>> Also, the author of the PDF is trying to make this sound like a serious research project with governmental support, when it is nothing of the kind -- there a

>> Also, the author of the PDF is trying to make this sound like a serious research project with governmental support, when it is nothing of the kind -- there are no "governments/universities/organizations"… > What about on page 4?: > "(U) Brazil, perhaps the most surprising entry on the publications chart ... Easy to answer -- there are none of the usual trappings of research, quantitative measurements, names and locations of facilities, literature references. Also look at all the qualifiers within the quotation: "... but the value of this research is questionable ... but the work is more theoretical than experimental or for practical application ...". Not the wording of a scientific effort. > To me it doesn't seem like a technical or scientific publication at all ... That's because it isn't, which supports the claim that it's pseudoscience. > The report is even cited in the wikipedia article you quote. You mean the article that labeled this topic pseudoscience and used the subject article as part of its evidence for that conclusion? To summarize, this is not how science works. All this talk about governmental agencies, universities and so forth, has nothing to do with real science, which relies only on evidence, not eminence. There's no evidence, and the idea contradicts the most trivial reading of physical theory.