1. FROM the AUTHOR
This book - popular presentation of new physics, elaborates which one
the author, while, in loneliness, but hang on the uncountable experimental and
observation data obtained by transactionses of the scientists - application
engineer. The scientists - theorists consider as not regal business to rake a
heap of theoretical agglomerates (ourselves already created), and everyone
drags in this heap their representations. To the normal man true,
and where solid delirium already is impossible to understand and to be
disassembled, where. Of it the orthodoxes even are proud, that to the simple
man is not given to understand (crazy) ideas of a modern physics. In a modern
physics the common sense has vanished, and there were only naked mathematical
constructions, which one without clear physical sense nothing can explain. It
is understandable, that from mad idea professed in past century, up to
delusional idea only one step and it is already made.
In the basis of new physics the alone hypothesis lays:
similarly, how at motion of electric charges there is a magnetic field, at
motion of gravitational charges (any mass) arises a gravidynamic field. The
feature it that tension of this field very much is sharply augmented with
increase of a running speed of a gravitational charge. At customary speeds the
gravidynamic field practically itself does not exhibit is considerably more gentle than the gravitational field of gravitation, but
at speeds close to speed of light the gravidynamic interplay becomes most by
strong in the nature, its orthodoxes call as strong or nuclear interaction.
Thus, new physics has business with four kinds of fields and interplays:
gravitational, gravidynamic, electrostatic and magnetic.
At presentation of a material, I endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid
the use of the formulas as they are the particular language of science and for
the ordinary man cause hostility, alike as it is unpleasant to hear any specialist
expressing only with the technical terms, or even of the man, which one applies
ordinary words only to flow bundle of obscene expressions. For the reader, for
which one the mathematical calculations do not cause an allergy, they are
adduced in in-depth and understandable presentation with applying of
mathematics in a volume of school. The mathematical calculations are completely
indispensable for explanation of some problems to be not unfounded. These
calculations can be skipped, but then the conclusions from them should be
accepted for a faith.
The material is set up so that the reader on a course of business could
permanently compare that alternate physics tenders
that the orthodox science has reached. Thus the author designedly stresss the
contradictions in last, specially inconsistencies with
so-called “common sense”. The common sense by official science is almost purely
skipped and even the thesis is preached: the the theory is more paradoxical, the it is closer to true. The modern physics disclaims to
the logic of the Aristotle, i.e. human logic substituting its logic of abstract
mathematical constructions the physical sense which one is not clear to
writers. It allows the reader himself to experience, that boundary of nonsense
in modern science does not exist. The transcendence in the modern society is
tracked not only in physics, step-by-step loses common
sense, but also in art (in music the tune, and in painting - realistic
portrayal fades).
The history of science knows uncountable examples, how the new
scientific ideas were declared mock-science, and their writers
sciolists. Let's recollect Copernicus,
Galilei, genetics, cybernetics, we shall recollect, how laugh over Marconi,
which one has wishes to transmit rectilinearly distributed radio waves through
the Atlantic ocean. It is possible to recollect set of similar cases, when the
critics of new ideas at the end remained in the fools. Many from them grow
wiser also abstain from categorical opinions. However fans to pour by mud over
new ideas will be never go down the drain. Such I term sciolists. The genuine
scientist before to be stated on this or that new idea, is close it will learn,
will set to the writer numerous problems to permit own doubts and to be
certified in the competence of the writer. Anyone regalia do not add mind to
their owner, it only recognition of his past merits. Therefore he cannot be
recognized owning as true in the last resort. Even itself the God does not own
true. If he owned it, would not be excruciated six days with creation of a
solar System to rest for the seventh day. For today we have learnt such scales
of the Universe, that if the Creator created each star with the planets not six
days and only one second, creations of a visible Galaxy of galaxies need more
than thousand billions of years. As is known - only in dispute the true is
born, and to argue we do not know how. Or we press the opponent by the
authority, or we deny his opinion having not acquainted at all with it as
follows, or is free or involuntarily we distort
thoughts of the opponent in outcome misunderstanding or inattentive reading.
Apparently, that in scientific controversies each of the contending parties
should proceed not from own positions, and from positions of the opponents and
in these positions to search for inconsistencies with the objective laws of the
nature, in the logic and common sense, i.e. to search internal inconsistencies
in the theory of the opponent. It is understandable, that if each of the
contending parties will criticize the opponent that his views contradictory by
yours, such controversy is nonconstructive and resembles dispute two deaf.
Outcome of similar culture of controversies can be only mutual recriminations
in nonsenses verifying nonsense of participants of dispute. Let's presume, that I now had with makers of the Bible to consider
a problem of a world-wide flood. I have resulted the following evidences in
impossibility it. 1. The water has covered all Earth, but whence it has come in
sight? If has appeared by a wonderful image, it contradicts an energy
conservation law. 2. At any intensity of a continuously poured rain, the water
deluges have time slither in the seas and oceans so, that the upbuilding of a
layer of water on ground by thickness up to tops of high mountains is impossible.
The makers of the Bible mention in this connection mountain Ararat, they
apparently did not know about existence of greatest mining systems
Apparently, that criterion mock-science are the
numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes it results in which one. And these
inconsistencies and paradoxes are visible not from the point of view of
indirect knowledge, and from the point of view of the internal logic
mock-science.
In the
book, tendered to the reader, the numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes of
modern fundamental physics are adduced, which one the writer considers by
mock-science. This mock-science for a long time was turn intoed religion, therefore
its followers do not experience slightest desire to find any inconsistencies in
the system, that foredooms it on progressive nonsense (for example, in the
field of fundamental particles, fields, interplays etc.).