right-handed Z' to be discovered by the LHC, so neutrinos may help some small degree in this respect.
I worry that my ideas are becoming 'too crazy'. I explained my latest ideas to my wife this morning. She says that it isn't my job to try to understand God, and people will think I'm crazy for trying. Once upon a time, Lawrence Crowell and I traded ideas quite a bit. But that was back when my ideas were simpler than his. Now I'm playing around with more dimensions that Lawrence is, and I worry that he thinks I've become 'too crazy'. He has referred to other people's ideas as originating on Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon', but I haven't heard him refer to me as such. Should we worry that our ideas are 'crazy', or should we worry that our ideas aren't 'crazy enough' to actually explain reality?
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray