Strange

The fact that you can count swan’s eyes is what makes it falsifiable. As it is impossible to check every Sean that ever lived or will live, all you can do is hope to find a swan with one or three eyes to disprove the hypothesis. Says the guy who doesn’t even know the difference between “falsify” and “falsifiable”.

How about this: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Then it isn’t objective (scientific) evidence. Why? There is no reason to assume the simulation would not include them. You can invent whatever rules you want for the simulation so that any piece of “evidence” either confirms or contradicts it. Or make it. No sense to you. But perhaps perfect sense to the simulators. If you are going to use that argument, then I might say it makes little sense to simulate a universe that relies on quantum effects or even relativity. Why not simulate a classical, Newtonian universe. It only solves them by saying “why do these things exist?” “Because the simulators wanted it that way”. So not really any better than creationism (“goddidit”).

For someone banging on about clarity etc, I’m rather surprised you haven’t provided a reference. I agree that the first bit of text you quote appears pretty bad. But as I don’t know where it is from, I can’t say much more. That is a hypothesis not a theory. It is falsifiable because we can specify ways of testing it. As it happens, these show that the hypothesis is false. Which it is why it is not a theory. You seem to confusing “falsified” with “falsifiable” The idea here is that you only need one example to disprove something (eg your room without a green unicorn) but it is much harder to prove something. Let’s say you have looked in every room in your house and, yes, there is a green unicorn there (obviously, this is just to explain the point). Then you check every room in every building in your town. Yep, the hypothesis still holds. You check every room in your country and then on the planet. Still no rooms without green unicorns. But by now, thousands of new buildings have gone up; they all need to be checked. And can you be certain that there weren’t some secret or hidden rooms you missed. And what about buildings on other planets (if they exist). It is usually impossible or impractical to test something exhaustively. So science more often relies on finding a counter-example, rather than trying to confirm every possible case. Good. I think you need to go and chill out

I don’t think it is frowned upon particularly. I have seen a few scientific papers on the subject. I don’t know what evidence you think there is, or could be, for it. As far as I can see, it is unfalsifiable by definition. Arguments in favour of it have all started with an assumption of what a simulated universe would be like. In other words, they rely on the fallacy of begging the question. You might as well waste your time on Last Thursdayism or solipsism.

You can’t. Not just theoretically, Lorentz invariance has been tested to incredible levels of accuracy

Yes. Disappointed not to have seen any follow up on this.

That’s about it. But I don’t think it is necessarily a strange state; just hot and dense. And ready to expand.

! Moderator Note Last chance. If you do not answer some of the questions asked in your next post, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note This thread is for you to explain your idea, therefore you should be answering questions not asking them. If this continues, this thread will be closed.

The nearest I can think of is the suggestion that sonoluminescence could be used to generate power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion

Unless you are a stage magician!

! Moderator Note Spam links removed and thread moved to Speculations

To paraphrase Gag Halfrunt, “Time’s just this parameter, you know”

Searching for the phrase "time is what clocks measure" pulls up this interesting article: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/What_is_time/index.html As far as I can tell, rather than saying that you can extrapolate back (linearly and naively) to get to a zero sized universe of infinite density, instead you can go further and further back presumably asymptotically approaching that state but never getting there. This may be related to an odd paradox in symmetry breaking (that I came across years ago and haven't been able to find again) where a system can be in a metastable state (imagine balancing a ball bearing on the top of a sphere) for an infinite time before it spontaneously decays to a stable state (the ball bearing rolls down). This is kinda like the "universe from nothing / quantum fluctuation" idea, but instead of being from "nothing" is is from a hot, dense, metastable state. But I may well be reading too much into it. I haven't seen a good, comprehensible description of that research. And it is very preliminary; using an approximation of quantum effects in GR.

Well, I have seen at least one model where it is. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0753.pdf This spawned some truly terrible news stories, typically with headlines like "the Big Bang never happened". But this one seems reasonably sane: https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

It wouldn't know whether it should go green unless it was aware of the sunlight. (That is why they have eyes, I suppose.)

Apart from the fact that the big bang is still ongoing, I don’t think anyone is disputing that

You don't know if that is true. And you haven't been banned. No one gets banned for "writing the truth". We don't have a rule against that, for some reason. So 0 out of 2.

Which frame of reference is dx measured in? Or show how you derived your equation from SR. I am assuming you didn't just make it up from thin air.

Now show that this produces the same results as SR.

There isn't enough information (ie. no numbers). But feel free to show how your equation "solves" this, instead of just claiming that it does.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Can you define what you mean by "active" and "passive"?

What does that mean? What units does q have? Is it the same as inertia? You haven't specified what t' is. How does any of this relate to the speed of this travelling object? Once again, you have thrown together a random equation. What is any of the supposed to mean?