Winged words and aphorisms. Something is wrong in the Danish state

Winged words and aphorisms. Something is wrong in the Danish state

Something is wrong in the Danish state.

Also quoted: “in the Danish kingdom” and “rotten” (“everything was rotten in the Danish kingdom”) instead of “something is wrong.” From Shakespeare's Hamlet, act 1, scene 4.

It is impossible to believe that such a language was not given to a great people.

“Russian Language”, prose poem by I. S. Turgenev (June 1882).

Is it possible to choose a nook further away for walks?

Famusov in “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov, act 1, scene 4.

You cannot embrace the immensity.

See: No one will embrace the immensity.

Our sea is unsociable, It makes noise day and night; In its fatal expanse, many troubles are buried.

The beginning of N. M. Yazykov’s poem “Swimmer” (1829).

The people have not gained much, And so far it has not been easier for them, Neither from bureaucratic sages, nor from popular fanatics, nor from well-read fools, lackeys of noble thoughts.

N. A. Nekrasov, “Bear Hunt” (1867), act 1, scene 3, words by Paltsov.

There are not many true prophets, With the seal of mystery on their foreheads, With gifts of lofty lessons, With the word of heaven on earth.

V. D. Venevitinov, “Last Poems” (“Love the Pet of Inspiration”, 1805).

Not much, but a lot.

Latin Non multa, sed multum, a saying from the time of Pliny, see Much in a little.

I can't remain silent.

The title of L. Tolstoy's famous article on capital punishment under Stolypin. Initially it appeared in the foreign (English) press in the form of a letter, then it was published in the newspaper “Russian Vedomosti” (1908).

Can not! (Or: You can't!)

Usually quoted in the Latin form: Non possumus, in which this expression was used by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical of February 19, 1860. With the same words, a week and a half earlier, he responded to a letter from Napoleon III, in which he demanded the concession of the papal province of Romagna to the Italian king Victor Emmanuel. In the 16th century, this expression was used by Pope Clement VII. The phrase is biblical.

Without further ado.

A. S. Pushkin, “Boris Godunov” (1825). Pimen's words in the scene “Night. Cell in the Miracle Monastery" (“Describe without further ado”).

Unwashed Russia.

See Farewell, unwashed Russia.

Not a mouse, not a frog.

See: The queen gave birth in the night.

There was no need to take up arms.

G. V. Plekhanov after the revolution of 1905 (“Diary of a Social Democrat”, 1906).

Unbridled, wild. Enmity towards the oppressors And great trust in selfless work.

N. A. Nekrasov, “Song to Eremushka” (1858).

Necessity is the excuse of tyrants; she is the object of the slaves' faith.

English statesman William Pitt (1759-1806). In a November 1783 speech on government policy in India. Apparently, Pitt borrowed this idea from the poet Milton, who in the 4th part of Paradise Lost says: “by necessity, the excuse of tyrants, he justifies his diabolical deeds.”

Don't challenge a fool.

See Praise and Slander.

Leave no stone unturned.

Biblical image. According to the Gospels, Jesus says in Jerusalem: “Here there will not be left one stone upon another that will not be destroyed.”

Not of this world.

Biblical expression, from the Gospel of John.

Man does not live on bread alone.

Biblical expression. Found in the 5th book of Moses and in the gospels.

There was not much sewing there, and the power there was not in sewing.

N. A. Nekrasov, “Wretched and Smart” (1857).

Don't drink from the well, you'll need to spit.

An inverted folk proverb (“don’t spit in the well”). The words of the publicist and critic N.K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904), spoken as a warning to writers who were conciliatory about intimacy with the “spheres” and with reactionary journalism.

From a letter to those in power. 5th part.

One day. Not everything is so smooth in the Danish kingdom.

From the slender alpha to the crooked omega I wanted to comprehend the essence of nature. Not knowing sleep, forgetting the tides of bliss, Torched the right path in the darkness.

In this particular case, we will talk about the prospects for energy, defense and ecology from a different perspective. The meaning of the saying is: “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the entire country.” The leaders of the young Soviet republic cannot be denied insight. Energy independence is the longed-for dream of any self-respecting state. Prosperity without energy resources and their effective use is impossible. Progress is mainly based on energy capabilities. Through uninterrupted energy supply, politics and economics run smoothly. Hydrocarbons have done their job, modern civilization rests on them. The existing nuclear energy in the overall balance is just a pathetic appendage to them. A group of scientists from Moscow State University issued a disappointing forecast - until the end of the 21st century, at least, fossil fuels will remain the main energy source, and alternative sources presented as a panacea are not able to satisfy humanity’s growing energy needs. In their opinion, throughout the current century the role of alternative sources will remain very modest. Solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, tidal energy, geothermal and water evaporation energy in reservoirs and other types of production are not able to satisfy humanity's growing energy needs. Energy production based on any sources, including alternative and hydrogen, cannot be environmentally friendly at high scales of production. It is necessary to search for inexpensive and safe energy sources not in the distant future, when oil and gas reserves are depleted, but today. Hydrocarbons - harmful energy carriers - pollute the atmosphere with exhausts and evaporations, spontaneous discharges and washouts of liquid fractions poison water and soil. At the family level, we suffer from love of children; due to thoughtless exploitation, distant descendants will receive the Earth in a very polluted state. Electric traction does not radically solve the environmental problem, but shifts concerns about exhaust disposal onto other shoulders, into the furnaces of power plants. The overall efficiency with double conversion and energy transfer is significantly lower. The production and disposal of batteries harms the natural environment. Unfortunately, solutions for effective environmentally friendly energy supply to humanity have not yet been found. So it turns out that only a miracle will save humanity from a painful death. The population of the Earth is growing steadily. What looms on the threshold is not a bright future, but a series of crises. Energy, environmental, food, resource, and water issues are rising on the horizon in full force. Even those who don’t need to worry too much, the powers that be, showing concern for the future, began to disturb their consciousness with thoughts. And not just verbally worry, but invest in innovative searches with a distant prospect of implementation. Sharks of world capital invest real money in fantasy projects. According to the electronic press, financial clans are gradually preparing a technological revolution. The advertised benefit - total robotization, mechanization of production processes - is a double-edged sword. The hands freed from production and the service sector will in return require colossal expenditures of energy and expensive materials both for the production of high-tech goods that satisfy the needs of the elite strata, and for the maintenance of unwanted extra mouths. There is nothing new in the priorities, all the same “old songs about the main thing”: delivery of helium-3 from the Moon, mining of iron and nickel on asteroids, exploration of Mars, creation of artificial intelligence. Perhaps the good gentlemen are bluffing, as is the case with the development of electricity from renewable sources. This is understandable: money is at stake today, and tomorrow, according to the Eastern proverb, without waiting for a good outcome, someone will die. Waving our hand, we’ll say after him: “Okay, let them run for themselves, and put the leaders’ jersey on their shoulders, the pennant of the leading innovators, as they say, in their hands.” We need others to follow a more rational path. In order to interest the world in something, you need to be clever and be able to look beyond the distant horizon.

Not everything that is rich in glow is gold.

In the material sent in the fall of 2015 to FANO, along with fundamental conclusions, a point of view on the proposed source of alternative energy was briefly presented. I especially focus on this message. The director of the Kurchatov Institute, in one of the many television shows, proposed using Russian science to organize a large-scale intellectual foundation so that the rest of the world would not immediately catch on and would be at least fifteen years behind those on the right flank. It is proposed to use the Russian nuclear program as a driving force, becoming the undisputed world leader in this area. It looks both relevant and quite convincing... but a development plan should not be built on existing principles. We must remember, moreover, that the raw material base of radioactive elements is limited. And, oh, how they are needed for weapons stuffing. Thorium energy is so far nothing more than pre-election PR for one of the Duma parties. The hope for fast neutrons may remain a cherished dream until the end of time. True, there have been positive developments recently. The latest news from Rosatom pleased the tender feelings of the average person. Departmental science has not lost face. The Perpetuum Mobile facility of the Breakthrough project is being built in Seversk near Tomsk. At a pilot plant with a capacity of 300 megawatts, it is planned to process industrial waste from the enrichment stage, containing inert, from the point of view of radioactivity, uranium-238. In a semi-closed chain scheme, uranium, irradiated by neutrons from the decay of plutonium, is transformed into plutonium. Reactors using fast neutrons are considered less dangerous than those using thermal ones. There is no inertia in them, the reaction stops almost instantly. If successful, more than one humanity will be provided with energy for a century. The disadvantage of all nuclear power plants without exception is their bulkiness and distance from the consumer. The most promising technology promised to be controlled thermonuclear fusion. But not everything is so smooth “in the kingdom of Denmark.” And the old woman can have a hard time. Thermonuclear controlled fusion turned out to be a daunting task. It is worthwhile to dwell on the causes and consequences of failures in detail, first paying attention to the conceptual aspects. I will begin to enter the topic from afar, first subjecting the existing theoretical base to a critical analysis. If you think more closely, you can note how often elements of mystification and mythologization are encountered in research processes. Studying nature with the help of accelerator technology is akin to fortune telling on coffee grounds. There is a lot of biased subjectiveness present in the interpretation of what is seen. Enthusiastic, optimistic expectation of results is a bad advisor for testers. Science, like religion and occult beliefs, in many cases has only indirect facts to confirm its dogmas and postulates, the same mysticism, clothed in mathematical abstraction. The evidence presented to the world is sometimes akin to miracles. The tracks in the foggy (bubble) chamber are very similar to the mysterious phenomenon of icons streaming myrrh. And don’t the mysterious traces with curlicues look like the drawings of palmists?.. The breakthrough historical example with the discovery of antiparticles is especially clear. Let me, without resorting to abstract refinements, try to justify my alternative point of view in simple words. A fateful fork in the development of science is the famous mustache. The iconic photograph shows drops falling straight from the “tip of the pen” of Paul Dirac into the cloud chamber. Quickly interpreting what he saw, one can state the triumph of an abstract mathematical worldview, a brilliant gift of creative foresight. According to the official version, when passing through a lead plate, two energetic gamma quanta are successfully transformed into an electron-positron pair. It seems correct, but only to a certain extent. Truly, not everything that is rich in glow is gold. In the accepted version of the interpretation, the reason why two absolutely equivalent asexual energy substances of an unknown form are transformed into oppositely charged stable particles is completely incomprehensible. If the structure of protons has, at the very least, at least some explanation, then the structure of the electron is a sealed mystery. An electron is a point-like oscillating object endowed with a charge for some reason. But with a proton, not everything is so simple either. The quark-gluon model of hadron structure is an absolute sham. It’s not for nothing that the author of the hypothesis initially, not without a bit of irony, called quarks trifles. According to the guiding version, quarks are the elementary particles that make up protons. Quarks are combined into hadrons by gluons, which, by analogy with electromagnetic interaction, are designated as carriers of intra-hadron interaction. The gluonic type of particles, in addition, is also responsible for the strong interaction that connects protons and neutrons into the atomic nucleus, the so-called confinement or confinement in common parlance. As time passed, technology and research methods improved. In the end, with the help of successful palpation, the presence of quarks was, to the great joy of theoretical physicists, transferred from the level of assumptions to reality, giving the hypothesis the status of an axiom. In a free state, as prescribed by theory, no one has ever seen them and is unlikely to ever see them. The scattering of high-energy leptons by nucleons is another remake of Rutherford's outstanding experiment from 1911. As a result of the experiments, the experimental genius Rutherford established the presence of a nucleus in the atom. According to the bold version of researchers who conducted experiments in 1968-69, during deep inelastic scattering of electrons by a nucleon, the entire impact fell on a small part of the nucleon. It turns out that, bypassing the form, the researchers were able to find the inner content. During the research, probing protons with electrons, “inhomogeneities” were revealed inside the nucleons, which were identified with the notorious quarks. In this situation, it was necessary to study more deeply possible alternative motivating reasons for the specific scatter of electrons. First of all, it should be noted that the studies were not carried out on the same proton. Statistics were developed in a series of experiments, and therefore in such a situation different options are possible. The results of the experiments could be significantly influenced, for example, by different orientations of the protons under study, or by the uneven elasticity of the hadron body, due to the specifics of its shape. As in the case of curved mirrors, a direct impact and a side impact will give a completely different reflection. Internal circulating currents are also capable of nonlinear reflection of incident electrons. The presence of thermal vibrations of the core relative to its axis and shell is also a reason to think about it. Proton rotation could have a significant effect on the results. It is unknown whether there were captures of electrons with subsequent transformation of protons into neutrons. Not everything is clear with the behavior of electrons. It should be noted that corpuscular wave dualism has not been canceled for the sake of experimenters. Well, yes, God bless him with dualism. Which side the electron appears each time is a mystery. Are collisions so elastic... Contacting agents have birthmarks. The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, the action is equal to the reaction, and so on, so on... Similar maxims are true for the macrocosm. Particulars that are insignificant to the naked eye in the macrocosm become major problems in the microcosm. A charged electron is not just a particle, but also a carrier of an aura, because as it is said in the “scripture”: “An electric field is a special form of matter that exists around bodies or particles that have an electrical charge , as well as in free form in electromagnetic waves.” And this is good, and this means that every cloud has a silver lining, that the results of the experiments indicate, first of all, that the electric charge and the sign difference of particles are completely different in nature. According to the ancient views of classical mechanics, a positive proton is simply obliged to absorb a negatively charged electron that has given up the ghost. However, the stated assumption has not yet been confirmed by any facts. Why electrons don’t fall onto protons is a mystery. Science offers extravagant obscurities. While understanding the problem, I came across an interesting analogy: “A bridge built of stones is pulled down, but it does not fall. The stones, resting against each other, interfere with this. The structure operates as a single unit. The electron is also a single whole, its duality – wave-particle, prevents itself from being attracted to the proton.” Scientists protected the possibility of a fall with prohibitions, and something indigestible from the series “figaro here, figaro there” was introduced into everyday use. The fundamental, perhaps the most important formula in physics, of Louis de Broglie, is interpreted in a formulaic way. Sound waves, waves on the water surface have one property, waves describing the state of particles have a completely different hypostasis. With the standard intra-atomic state it is unconvincing, but at least somehow substantiated, it is not clear why the act of absorption does not occur during energy anomalies. The bombardment of protons by electrons is a case in point. It would seem that everything is in place - the direction of motion of the electron and its momentum are indicated, acceleration is given. The electron is an armor-piercing projectile, and not some kind of cloud in your pants. Catch the “fascist grenade”, there are no more protective obstacles... fortunately, no acts of absorption and ruthless extermination have been recorded. A proton can only associate an electron, transforming into a neutron. But here there is a completely different mechanics, which has nothing to do with electrodynamics. The answer lies in ignorance of charge as such. The attraction of an electron to a proton is based not on the electric charge assigned by the standby version, but on a mechanism explainable by elementary logic. And that’s probably all there is to it regarding the charge. More details will be discussed below in a different context. The results of the experiments, first of all, should have raised doubts among researchers regarding the structure of the atom. With a correct interpretation, quantum views had to undergo an indispensable analysis; a completely different physics of the atom and chemistry of substances could result from alternative conclusions. Why, one might ask, are such clever complexities needed to establish the design of nucleons? A close look at the same photograph with the birth of an electron-positron pair at the exit of the lead plate is enough. In a short high-energy section distorted by a force field, one can purely speculatively, without resorting to intricate mathematical associations, see the structure of particles, the mechanism of direct transformation of energy into a material state, the interaction of the internal structure of the formed particles with a tense magnetic field. As is known, no antiparticles have been discovered in the surrounding universal spaces. Why? Yes, because plus and minus are just a convention introduced into scientific use due to ignorance of the subject. No autonomously existing antimatter has been detected in the surrounding space, and therefore we can safely state that there are conditions under which acts of indicative temporal polarization of objects occur. However, in the cramped conditions of atomic nuclei, the coexistence of particles of different breeds is possible, as evidenced by beta decay, in which a positron is emitted. Just as there is no rest mass of a photon, it is impossible to determine the sign of the charge of particles of the same name under normal conditions. The changed polar orientation of particles is maintained for a long time by the inertia of motion. The higher the speed, the longer their orientation is maintained. Polarization is easiest to imagine using the example of two inverted magnets. The pieces of iron are lying around, not knowing their orientation, on their own, but as soon as you bring them closer to each other in an inverted state, mutual respect is immediately shown. In the case of particles, contact ends tragically - deep mutual penetration disrupts internal connections. In accordance with the equivalence formula, the energy potential inherent in the mass breaks outward. Not in the form of quarks, but a set of Pi-mesons for some reason, if my memory serves me correctly.

The “standard model”, like a young lady walking, is put on display, to experience a brilliant life. If such a seditious thought had prevailed at one time, then a completely different picture could have emerged. In the case of ordinary polarization, what kind of high-brow supersymmetry can we talk about? Polarization would definitely have forestalled the completely artificial construction of the Standard Model. That the nucleus is, in essence, a glued set of nucleons. If you throw a magnetic sledgehammer with all your might, they will fly, and then don’t go to grandma, with a high degree of probability, large fragments, small fragments, scraps, which are abstrusely called carriers of interaction. Can’t you see how the picture of the world is being forced by the ears to the established postulates with the help of technology and mathematical refinements? The main flaw of the Standard Model is its excessive complexity. In reality, everything is much simpler. With two building blocks you can build an entire universe. Of the huge array of particles predicted and discovered, only two things can be considered fundamental - the proton and the energy formation, called in scientific circles the Higgs boson, in its interpretation that differs from the canonical one. Electron, neutron, neutrino, photon... all, one way or another, are their derivatives. Other carriers of interactions are peak bursts, temporary energy associations, nothing more.

( 1 rating, average 4 out of 5 )
Did you like the article? Share with friends:
For any suggestions regarding the site: [email protected]
Для любых предложений по сайту: [email protected]