Abhirao456

Hey in the following paper there are some equations relating to a strange attractor , the equations i cannot seem to find anywhere else. My question is whether these equations make sense whatsoever? In section 3 there are some equations regarding a 'strange attractor' . Do those equations make any sense whatsoever

Well said

I actually had another doubt, I saw that in one of his papers he describes interference correctly, yet he goes on to write nonsense like what you just read... does this in any way lend credibility to his claims as such?

I actually saw this definition of energy:- First step. General Relativity can be considered a relationship theory in which the only relevant fact under the physical profile is the relationship between different events in space-time. - Second Step. In Aristotele by "dynamis" is meant the "potency" correlated to the "action" (energheia), efficient cause connected to the movement and its quantitative and qualitative effects, the "inherent potency" or intrinsic possibility of a body to be translated in an action (energheia) that may be realized or not, a value of reality only possible with respect to the real action realized. The mathematician and philosopher Arthur M. Young recognizes the "action" (energheia) its fundamental causative value deriving it from the notion of "quantum of action" as formulated by Planck: " Let us also note that the purposiveness is associated with that aspect of light known as the principle of action (or least action). (….) What did Planck add to this principle of action that was not already present in the ideas of Leibniz? It was the notion that action comes in quanta or wholes, and that this unit is constant. Note that despite the tendency to refer to energy as quantized – a habit which even good physicists are given to – it is not energy but action that comes in wholes. Action = E x T (Energy x Time) = Constant (h) Action is constant, energy is proportional to frequency. (T is the time of one cycle.) (….) Wholeness is inherent in the nature of action, or decision, of purposive activity. (….) While mass is measured in grams, length in meters, and time in seconds, quanta of action are counted with no necessity of specifying the kind of unit. This implies their fundamental nature; actions precede measure, they are prior to the analysis which yields grams, meters, and seconds. It might be objected that action has the measure formula ML^2/T and hence cannot be dimensionless. The answer is that, though action has the dimension ML^2/T, we are taking the position that this particular combination of dimensions (known as action) is the whole from which time, mass, and length are derived. The reasons are as follows: 1. Action comes in irreducible quanta or units. 2. These units are of constant size, i.e., invariant. 3. They are counted, not measured. 4. Because indeterminate, they constitute the end point in the chain of causation and are therefore a first cause. (Source: http://www.meru.org/coast/Arthur Young-LightAndChoice-RefUniv.pdf) - Third step. With aim of unifying gravitation and quantum mechanics, in 1924 Arthur Eddington proposed as an alternative to the "gravitational action" of Einstein-Hilbert ("action" which in astrophysical environs describes how gravity emerges from the curvature of space-time in the presence of matter and energy), a "gravitational action" that is valid in the absence of matter (i.e. a vacuum). The recent re-elaboration of Eddington’s gravitational action, carried out by the astrophysicists Maximo Banados and Pedro Ferreira (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.1769.pdf), led to a hypothesis that at the time of the Big Bang space-time was not continuous but was characterized by a minimum length, a non-continuous space-time that excludes the idea of the Universe as a singularity and which, consequently, leads to elimination of the necessity to turn to the very concept of singularity. Conclusion. The energy is the ability to generate interference, ability generated by perturbative relativistic phenomena, perturbation which triggers the transition from "inherent potency" to "quanta of action / gravitational action". " Does this make sense? I'd recommend you read it completely so it is understandable. PS Same author

I HAVE FOUND MY RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING .

Lmao I messaged arturo. Guess what he says :- 'To be honest, I wrote all that to Claudio messori just because he is my friend. I like him, but I do not agree with his thinking '

Why do you think he recommended it tho? Why do you think good scientists recommended bad science? Specially arturo tozzi? He has worked with Karl friston a famous neuroscientist, yet he chose to recommend bad science. Is it some mistake in our thinking or are they just dumbos.

He actually recommended Claudio Messori that's why I asked, see the old thread

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310270653_Intelligence_vs_Artificial_Intelligence_The_King_Is_Naked/comments I actually saw this other article from the same dude Claudio and I saw that this guy named arturo tozzi said his paper was good. Essentially it's the same orignal paper as the beginning. But why do you think he recommended it? And he's not just some other guy. He looks like he has worked with Karl friston Joigus what u think of this

So I saw this paper by Arturo tozzi https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297679077_Towards_a_Neuronal_Gauge_Theory So I wanted to know how much this arturo contributed to his work? So I saw papers he has written on the same but hen I saw he abuses self citation, from a paper on 94 citation he has 84 or 87 being self. Sane with most of his other papers. However the one I linked above has about 50 odd self citations but he has contributed to the paper with other authors so that's what I was confused about. Whether the guy really has any expertise in the field he is commenting in?

So this means that the author doesn't have the expertise in his field and is just living on other people's research right?

Lol. Congrats Exchemist

Ya'll won't believe what I found. The entire section on coherence domains has been copy pasted from this paper;-https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quantum-Coherent-Water-%2C-Non-thermal-EMF-Effects-%2C-Ho/071e91e34a1245ee505888d9bca715d7e8facdde The entire section doesn't belong to him. He's copy pasted it and changed some words in between. I haven't checked the other sections ( i will shortly in a week or so) but when Swanson told me this sentence "QfT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF......" I just pasted it google and found this article. My suspicions are correct.

Emilio Del Giudice and his Wikipedia page. However do you stand by your opinion that the orignal article is loads of bunk? my confusion is how one can produce a good paper and then produce nonsense.... Also here is the paper by Vladimir voeikov on the orignal author :- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351627720_Physicochemical_Effects_of_Humid_Air_Treated_with_Infrared_Radiation_on_Aqueous_Solutions I also did some digging on the Vladimir fellow and found that the guy supports homeopathy:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340332550_Disperse_and_Dissipative_Nature_of_Aqueous_Systems_-_a_Possible_Foundation_of_Homeopathy Further questions:- Because the vladimir is somehow advocating FOR homeopathy, would it be fair to dismiss whatever he says as bunk?

My main confusion is someone named Vladimir Voiekov cited him saying that the paper is a noteworthy review. Does this increase the credibility of the orignal author somehow? Also Del Giudice is a physicist (Wikipedia). And Vladimir voeikov apparently worked with him it seems like. Confusion 📈

He seems to have cited some papers by Emilio Del Giudice for the EMF thing?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333531765_Deep_into_the_Water_Exploring_the_Hydro-Electromagnetic_and_Quantum-Electrodynamic_Properties_of_Interfacial_Water_in_Living_Systems This is the paper I was talking about. It's been cited some times too. My confusion is if someone can cook up a 46 page article which makes sense then how does the other one on I orignay linked not make sense?

It's about Quantum Electrodynamics and water and how it forms stuff like coherence domains. The recommendations were by one or two physicists , rest were not. My thinking was that if he can write those stuff which is recommended by physicist then how can this stuff be word salad?

I actually saw the author had posted something on water on some shit. He got 23 recommendations by people? Does thus increase the credibility of the paper I originally posted in any way?

Would it be alright if I asked a follow up question this late?

One link is researchgate while the other is springer, I'm not trying to install malware in you lmao Thanks I haven't posted any malware

THIS PAPER has certain equations in its final section, the author has no degree in physics...... However the author linked me to THIS PAPER saying he had his equations taken from that. Are the two related ? I couldn't make out anything from the first?

[This](https://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg) is a lecture by Persinger where he postulates that photon entanglements and the Earth's magnetic field can facilitate telepathy. (See from 20:00 to 30:00) Links to the study he cited: http://neurosciarchive.byethost12.c...ween-physically-and-sensory-isolated-pair.pdf My questions for you:- • If you are ready to smack this as woo and nonsense, then could you provide some counter arguements? •Since teleportation of photons has finally been achieved in 2017, do these point towards indirect proof for his postulating? • Finally is the no communication theorem/no cloning theorem a proper arguement towards this ? TL:DR I just want to know if photons are entangled then can they transfer information.... I do know the no communication theorem states that this isn't possible in cases of faster than light, but if quantum teleportation takes place via a classical channel, does this hold the guy's arguement true? Thank you for your time

I've read some works of Emilio del giudice about coherence domains in water. However I saw this interesting article on Brownian Collisions which make the formation of these coherence domains something quite hard to possibly exist..... Here is the article:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328024287_Limits_on_Quantum_Coherent_Domains_in_Liquid_Water Also here are two more articles on coherence domains in water;- https://m.scirp.org/papers/90862 (umm click download pdf cuz scirp articles on the site are presented in a very hard to read manner) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333531765_Deep_into_the_Water_Exploring_the_Hydro-Electromagnetic_and_Quantum-Electrodynamic_Properties_of_Interfacial_Water_in_Living_Systems According to me I think the bottom two articles are linked are essentially based on not taking into consideration the problem of decoherence and Brownian Collisions...... What is your take?