Strange

As his logic is simple and an inevitable conclusion from the invariant speed of light (as predicted by Maxwell) I think people would have simply accepted it. As, in fact, they did. You have failed to produce any valid counter-argument and so we can dismiss your opinions/beliefs as baseless and worthless.

They may have "substantial evidence" that is consistent with the holographic principle. But that is a long way from confirming the holographic principle. And that is completely different from "living in a hologram".

Even if there are infinite parallel universe (there is zero evidence for this) then it still only means that possible things can happen. As far as I am aware, in all speculation about parallel universes, there is no way of communicating between them. In quantum theory, there is no need for a conscious observer. "Observation" just means interaction. Also, if you are thinking of quantum theory, then the "many worlds interpretation" (MWI) is completely different from the idea of (different) parallel universes. In the MWI, the universe "splits" whenever a different quantum outcome is possible. So they are all different versions of the same universe.

It doesn't matter if you understand it or not, it is almost certainly nonsense. Can you support his claim? Or is it just another random guess that you would like to be true? (My money is on the latter.) With regard to the difficulty of properly accounting for the Earth's mass distribution in things like the borehole "anomaly" and similar measurements, you might be interested in the Potsdam Gravity Potato: http://www.universetoday.com/116801/the-potsdam-gravity-potato-shows-earths-gravity-variations/ Their measurements are now accurate enough to track changes in gravity as the oceans move.

Please do the maths to show that the distortion in such a system will be smaller than the effect you are trying to measure. Oh, sorry, I forgot: there is no point asking you to do any science because all you are interested in is your personal beliefs. I will suggest that the mods close this thread for lack of science.

There is no such need.

Engage brain before posting, in future (making sure that Critical Thinking Mode is enabled). It will save everyone a lot of time.

1. It is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. You never prove anything in science, you just elevate it to the level of a theory if there is enough evidence. There is currently zero evidence that we live in a hologram. 2. Even if the holographic principle is correct, it doesn't mean that you "live in a hologram". 3. Even if the holographic principle is correct, it doesn't mean that you are "not real". 4. "You Aren't Living in a Hologram, Even if You Wish You Were" http://gizmodo.com/you-arent-living-in-a-hologram-even-if-you-wish-you-we-1791793355

He is going to continue digging up rubbish because all he interested in is confirming his (irrational) beliefs. It is effectively a religious thing.

It isn't proof, but it is very compelling counter-evidence. This is a very common fallacy. It is a variant of the argument from ignorance. https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/ http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/11/18/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence-in-many-cases/ http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence

As you refuse to provide a link to this Russian work, or even name the scientists, it is hard to comment. Re boreholes, this was the first result I found on Googling it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037026938991397X So it seems to be fully accounted for. Regarding the Allias Effect. It has never been properly confirmed and the most recent experiment found no effect: Kuusela T., Effect of the solar eclipse on the period of a torsion pendulum, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2041–2043 (1991) "Contrary to previous experiments, no increase in the period was observed"

Perhaps you could quantify those and show that they could have a measurable effect (never mind changes of 1%). And you forgot the possible effect of invisible pink unicorns flapping their wings near the apparatus.

Or maybe it is a statement about their experimental technique. Or the analysis of their results. Or ... If you doubt their results (which is quite reasonable) then why keep banging on about it? There was someone with their crackpot gravity theory. He insisted that using cylindrical weights would introduce an error (I have no idea if the error would be as large as he claimed, nor if any such error was taken into account in the experiments). He also insisted that if spherical weights were used then a different result would be obtained. He went a bit quiet after all the experiments using spherical weights (and getting consistent results for G) were pointed out to him. Given that gravitational waves can barely be detected using a highly sensitive interferometer with 4km long arms, I think the answer is a pretty definitive, no. (p.s. gravity waves are something else entirely, and would only be relevant if the lab was flooded!)

reminds me of the "magic switch": http://catb.org/esr/jargon/html/magic-story.html

But most people never experience a murder, so that hardly seems relevant. In what way do we work beyond our senses? (There are many more than 5, by the way.) How do you know that?

WTF!? As you have never made an intelligent comment on this website ... Anyone who wants the job should be banned from applying.

Bamboo fibre is fantastic: as durable as cotton but as soft as silk. (And entirely natural!) Anything you want to get off your chest?

So many want to bring back the aether (for which there was never any evidence). But no one is interested in phlogiston, which was a pretty good fit for the evidence at the time.

Or maybe they are only concerned with non-relativistic effects. This might be of interest. A 240 year old pendulum clock that is accurate to better than 1 in 8000000 (that is about 5 orders of magnitude more stable than your sloppy Russian friends) http://wornandwound.com/the-240-year-old-pendulum-clock-thats-more-accurate-than-your-watch/

It could be argued that the underlying structure (the mathematical relationship between notes) is a form of symmetry. And symmetry relations are fundamental to all of modern physics. This appears to be incorrect: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207450590914464

Cotton has been bred over many generations to produce the crop we use now. Is that "natural"? More recently, genetic modification has been used. Is that "natural"? The fibres of the plant are processed and treated in various ways (using many chemicals) to produce the cotton used to make fabric. Is that "natural"? The cotton fabric is produced by machines. Is that "natural"? The fabric is often treated with various chemicals? Is that "natural"?

How do you define "natural"? How can clothing be "scientific"? That is a nonsensical concept.

China has launched a satellite to test this at "space scale": http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/aug/16/china-launches-world-s-first-quantum-science-satellite

Fantastic article on how boxer crabs use anemones. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/this-crab-clones-its-allies-by-ripping-them-in-half/515814/

There is also some redundancy in the coding of amino acids (multiple codons map to the same amino acid). I wonder if there is any way that this can be exploited to make certain genes more robust to changes ...