An Essence of the Global Scientific Problems

An Essence of the Global Scientific Problems



P. M. Kanarev

Announcement. The world scientific community has no information concerning the global scientific problems. We’d like to provide such information.

History of development of world science proves that the theoreticians who have got education in physics and mathematics have begun to form its foundation. The mathematical formulas, which describe the experimental results, are the results of their activities. The mathematical formulas must describe the physical phenomena and the processes and calculate the parameters of technical devices for their implementation.

At first, many theoretical mathematical models helped the experimentalists and promoted a quick development of various branches of industry. But as the scientific tasks became more complicated, many old mathematical formulas lost their versatility, and technical progress started to be based mainly on the experimental results being obtained due to the implementation of the so-called trial-and error method, not due to a theoretical prediction. One variant was tested, and it went wrong; the second variant was tested, then the third variant and the hundredth one, and suddenly a new, incredible result, which was predicted by no theory, was obtained. One can state that all scientific achievements of the mankind within the last fifty years are the results of the trial-and error method, not the theoretical prediction.

In what way did and do now the theoreticians regard it? They attribute all these achievements to the theories of their predecessors, which serve as the foundation of their personal theoretical “achievements”. As it is not simple to puzzle out in a totality of the mathematical symbols in the mathematical formulas and in the physical sense being put in these symbols, the theoreticians regard themselves the kings. There has been formed a situation when a correspondence of a new theoretical result (a foundation of the new experimental achievements) to reality is assessed by the theoreticians who have old theoretical knowledge and the old notions concerning a physical essence of the processes being analyzed; thus, away of the new theoretical results to science and practice is closed. In order that my affirmations do not sound unfounded, I’d like to give two examples from my own experience of the communication with the theoreticians.

There are known the absurd consequences resulting from Lorenz transformations, which concern a reduction of a space interval and a reduction of time rate in the moving base when traverse speed is increased. I spent several years trying to find a cause of this absurdity. In the year of 1984, I wrote an article “The unity of relativity”, in which I described the search results, and I sent it to “Foundations of Physics”, the American magazine. I got the following answer: “I regret, but we can discuss your article “The unity of relativity” only… It is of no fundamental importance and is at variance with the important goals of our magazine. We’d like to thank you for your interest to fundamental physics, and we wish you a success in a search of an expedient forum for a discussion of your interesting ideas. V.G. Greenwell”. It is interesting to know what answer could be given by Mr. Greenwell now when the physical ideas, on which his answer has been base, are in the garbage heap of science history.

Here is the second example. As I was not a specialist in the field of spectroscopy, I started to find a proof of the authenticity of the orbital motions of the electrons round the atomic nuclei. In the textbooks, it was proved that it resulted from Bohr’s formula of the calculation of the spectra of the atoms and the ions. An analysis of this formula has shown that it calculates exactly the spectrum of an electron of the hydrogen atom only, and it cannot calculate the spectrum of the first electron of helium, the second chemical element. The theoreticians have solved this problem very simple: they have calculated the approximate methods of the calculation of the spectra having lost completely the true physical sense being put into the mathematical symbols of the approximate formulas.

I spent more than one year trying to find erroneousness of Bohr’s formula and its inability to serve as a law of the formation of the spectra of the atoms and the ions. As a result, there appeared the new simple mathematical formulas, which have begun to calculate the binding energies with the protons of the nuclei, not only the spectra of any atomic electrons. A fundamental consequence has resulted from the formulas: the electrons do not make orbital motions in the atoms; they interact with the protons of the atomic nuclei linearly.

It happened in the year of 1993. In that very year, I wrote a letter to E.A. Vinogradov, director of the All-Union Institute of Spectroscopy, asking to include my report in the program of the scientific conference devoted to the spectra, which should be held. I received a quick answer, and I sent my report at once. Approximately in two weeks I received a notification that my report could no be included in the program of the conference performance, because the conference was devoted to the traditional methods of the calculation of the spectra, and my approach was not a traditional one. It is a vivid example of the king’s manners of the physicists-theoreticians. Explicitly and without remorse, they closed the way of the new laws of formation of the spectra to the minds of several generations of the young people, our future.

At that time, new scientific information was slow to be spread, and this process strengthened the king’s position of the theoreticians in science. The existed procedure of the assessment of the authenticity of the new theoretical scientific results in physics and chemistry, the most fundamental sciences, and their admittance into the academic scientific magazines functioned reliably, and the theoreticians of the whole world went on multiplying their theoretical insinuations using the ideas of their cult-figures as the basis. Albert Einstein was the main one among them.

I’d like to remind the essence of the main existing instrument of a record of the results of work of the scientists. It is based on recording of a citation of the scientific publications in the scientific academic periodicals of the Russian academy of sciences and the academies of other countries. Formerly, this instrument reflected reality somehow. It was destroyed by an appearance of the Internet. Many scientists created their own sites and offered the results of their scientific investigations to be estimated by the whole scientific community.

As a result, objectivity of an assessment of authenticity of the new results of the scientific investigations was greatly increased. All willing persons got a possibility to make critical remarks concerning the results of the new scientific investigations. It is natural that the authors of such scientific results should respond to criticism reasonably and demonstrate the mistakes of the critics, if they are present, or take into account their remarks, if they are authentic.

Our first scientific site was made in the year of 2001 in Finland; the second site was attached to the site of the KubanStateAgrarianUniversity where I worked; in December of the year of 2010, it became a personal scientific site and started its independent life. Since that time, nearly 180000 readers who are interested in the information, which is new for them, have visited it; the volume of this information in the form of the books, the booklets, the articles and the textbooks is 840 MG now. The lectures in video and the video films concerning the experimental investigations occupy 1.5 GB. There is a folder “Discussions and commentaries” in my site. It contains 75 files with criticism of the readers of my new theory of microworld and my answers to the critics.

Thus, the natural and the most impersonal instrument of the assessment and the record of the results of work of the scientists has appeared. It operates during 10 years, but there is no state in the world, which scientific authority has shown interest to the results of the operation of this natural, the most powerful and the most impersonal instrument of the assessment of the activities of the scientists. It is a temporary phenomenon. The time is not far-distant when a contribution of a scientist into science will be taken into account by the whole scientific community, not the kings of the archaic theoretical knowledge.

Surely, this instrument should attract attention of the scientific authority of the states with a powerful scientific intellect. As the Russian science is the world leader in the field of the existing results of the operation of such instrument, one could expect that the scientific authority of Russia should take interest in the operation of such instrument. But it has not happened, and it is clear why the academicians of Russia are afraid of an open discussion of their academic scientific publications; that’s why they publish them only in the academic magazines. The ordinary scientists know that it has never happened when the editors of the academic magazines have published a critical analysis of the articles, which lay open to public in their magazines, because all articles, which are published in these magazines, are reviewed by the academicians, the scientific geniuses in their own opinion. The way to the scientific world was banned for all new scientific results, which were at variance with the scientific results of the academicians.

This bar was destroyed by the Internet. If an author of the personal scientific site ignores a critical analysis of his scientific publications by any reader of his site, this reader sends his critical articles to the site of the scientific and technical library which published this criticism in a section of the scientific news without any check of authenticity of criticism. As a result, the author of the personal scientific site finds himself in a position when he should give answers to all Internet articles, which have criticism of his scientific results. All publications on my site have undergone such procedure of reviewing. As I have already noted, the files, which contain criticism of my scientific results and my answers to the critics, serve as a proof. They are available in the folders “Discussions and commentaries” and “Articles” in my site. The copies of my answers to the critical articles were published in the section of the scientific news of the site of the scientific and technical library and in the author’s archival section of this library .

It appears from the given information that there are no academicians in the RussianAcademy of Sciences (RAS), whose results of the scientific investigations have undergone such comprehensive check of their authenticity by the independent scientific experts.

It is known that in order to solve the complicated scientific problems, it is necessary to find the beginning of their formation and the main factors, which govern development of the negative aftereffects. History of development of the Russian science has already registered the main erroneous academic notion concerning the process of an appearance of new knowledge. All academicians thought and think implicitly that an academic rank in the main source, which produces new knowledge; that’s why they think that only academicians can be the judges of new knowledge. The activities of the RussianAcademy of Sciences have been based on this notion. A procedure of reviewing of the new scientific results of the ordinary scientists who presented them to be published in the scientific magazines of the RussianAcademy of Sciences, was a mechanism of the implementation of this notion.

The academicians put the following criterion in the basis of a determination of authenticity of the new scientific results being obtained by those scientists who were not the members of the RussianAcademy of Sciences: these results should not be at variance with the personal achievements of the academicians. Erroneousness of this criterion of an admission to publication of the new scientific results has been clear for me since the beginning of my scientific search. That’s why within 40 years of this search I tried to publish my new scientific results in the academy publication of the RussianAcademy of Sciences only twice. I have already described my first old attempt connected with the new law of formation of the spectra of the atoms and the ions. The second attempt was undertaken by me not long ago. V.D. Kuchin, Doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, the reviewer of my monograph, the former scientific research manager of the doctor dissertation of academician G.A. Mesyats, contacted him and advised me to send him an article concerning the results of the experimental proof of deep erroneousness of the law of conservation of energy.

I shall not give a photocopy of the answer of the academician with the stamp of the physical institute named after P.N. Lebedev and the signature of the academician. I have already put it in the Internet. I’d like to give only the abstracts form the academic answer. The academician writes: “The motor-generator being suggested by you is a continuous operating machine of the second type, i.e. a device, the applications for its patenting have not been accepted by the Paris Academy of Sciences since the year of 1775; in our day, they are rejected without a consideration by the patent agencies of the USA, Great Britain and the European Community. The paper being presented has undergone no scientific expertise; it is not published in the reviewing (academy) magazines. All references in the paper are made to the author’s writings being published by him in the Internet. All these things make completely impossible a publication of this article in the site or in the proceedings of the RussianAcademy of Sciences neither in the present form nor in case of its completion in the future”. Academician G.A. Mesyats, Vice-President of the RussianAcademy of Sciences. 23/09-10, No. 11220-9311-1051.

A year hence after the academic refusal to publish my article containing the theoretical and the experimental proof of erroneousness of the law of conservation of energy, the videos of the operationalcontinuous operating machines appeared in the Internet. The first machine was invented in the year of 1823. A refusal for its patenting was based in an absence of the theory, which discloses the physical essence of its operation. I did it at once on the basis of the new physical laws, which have been discovered by me; that’s I opened the way for patenting of other models of the continuous operating machines employing other physical principles, not only for this very machine.

There are many videos, which demonstrate the action of the continuous operating machines and the continuous operating electric generators, in the Internet now. A continuous operating electric generator of free electricity, which has been worked out by American Steven Mark, is the most interesting one. Itspoweris 1.0 kWasyet. The Russian scientists worked out a principle of a transmission of large electric power (up to 10 kW) by a wire, which 10fold thinner than a human hair, without understanding of physics of the operational principle of their device. The new theory of microworld has allowed me to understand at once an analogy of the physical principle, which lays in the American and the Russian generators.

I make a responsible statement: the majority of the scientific publications of the academicians-theoreticians of RAS of such sciences as physics, chemistry, theoretical mechanics, electrodynamics, astrophysics and others is in scientific garbage now, as they are completely erroneous castaway knowledge. It hurts me to write about this fact, which appearance was governed by the law of nature being opened by Max Planck, the scientific genius, nearly 100 years ago. Here is the wording of this law:“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponentseventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.

History of the Russian as well as the world science of the previous century serves as a convincing proof of power and inevitability of Planck’s law of recognition of the new scientific results. A natural question arises: on what are the last achievements of foreign scientists based? An answer is simple: it is based on a wide use of the trial-and error method in the experimental investigations. It is possible in case of substantial financing of the scientific experimental investigations, which allows the foreign investigators to carry out dozens and hundreds of experiments in the chosen direction of the scientific search and to approach a desired result or to get a new one. In this case, the main financial expenses include the cost of the experimental installations and the experimental samples of the future commercial products. The analysis has shown that a production of the first commercial sample of the Russian MG-5 pulse electric motor-generator in Europe costs nearly one million euros; in Russia, the maximal cost of such generator is 20fold less, but the Russian investors groan and lament as they do not understand it. An elaboration of the pulse electric motor-generator is a result of the implementation of knowledge concerning the new theory of microworld, which reduces the period of the elaboration of the innovation and the costs to an achievement of the new practical results.