Strange

Is Randall Munroe following this discussion ... https://xkcd.com/1984/

I doubt it, somehow. Being wrong has never stopped you before.

"The linear accelerator, or linac, is the electromagnetic catapult that brings electrons from a standing start to relativistic velocity--a velocity near the speed of light. ... The linac is four meters long--not a great distance in which to get even an electron from zero to almost 300,000 kilometers per second." http://www2.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/ALS_Components/Linac/

Well you are, or appear to be, presenting the idea of a firmament with the stars painted/projected on it. I don't know where you got this from so I can only credit you with it. I was suggesting that you point out what I have misrepresented but you, again, choose not to do that. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented what you have said, you only need to explain what you really meant. And if you want to give someone else the credit for it so I can call it their cosmology rather than yours, then feel free. On the other hand, if you are just trolling by making up stupid random objections to things people say, then that's fine too. (Well, no it isn't, but you know what I mean: you can't really object to being misrepresented in that case.) And, again, you haven't corrected any misapprehensions so I can only assume I was correct.

As protons are typically accelerated to very close to the speed of light, it would be impractical to try and move the magnets at that speed. And it seems unnecessary as the require acceleration can be obtained by turning the magnets on and off to accelerate the protons.

Because you used them to support a worldview where they can't exist. But the holographic principle doesn't exist in your cosmology. So you can't use it as justification for your cosmology. You would be better off saying that "planetariums exist, therefore what we see in the sky could be a projection as well". Except everything on the planetarium screen is the same distance away; a 2D image. Whereas, the things we see in the sky are all different distances away. I don't see how. The only literal quotation there is copied from one of your posts. The rest is my attempt to interpret it, with a request for you to correct it if I was wrong. You haven't, so can I assume I was correct?

I really would never have guessed that from any of your previous posts! (p.s. If I was being sarcastic, I would have said "well that was clear from what you said before". Instead, I was using exaggeration for humorous(?) effect.)

Are you saying that a "theory of everything" is not possible because if we did live in a simulated universe the theory could not describe the "outer world" where the simulation was created? So it would only be a theory of the simulated universe and therefore not "everything"? (If that is what you are saying, I congratulate you: I don't think there is any way you could have made your position any less obvious. Unless, perhaps, you had written in Sanskrit.)

That is not what I said, and not what I intended. Pursuing a theory of everything is (for suitable definitions of "everything") a reasonable pursuit. I said that trying to distinguish "reality" from a simulation is impossible. We can only build models (i.e. do science) based on what we observe. There is no way of distinguishing between simulation, solpsism, naive realism, or any other philosophical stance. So I suggested that arguing for a simulated universe is a quasi-religious belief. The only things I have read by him are when he gets quoted on science forums by people promoting crackpot ideas. I get the impression he is one of those people more interested in making impressive sounding statements than communicating science accurately. (Michio Kaku appears to be similar.)

OK. I have re-read what you said. It seems (and correct me if I am wrong) that you were saying that the evidence for stars (e.g. the graph of spectral distributions) could be as well accounted for if they were painted on a dome. OK so far. And as support for this, you introduced the holographic principle and black holes ("We already know that the mass entropy of a black hole is determined by its surface area..."). But as black holes cannot exist in your painted firmament, you cannot use them as evidence for it. (That would be rather like a Flat-Earther saying that the fact that all the other planets are spheres proves the world is flat.) I'm not sure I see the ignoratio elenchi there. Could you explain where I have gone wrong?

Well, the evidence for it came initially from Newtonian (non-relativistic) physics. Some evidence (e.g. gravitational lensing) requires relativity but even without relativity, there is something to explain.

Wow. Something we have in common! Who'd a thunk it. It is, of course, impossible to distinguish "nature" from such a simulated universe. The only nature you would know would be the one in the simulation therefore, like solipsism, etc it is inherently unfalsifiable. And, so, pretty much indistinguishable from a religious belief. Maybe this is why it appeals to people: they can pretend they are being rational while still believing in something that has no evidence (and cannot have any). So, not a theory then.

Can you explain that "consequently" as I don't see the connection. That is not a theory of anything. It doesn't allow you to predict or calculate anything. It is just a pointless statement of a mathematical truth. You could equally usefully say that 5 = 5, or 4 <> 3.

That is outside the scope of science. Science describes and models what we can see.

Lets hope it is the best half! Really? What fallacy?

Then it should be easy for you to provide references to these "many scientists". That makes less sense, not more. What "angle" should we be looking at space from? It wasn't part of the initial goals.

I would say, just not aware of the cultural differences. The good ones learned pretty quickly to read between the lines of what was said.

So you think the evidence points to multiple universes and yet you believe there is just one. Interesting bit of denialism. On the other hand, I am not aware of any evidence for there being multiple universes. What do you think suggest this? But as black holes cannot exist if the dots of light we see are projected on your "firmament", then your argument is bogus. (I guess this just demonstrates you are trolling with all your anti-science shit, rather then seriously believing it, and that is why you tripped yourself up like this.)

You man "good scientists" would be ones who agree with you? What does "a consequence of space" mean? And how would you quantify this so that it can be tested? As we can already calculated its effects, this seems a pretty vain hope. As far as I know, that was always a never the major objective. There are many other important things being done.

Which "good scientists" are these. Please provide references to where they have said that there is no point researching dark matter because it cannot be understood. I assume you either didn't read the article, didn't understand it or ignored what it said. (Do your religious beliefs now mean you are rejecting all science?)

Cause and effect. The mass exists before the event horizon forms. The radius of the event horizon that forms is proportional to the mass. Entropy, not mass. "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle But this says nothing about your wacky "firmament" story. And, hang on a minute ... You are arguing for a fantasy cosmology using arguments from objects that cannot exist in that cosmology! (There must be a name for that fallacy, but I have no idea what it is!)

Several times I have been in meetings with managers/salespeople sent out from the European head office to meet with potential customers in Japan. After a meeting where presentations and discussions were met with "yes, yes, very interesting" I had to try and explain why that meant "no, we are not interested".

The holographic principle has nothing to do with the spectra and lifecycles of stars. The area is determined by the mass. And, again, nothing to do with the holographic principle. This seems like a complete non sequitur; unless you think we are on the inside of a black hole and the event horizon is like a IMAX screen. You could, no doubt, come up with all sorts of contrived explanations as to why, for example, we see objects at different distances even though they are projected on a surface. But that would be just as ludicrous as the contortions that the Flat-Earthers go through to sustain their delusions. (Trying to make the data fit alternative models is, however, quite a good way of showing why the generally accepted model is generally accepted.)

I thought it was an interesting status report. People are looking at all sorts of alternative theories. (You could start a thread on dark matter, if you like.) We know "dark matter" (the phenomenon) exists but in some explanations the cause wouldn't be "matter"

This reminds of my favourite joke(1) about parallel programming: "If it takes one hour for one man to dig a hole 1 metre by 1 metre by 1 metre, how quickly can 100 men dig the same hole?" (2) (1) Which implies there is more than one. (2) This nicely shows what is wrong with Amdahl's Law.