I think this is an illustrating case in how much easier it is to create high-falutin' nonsense than it is to debunk it. Most of the claims are somewhat vague but they touch on areas where someone needs a lot of knowledge and precision to coherently dispute them.
I highly recommend reading a patent lawyer's research into the history of this particular patent from the last time it was posted here[1]. Apparently the examiner tried to reject the patent claim several times on technical bases, against the protest of some Navy brass, before finally admitting it without comment months later.
[0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19763445