That's interesting - page 9
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I have familiarized myself with the materials. Though cursory, but. Anyway, I have a suspicion that Shnol is something like Petrick. Alas.
Now I cannot, and will not, judge this unequivocally, one needs to be a professional in many fields. And he still has an ambiguous, multifaceted, controversial and generally complex subject. It is unlikely that he has been "fudging" material for all 50 years of research. He honestly says and writes that he did not understand fully the nature of such fluctuations, but that they are - sooner or later will have to recognize formally as a phenomenon. I understood from the search materials - in fact it is already recognized. And what exactly affects - the sun, the moon, the man himself (and why not)... - xxx knows. (xxxx is a purely scientific term, revealing the depth of thought :o)
The phenomenon is rather there - there is no explanation. And it seems to me that it can be used, but a little differently perceived.
One can have different attitudes to him as a person, and to his research. But certainly not in his personal qualities, in his communication, in the material he prepared - not Petrik. Yes, the material does not suffer from the severity of the scientific word, but you also understand, a man of 50 years has received a confirmation of fluctuations (it is not his main subject), he was looking for an answer and did not find it. Why it is necessary for it to construct a strict system of theorems and proofs? For whom and for what purpose?
I treat the book more as a memoir. And it is not for me to judge about scientific rigour :)
I can say that in the area that I am close to, there is nothing like that. That's why I have my doubts. When the professor talks about the universality of this effect. I can admit that among some measured parameters of proteins - maybe. But proteins are complex substances - what goes on there and how...
Well, of course, I'm all for scientific reasoning and explanation.
Let's say, in our country you can also find abnormalities. And very often. But there is always an explanation, most often based on the heterogeneity of the subject. The second reason, systematic measurement errors, etc. Although, figures who build cosmological theories on this are a dime a dozen. I always laugh at them and poke them with a stick. :)
I can admit that amongst some measured parameters of proteins - maybe. But proteins, after all, are complex substances - what goes on there and how...
We are talking about the same results when measuring radioactivity, which is one of the most independent and relatively simple processes.
As it happens, measuring radioactivity is one of the methods I am familiar with. Both natural radioactivity and induced, otherwise secondary radioactivity. So, once again, for the particularly gifted - there's nothing there. We have.
So someone sees what they want to see. Or someone is missing something.
I was surprised by this statement that if you had taken measurements of radioactivity and provided the results and the timing, you could determine with high accuracy at which meridian (assuming you measured while on Earth) you took the measurements. Allegedly each meridian + time corresponds to a pattern.
So someone sees what they want to see. Or someone is missing something.
I was surprised by this statement that if you had taken measurements of radioactivity and provided the results and the timing, you could determine with high accuracy at which meridian (assuming you measured while on Earth) you took the measurements. Allegedly each meridian + time corresponds to a pattern.
I can say that in the area that I am close to, there is nothing like that. That's why I have my doubts. When the professor talks about the universality of this effect. I can admit that among some measured parameters of proteins - maybe. But proteins are complex substances - what goes on there and how...
Well, and I am, of course, all for scientific justification and explanation.
Let's say we can also find abnormalities. And very often. But there is always an explanation, most often based on heterogeneity of the object under study. Second reason, systematic measurement errors, etc. Although, figures who build cosmological theories on this are a dime a dozen. I always laugh at them and poke them with a stick. :)
It is understandable. I can't judge the frequency of experiments. Neither yours nor the author's. But, me as, that I do not believe that the founder of faculty of biophysics of the Moscow State University let fool people's heads for 50 years, only because he cannot correctly carry out the experiment and correctly do not consider errors of measurements.
Damn, let's measure something and just check it :o)
Last time, for the dumb ones - there's nothing like that out there. Everything there is fits perfectly within the matstat.
For the dumb and not so dumb:
So someone sees what they want (Schnoll or HideYourRichess). Or someone doesn't see something (Schnoll or HideYourRichess).