V.K. Konovalov









In electronic version of the book there is no sense to select separate issuings it. For example, in 2007 the book was renovated practically monthly, for one year 23 chapters not counting numerous additions to the present chapters are added. By 2008 the number of visits of a site has crossed for one million, and the volume of the book has come nearer to 500 pages of the А4 format, that already introduces considerable disadvantages for comprehension of ideas of new physics. For the constant readers it is convenient to use section «news of a site» to be acquainted with last novelties.

In the fourth edition of the book (2006) its volume is considerably increased as contrasted to by first edition of 1995 and subsequent editions. It is conditioned by that in the first edition the material was set up is as much as possible compressed, practically thesisly, with the purpose to outline common contours of new physics. Besides the electronic version of the book is permanently renovated and in definite time newly arises the necessity to arrange all structure of the book.

It is as a matter of convenience of the reader, in the fourth edition the presentation has become not only much more in detail, but also instead of the references to the known theories and experiments, they are quoted in summary in the applicable places of page. Fourth edition included the fresher data of experiments and theoretical achievements of orthodox science.

The material is set up so that the reader on a course of business could permanently compare those alternate physics tenders that the orthodox science has achieved. Thus the author deliberate sharpens the contradictions in last, especially inconsistencies with so-called "common sense". The common sense by official science is almost purely skipped and even the thesis is preached: the theory is more paradoxical, it is closer to true. The modern physics disclaims to the logic Aristotel, 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 losing common sense, but also in art (in music the tune, and in painting - realistic picture are fades).

Some sections, for example, about "elementary" particles, cosmology and others are considerably processed and are supplemented not only by reason of the new data becoming accessible author, but also on that apparent circumstance, that the development of new physics already cannot be stopped. 

The orthodox physical science, "by exhausting" everything, that is possible from its the mainframe ideas, last decades is mark time. The new ideas are necessary to leave from blind-alley. The consecutive adherents of official science is fine perceives, that the new ideas should be in a channel old to not shatter logically harmonic system, above which one the breeds of the scientists worked. Radical change of ideas in any nook of physics without chain reaction of inconsistencies with logic of a modern physics as a whole practically is impossible. In it the main difficulty of orthodoxes. "Alternativers" it is possible to afford any freedoms, but thus it is necessary to construct a new logical system of physics not only internally non contradictory, but also within the framework of this logical system accounting for all sum of the accumulated experimental facts, i.e. to construct new physics, that practically not under force to one or small group of the authors. Naturally thus, that capacity of new physics to explain and to forecast should be above, than for old physics to not change "an awl for a soap". Thus, the creative impotency of orthodoxes is conditioned by those by rigid conceptual frameworks, in which one they are compelled to be, and alternativers though and continuously begets to something, but their theories still-born, because aborted. Nevertheless, apparently, that the activity of alternativers is more perspective (and history of science it uniquely demonstrates), since there is a hope, that their next theory will survive, despite of the extremely unfavorable conditions of existence at total monopolism on true in the area of science. From this point of view any similar activity of such type merits all praise, introducing a fresh spray in brains of the scientists and demonstrating, that waits on paths, which one author studied, that on one raker to not close in doubly.

To be advanced in explanation of the observed facts, any scientist, in what camp he was not, is necessary old ideas to fill up with the new contents. Naturally, that richer there will be this new contents, the more capabilities for scientific speculations. A problem only in that whether they are justified in each particular case. For example, during a Newton was considered, that space and time have not any physical characteristics, and are container of things and events. The vacuum (emptiness) corresponded to the title. The modern physics has charged vacuum with virtual (unobservable) particles, has allotted time by property to flow slower with increase of a moving speed, and space - property to change the geometry. The outcome has appeared considerably less anticipated. And it was not possible to construct the theory of a nucleus and elementary particles, and in a cosmology the advance leaves to wish much best.

In connection with total substitution of physical problems mathematical in modern science, it would be desirable to make one constructive proposal removing all inconsistencies between physics, orthodox physics and alternate physics. If to pronounce about organization of the new division of mathematics, for example: time-space mathematics, which one is invoked to elaborate such problem: and what would be, if space and time could be as this or that incurved crotchet? Then the majority of activities of the modern agents of official physics and many activities "alternativers" would introduce the worthy contribution to this division of mathematical science, at all conflict among themselves and with physics, which one to such activities has not relation until the converse will be demonstrated.

In the fullness of time, author find the bean in the cake to be acquainted with the academician V.V. Vlasov, that is possible to call one under the right as the founder of vectorial power engineering. I was educated on a classic thermodynamics and could not understand, why the huge efforts of the scientists to apply such powerful tool for the description of real non-equilibrium processes as a matter of fact to anything have not resulted. Only after numerous chats with V.V. Vlasov the comprehension has come that the thermodynamics itself is a particular case of vectorial power engineering at infinitesimal speeds of passing of that or diverse process and basically can not justify similar waitings, for what I am indefinitely grateful to him. The monograph, tendered to the reader, by almost each page confirms vectorness of real processes at all levels of universe. Let's consider two examples. Let's suspect, that we have an insulated system of a mixture of protons and electrons. Pursuant to logic of a modern thermodynamics the electrons should "to fall" on protons and to forms neutrons. If to take into account, that the neutron is unstable and is disintegrated, approximately, in 15 minutes on an electron and proton (without accounting a neutrino), that, eventually, our system in equilibrium will represent neutron gas with some impurity of electrons and protons. As a matter of fact, the equilibrium system will represent gas from molecules of Hydrogen. Other example. Let's suspect that we have an insulated system of macrobodies, chaotically driving in space - "gas of macrobodies". Though these bodies also can be crushed at impacts and thus to lose energy, the business will be terminated by that pursuant to the law of world-wide attraction in equilibrium state all macrobodies fuses in a single body. As a matter of fact, the equilibrium system will represent a planetary system. In both cases the modern science is strong only "by back mind", it can explain an end result, but has not the laws causing just to this outcome. As will be shown in this book, the self-organizing of a system in these examples directly is connected to self-organizing of motion of any free bodies, which one expresses in their motion not rectilinearly, and on a screw trajectory.

On false-science, false-scientists and culture of discussions.

The history of science knows uncountable examples, how the new scientific ideas were declared false-science, and their writers false-scientists. Let's recollect Copernicus, Galileo, genetics, cybernetics, we shall recollect, how laughed above Marconi, which one has collected 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 grew wiser also abstain from categorical opinions. However admirers to pour by mud over new ideas will be never transferred. Such I term false-scientists. The true scientist before to be stated on this or that new idea, is close it will learn, will set to the writer numerous questions 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 admission of his past merits. Therefore he cannot be recognized owning as true in the last instance. 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 metagalaxy 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 purposely or involuntarily we distort thoughts of the opponent in outcome incomprehension or inattentive reading. Apparently, that in scientific controversies each of the contending parties should proceed not from own stands, and from stands of the opponents and in these stands 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 contradicts by yours, such controversy is nonconstructive and resembles dispute two dead. Outcome of similar culture of controversies can be only mutual recriminations in nonsense verifying stupidity of participants of dispute. Let's suspect 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. At any intensity of a continuously effuse rain, the water deluges have time roll down in the seas and oceans so, that the accumulation 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 of Pamirs, Tien Shan and The Himalayas. 2. The thunderstorm clouds place of much below mining tops, therefore at a world-wide flood they will appear inside a layer of water and that this layer was augmented, it is necessary «to a rain to drop hill up». 3. To arrange powerful thunderstorm clouds approximately uniformly on the Earth, the storm winds of such force are necessary, that the sailing of the Noah will become impossible. If such winds will not be, the drench is impossible a long time. On the basis even of three these arguments it is possible to draw a conclusion that the makers of the Bible did not own indispensable knowledge for the correct description. 

Apparently, that criterion falsescience 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 falsescience. In the book, tendered to the reader, the numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes of modern fundamental physics are adduced, which one the author considers falsescience. This falsescience 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 absurditization (for example, in the region of fundamental particles).

The brief characteristic of the monograph.

This book is counted for the reader for which one there was though a little common sense after familiarization with crazy ideas of orthodoxes and alternativers. The nature is surprising simple and be clear to any schoolboy even at explanation «on fingers». Here you will not discover abstruse explanations of a bending of space or change in the march of time as the writer time and space does not attribute to physical objects possessing any properties are interspaces between events and bodies. The used formulas extreme are simple (school level) and are intended not for obtaining new outcomes, and for illustration the of logic reasons. In the huge monograph you will not meet innumerable of quantity of hypotheses on each page. All new outcomes are a logical consequent or known laws or only of two basic hypothesises: 1. The body on a circular orbit has not kinetic energy, and has universal potential energy of repulsing from center of rotation. 2. At motion of gravitational charges (some masses) arises a gravidynamic field similarly, how at motion of electric charges there is a magnetic field. The principled difference only that tension of a gravidynamic field increases with sharply to running speed and in after all the gravidynamic interplay becomes most by strong, its orthodoxes names nuclear or strong interplay. If the hypothesis 2 has all tags of the present hypothesis, the hypothesis 1 is simplly refinement of our notions about circular motion of bodies. I hope, that the reader, at last, has met such scientific book from reading by which one he will receive true enjoying, as at reading a good work of art, not tightening thus brains up to a headache. The large request to leave recalls in the guest book, is desirable with constructive criticism, instead of with stream of abuse, when there is nothing to object.





"We, probably, are similar to those who knew only composite description of a solar System on Ptolemaeus. We require in new Copernicus to assimilate and to interpret the data and to receive generalization, which one not only will resolve a riddle, but also will extend our field of view to such level, which one now we can not anticipate". Concluding remarks from the book: M.R. Wehr and J.A.Richards "Physics of atom". М., 1961.

The main difference of so-called classic physics from the modern author sees that the basic tool of knowledge first - common sense and visual notions, and second - mathematical formalization of phenomena. These methodological differences had by a consequent that at analysis of properties of microparticles, for which one the wave-corpuscle dualism is legibly exhibited, the classic approach is not indifferent to corpuscular attributes of particles, and the quantum mechanics prefers wave attributes, skipping at any capability corpuscular properties of particles. Apparently, that that and other approach is faulty and do not give true so long as we do not learn an essence of a wave-corpuscle dualism. Any mathematical shifts here will not help. Mathematicians is in it blind and can not give new knowledge without clear physical notions, it transforms only that in it is found. The connection of mathematics at any stage of knowledge does not introduce difficulties. Much more difficult thus to not distort that physical sense, which one in it is inseted. The reader can be convinced of it on an example marked in this book several elementary that is why, infamous errors of a modern physics in this aspect. Not less difficulties arises and at return translation of mathematical outcome into the language of physical sense. This problem by modern science is not esteemed at all because of its apparent simplicity and evidence of mathematical manipulations. Mathematicians - selling wench of science, it always gives that of it require. 

Claiming on fundamental revision of notions of modern science, the author justifies it by that any alternate hypothesis and theories have the right to existence for search of true. Though the path to true is obscure also we do not know, that it is necessary to do to find it, but what to do it is impossible, to tell it is possible at once. It is impossible to neglect alternative and to monopolize the right on true. Whereas on "crude" hypotheses more often the weeds grow, than sensible theory, they, nevertheless, represent that food medium, without which one tree of science dries. It is easy for showing mathematically. Any theory is founded on three-four hypotheses, the probability of the verity of each of them (even "good") averages 0.2 – 0.3. Apparently, that the probability of the verity of any theory as a whole (allowing and insecure conclusions from valid premises) is peer to product of probabilities of each of component and does not exceed 0.03 - practically of improbable value. The history of science serves bright endorsement it. If we shall have ten alternate theories with probability of the verity by everyone even 0.01, it is clear, that the probability of the verity together will make them the sum of probabilities of each theory, and we can hope that true near. If this simple calculation was possible drive into in heads not only scientists, but also politicians, economists and chiefs of all levels we would live absolutely in the other world. The largest nonsense - to consider itself as cleverest.

The development of physics is possible conditionally to section on prequantum period (classic physics) and post quantum (modern). If in a building of classic physics all was accurate collocated on racks, and continuously light of common sense shone, from an effortless arm of the fathers of a quantum mechanics, bulb of common sense pommeled and in dark rooms make to bring whatever and dump directly on a floor. Now and step it is impossible to step, by not stumbling about the next nonsense. The outcome has not caused itself to wait. The century was finished, physics has gone to dock and experiences deepest crisis, though its official agents save the good mine at the poor game, asserting, that in official science all problems are already resolved. The modern physics represents salad from only classic notions, theory of the Bohr, wave quantum mechanics and set of other theories with incompatible, and sometimes opposite initial ideas. Therefore it is compelled to blunder continually, thus permanently it is necessary to explain not clear not clearer. I shall allow myself adduce the vast quotation from the book of the A.I. Veinik "Thermodynamics", "Higher school", Minsk, 1968, page 436. The author of this book has offered an alternate view on thermodynamics in conditions of total monopolism on true. The monopolists on true in science have lynched with him by arms of the monopolists on true in ideology: of the author to deprive of all ranks, to revise all ranks assigned to his schoolboys, book to withdraw from libraries and to erase. 

"In a foreign press the problem is serious considered, and are arranged incidentally not skipping appearance of the new theory. The fact is that, that the successes of former years have transformed the old theories (relativity theory and quantum mechanics) into religion, on which one some breeds of the scientists were educated determining now a capabilities of publication of new ideas in so-called solid and even popular magazines. In outcome these theories become some kind of Procrustean bed for new views, as the solid magazine do not publish ideas, which one though are not similar any on generally accepted, and the popular magazines for the same reason willingly publish only ideas, which one in general on anything are not similar. In popular magazines has become modish not clear to explain through not clear. As is known, this method the ancient Greeks widely used still, which one explained all arrant (former not clear) with the help several elementary, in their judgement, starts (too not clear) - water, fire, air etc. In the Middle Ages such starts were served with certain weightless liquids - fluids: electrical, thermal (heat bearing), phlogiston etc. Presently saving (beginning) attempt to search at a more "high" level, in properties of elementary particles - their charge, energy, spin. For example, the problems of thinking, information, and thermodynamics are now widely considered. Therefore it is possible to find ad lib explanations, in which one accountable for not clear thinking is or spin of a elementary particle (Bouan, 1961), or property a neutrino, or in general unknown atoms releasing unknown beams. Such explanations nothing explain also nothing disclaim, therefore to them concern is tolerant. If the orthodox will find out in new ideas the invasion on his religion, against a place, where the ados of the former theory are set up, his arm will be inscribe: "Well also what?!", where the new theory - “The builder from sand!!”, and where the conclusions from it are considered - "Nonsense!!".

In one word, under the statement of foreign press, the situation was now added up, at which one, be it in a start of century, there would be to impossible publication of such new progressive theories, as a relativity theory and quantum mechanics. To overcome the arisen difficulty, in some foreign magazine become to publish everything, except for obvious nonsense. In outcome, for example, such American magazine, as "Physical review", already anybody to understand can not, behind exception unless only of authors (carping tongues put under doubt and this exception). It is problem, above which one now many muses".

The purpose of this book is the clearing of some problems of natural sciences, in particular, fundamental physics on the basis of neoclassical notions, thus the distinctions in views as contrasted to by modern physics appear are so essential, and occasionally and are opposite, that is lawful conduct speech about new, alternate physics. Under the methodological approach it would be possible to call it as neoclassical physics or corpuscular quantum physics as against an official wave quantum physics.

At writing the book, the author permanently struggled with a temptation to present the reader each new idea as large as life, by illustrating its vast experimental material and by showing a broad outlook of its development and application. Being horrified, as far as plumps the book in this case, each time was consoled in remarkable words J.J. Thomson: "From all services, which one can be rendered to science, the introducing of new ideas is most relevant". At acquaintance to the book can be shown, that the author attempts completely to refuse all acquisitions of physics, as precise science. Actually, the author is discard only from one acquisition of physics - first Newton's law, and that under pressure of circumstances and not completely (though the consequences it are very serious). Therefore he is failed not from acquisitions of physics (it would be full nonsense), but only from their modern interpretation, considering its error. In it too there is nothing strange, the history of science abounds similar examples, and science develops at the expense of it. Naturally, that thus any experimental fact should not be disregarded. I shall remind the reader some outgiving about "good" hypotheses and theories.

Robert Boylo (1657 г):

- That it was understandable and matched to itself.

- That it did not receive and did not guess anything impossible, not clear, absurd or obviously false.

- That it was suitable and sufficient for explanation of phenomena, especially main.

- That it was, at least, is matched to remaining phenomena, especially with those, it concerns to which one, and would not contradict any other natural phenomena or apparent physical facts.

- That it was elementary of all good hypotheses, which one we in a condition to construct and, at least, would not contain in itself anything superfluous or inappropriate.

Jacob Bercelius (1819 г):

- We select that theory, which one explains all known facts. If it avowed, for science frequently it is very useful to show, that the phenomena can give and other explanation.

Thus, depleting formulation of a "good" hypothesis or theories does not exist, as in essence it is impossible to point an exact path to true.

Comments of the author to «Introduction»:

1. Ratio between a hypothesis and logical consequent from it. Many readers charge the writer that he illustrates each problem with the help of numerous hypotheses. Therefore there is a necessity to point differences of a hypothesis from logical consequents from this hypothesis.

As an example we shall formulate the first hypothesis: «Elephant» - largest overland animal on the Earth. And now we itemized logical consequents of this hypothesis, which one by hypotheses any more are not. Apparently, that it graminivorous animal, since only vegetation can provide of «elephant» with sufficient quantity of nutrition. He high-gravity, the soles of legs have rather large bearing area, that not sink in a gentle ground. He large, therefore has appliance (proboscis) for procurance of vegetative nutrition to not be tilted and to not spend energy for nothing. He lives in a warm climate, where permanently there is a vegetative nutrition and is not covered with a wool, differently his organism will be superheated because of a poor heat rejection. He leaves after himself large heaps of a dung etc.

The second hypothesis: «Whale» - largest marine animal on the Earth. Apparently, that he can be much larger than «elephant», since the attractive force to the Earth, which one could him crush is compensative by extrusive force of the Archimedes. He feeds on a plankton - more sufficient resources of a feed for such jumbo does not exist, therefore area of propagation coincides concentration of a plankton. He has appliance for filtering of huge masses of water with the purpose of extract of nutrition. He mammalian animal, since if would be a fish, to him difficultly bring up to such sizes etc.

On these simple examples we see, that considering consequents from a hypothesis it is necessary carefully to keep track of by  incidentally to not formulate new independent hypotheses.