[]

corporeal substance ... and it turned out that the electromagnetic field - is a special kind of reality that does not require real support."

But according to the definition of Engels: "Matter as such is a pure creation of thought or abstraction. We abstract from the qualitative differences of things that unite them as bodily existing under the concept of matter. "

"We have two philosophical directions in the question of causality facing us," writes V.I. Lenin. One "pretends to explain things by corporeal causes" - it is clear that it is associated with "absurd" and refute Bishop Berkeley "doctrine of matter". Another reduces the "concept of cause" to the notion of "mark or sign", serving "for our information" (by God). With these two directions in the costume of the twentieth century we will meet when analyzing the attitude to this issue of machism and dialectical materialism. "

Exposing the idealistic essence of such statements, denying the corporeal substance - matter, V.I. Lenin wrote: "The materialist Fridrih Engels constantly and without exception speaks in his works of things and their mental images. It would seem that this "basic view of the philosophy of Marxism" should be known to everyone who talks about it and especially to everyone who speaks in the name of this philosophy in the press. But because of the extraordinary confusion contributed by our Machians, it is necessary to repeat the well-known ... And this "only materialistic view" Engels holds everywhere and without exception. From things to go to feeling and thought? Or from thought and sensation to things? The first, i.e. Materialist, the line is held by Engels. The second, i.е. idealistic, by Mach. No evasions, no sophisms (which we have met a lot) can remove the clear and indisputable fact that the teachings of Mach of things as complexes of sensations (or with a modern twist, if not physical, not the real essence / author /), is a subjective idealism and a simple rehash Berkeleianism ".

"The misfortune of the Russian Machists, who decided to" reconcile "Machism with Marxism, is what it is," he wrote. Lenin - that they trusted once the reactionary professors of philosophy and, trusting, rolled on an inclined plane. The methods of composing various attempts to develop and supplement Marx were very simple. Read Ostwald, believe Ostwald, retell Ostwald, call it Marxism. They will read Mach, believe Mach, retell Mach, call it Marxism. They will read Poincare, believe Poincaré, retell Poincare, call it Marxism! Not a single one of these professors, who are capable of making very valuable contributions in the special fields of chemistry, history, physics, can be trusted one iota when it comes to philosophy.

Dietzgen-father expressed correctly, clearly and clearly the main point of view of Marxism on the philosophical trends prevalent in bourgeois countries and used among their scientists and publicists, saying that the professors of philosophy in modern society are in most cases, in fact nothing more than a "Graduated lackeys of clericalism".

Nevertheless, with the incomprehensible stupidity and absurdity of people who have gone crazy, the materialistic approach to solving the problem of physical interactions on a mechanical basis "was not understood", ignored and rejected by pseudo-scientific swindlers.

And all this despite the fact that on a materialistic approach everything was insisted on by Einstein's natural science and the classics of dialectical materialism, as well as by warnings and devastating exposures by F. Engels and V.I. Lenin pseudoscientific idealistic reactionary inclinations.

In this regard, Academician S.I. Vavilov explicitly says: "Almost from time immemorial, from Democritus and Epicurus, through Archimedes, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Helmholtz to Hertz, Kelvin and Rayleigh clearly dominated by the desire to create a mechanical picture of the world ... According to the representative of the great Classical mechanics V. Thomson: "The true meaning of the question: do we understand or do not understand the physical phenomenon? - reduces to the following: can we build our own mechanical model or not? ". The new facts were, however, and now remain in this sense (in the sense of dialectical materialism / author /) incomprehensible. The collapse of the mechanical worldview and the enormous growth of mathematical symbols attracted physicists either to the stubborn, obstinate aversion of the new physics, hopeless attempts at a mechanical explanation of nonmechanical phenomena or to idealism of different forms and shades.

Other ways, if we talk about the spontaneous roads of experimenters who did not think about the methodological lessons of the new physics, was not. "Vavilov S.I. Collected works. T. 3, ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956 p. 26.

In this way, SI. Vavilov frankly confesses his betrayal and flight through misunderstanding, or rather, a reluctance to understand dialectical materialism to idealism of different forms and shades.

These are truly materialistic views on the merits of the question under consideration, which affirm the mechanical program of scientific research in terms of the concept of a material medium - either, fully confirming the views of Academician V.F. Mitkevich and unconditionally rejecting as philosophically untenable phenomenological positions of his ideological opponents, headed by academicians A.F. Ioffe and SI. Vavilov.

Consequently, accusations of Academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimov in positivism and in the revision of dialectical materialism do not correspond to reality.

Now it is not difficult to guess the reasons for refusing to hold a scientific discussion and the purposes of the provoked ban.

So, having dealt with the "metaphysical materialists", "these enemies are the last Mohicans who have long suffered a decisive defeat", to which, first of all, according to the assurance of the Ioffe-s, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, as well as the greatest material scientists of all time and people, Academician S.I. Vavilov, Academician A.F. Ioffe and Co. moved "to idealism of different forms and shades" because "there were no other ways ...!"

It is in this unscrupulousness, in fear of directly, resolutely and clearly reckoning with dialectical materialism, that the essence of prohibitions and refusals is the essence of the untenable accusations of Academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimova from the side of the group headed by academicians A.F. Ioffe and S.I. Vavilov, in his own sins - in the revision of dialectical materialism and positivism.

So should we go back to a seemingly closed issue? In our opinion, it is necessary! For even today the position of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which accepted in the sixties a decree prohibiting discussion in scientific circles of criticism of the philosophical inconsistency of the quantum relativistic subconscious, does not differ from Ioffen revisionism. This prohibition promotes a peremptory attack on the foundations of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and has become a brake on the development of science.

It is obvious that the philosophical inconsistency of the quantum-relativistic subconscious is not a secret for the academic elite.

For decades, numerous articles containing indisputable proofs of the idealistic-antiscientific nature of these theories as well as the work of materialistic content successfully solving the problems of physical interactions are rejected as "not at the present level and not of scientific interest" without any scientific justifications. And this discrimination with respect to the work of materialistic content is not even concealed: "To this day, articles have arrived with attempts to disprove the validity of the theory of relativity.

These days, such articles are not even considered as clearly anti-scientific" - Academician Kapitsa P.L Experiment theory of practice. M. 1978, p. 201.

Despite the official ban, the struggle with the unscrupulousness of the ruling elite is not stopping at the present time.

Here are some episodes of this unequal struggle. For several years, the journal Inventor and Rationalizer periodically publishes O. Gorozhanin's articles, which testify to the inconsistency of the theory of relativity. Turning to academic institutions, the editorial office asks: "Bring the Cityman to clean water. Please, no restrictions except one: it is blurring the ignorant to the wall to be seen, of course the rest of the ignorant - because they are clearly thousands and maybe millions ...

Nothing happened. Three years they fought: they promised everything, promised to give the readers an answer ... And physicists are already threatening with threats: say, arrange a discussion - get a feuilleton and even with such a signature that ... In a word, it's better not to get involved even if the readers ask.

The situation is worse than in Kipling's Elephant. Elephant’s relatives pounded for his unbearable curiosity but here we promise to beat, that is, the rostrum with which the Elephant appears. " Journal. "Inventor and rationalizer", No. 8, 1988 p. 20.

Dear editorial staff, do not worry, these are the true methods of the "scientific polemics" of the Ioffe-s. They simply do not know others.

In 1988, a brochure by V.I. Sekerin: "Essay on the Theory of Relativity" published at the expense of the author's funds which gives experimental and experimental proofs that refute relativism.

On the basis of these conclusions, the author comes to the conclusion that "we must at last manifest civil courage and call everything here by their proper names:

A) The theory of relativity is an ideological diversion in materialistic philosophy, it undermines the foundations of the Marxist-Leninist worldview.

B) This theory has become a brake on the world science, it can not objectively explain the phenomena of nature and it must be recognized that the laws and relationships established by it have not been scientifically substantiated. " V.I. Sekerin Essay on the theory of relativity. Novosibirsk, 1988, p. 38.

On a meaningless anonymous libel about the publication of the brochure V.I. Sekerin published in Literaturnaya Gazeta on February 15, 1989, "In just twenty kopecks or another experience of unscientific polemics" the readers responded with numerous protests against the editors demanding a refutation and in support of V.I. Sekerin.

Finally, in Vilnius, a booklet by Professor AA was published. Denisov: "Myths of the theory of relativity," in which the author also comes to the conclusion about the inconsistency and the idealistic essence of the theory of relativity, that "the main sin of relativism is the rejection of the ether, that is, the material medium through which physical interactions are realized." Denisov A.A. Myths of the theory of relativity. Vilnius, 1989. p.39.

It is easy to imagine the reaction of the academic elite to this publication. After all, the brochure sold fifty thousand copies (!), Spreading the truth about the theory of relativity, as the "new dress" of the Naked King. It will be necessary for an academic "tailor" if the Soviet public finds out what and to whom billions of people's money go. Farewell then privileges, titles, theses, institutes, laboratories, magazines ... Oh no! "We must defend the academy from attacks," from "the main danger on the theoretical front" - dialectical materialism. And so, at the Annual General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences, their indignant voices are heard: "We must defend the academy from attacks. Take the newspaper Science in Siberia. It is probably in ignorance of published articles against the relativity theory ... Another example. In “Literaturnaya Gazeta”, an interview with Professor A.A. Denisov, according to my information, he is almost the chairman of the Commission on Ethics in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This interview - a miracle ignorance and ugliness. It demonstrates that the professor does not understand the theory of relativity at all ... This is fraught with the fact that a new stream of reproach of science is provoked. But even so the situation is difficult, only you can hear: scientists are to blame for everything. Our task is to establish the high authority of science "- Academician A.D. Alexandrov. Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. № 7, 1990 p.126.

As for: "the scientists are to blame for everything" - then Academician A.D. Alexandrov is absolutely right - "... the hat is on fire." But concerning: "to confirm the high authority of science" - then does the Biblical scholar intend to "confirm the high authority of science"?

"Indeed, the chairman of the Ethics Commission is Professor Denisov, who is the enemy of the theory of relativity. I advised the leadership of the Supreme Council that was elected Chairman of Human Ethics Committee, which is in some sense an enemy of science, occupies a position as pseudoscientific is unacceptable ... Read the interview in the "Literary Gazette," it is not tenable from a moral point View "- Academician V.L. Ginzburg. Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. № 7, 1990 p.126.

I believe that the excitement of academics in connection with the election of Professor Denisov is understandable. If a "highly scientific" arguments: "ignorance," "miracle illiteracy disgrace", "an enemy of science", "pseudoscientific positions" - borrowed from the ideological mentor Academician A. F. Ioffe, in the absence of other evidence - to add that Professor Denisov ("Pluralism and Myths") said in an interview with “Literaturnaya Gazeta” on 28.02.90 that the opponents demanded the dismissal, deprivation of a doctor's degree, a recall on the grounds that Professor Denisov can not be a deputy, since not so Understands the theory of relativity, then Recognize that the pluralism of opinions in our science really remains only a myth.

"A variety of persecutions are continuing in the cooperative that sells my book," writes A.A. Denisov - he is threatened with "destroying, if he does not stop selling my" Myths. "

Let us leave on the conscience of the academicians a professional ethic that "does not stand up to criticism from the moral point of view" - it is clear that they are not up to that - and we will repeat the only question that for 60 years they do not have enough words to answer: Interactions, the material medium is a corporeal substance?

It should be envied that in the "ignorant", "illiterate," "enemy of science" Professor A.A. Denisova was picked up by a good company, as the deadlocked situation in which the quantum-relativistic subconscious mind led the science is recognized today by the world's greatest scientists, including the Nobel Prize winners: Heisenberg, Lenard, Yukawa, Schroedinger, Alwen, J. Bernal, Landau, and See also: N.E. Zhukovsky, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, Nikola Tesla, Henri Poincare, Hendrik Lorentz, Ernst Mach, Albert Michelson, Herbert Ives, Alfred O. Reilly, Frederick Soddy, G. Israel and there is no number for them ...

Anticipating the publication of Professor AA. Denisov "Myths of the theory of relativity," Nobel Prize winner H. Alven reveals the antiscientific nature of this theory: "The less scientific evidence exists, the more fanatical is faith in this myth. As you know, this cosmological theory is the height of the absurd - it claims that the entire universe arose at some particular point, like an exploding atomic bomb measuring (more or less) a pinhead. It seems that in the present intellectual atmosphere the enormous advantage of the cosmology of the "big bang" is that it is an insult to common sense: credo, quia absurdum ("I believe, for it is absurd")! When scientists fight against astrological nonsense outside the "temples of science," it would be nice to remember that even worse nonsense is sometimes cultivated within these walls. " The future of science. Digest of articles. M. "Science". 1979 p.64.

The world-famous scientist William Macmillan also holds the same view: "We, the modern generation, are too impatient to wait for something ... after Michelson's attempt to find the expected movement of the Earth relative to the ether, we abandoned everything that we were taught before, created a postulate, the most senseless of all that we could only come up with and created a non-Newtonian mechanics consistent with this postulate. The success achieved is an excellent tribute to our mental activity and our wit, but there is no certainty that our common sense ". M. Gardner. The theory of relativity for millions. M. 1976 p. 112.

This is nonsense and absurdity of quantum-relativistic subconscious, from which Engels warned and VI Lenin did not escape from themselves and the creators of quantum mechanics. Thus, Schrödinger takes impasse in theoretical thinking "for philosophical exaltation, despair for a step in the face of a major crisis." Schrodinger Unsere Vorstellung von der Materie Gent. 1952 s. 37. In this connection Heisenberg exclaims: "Is nature really can be as absurd as it seems to us in these atomic experiments? Is it true that is found in nature only such experimental situation, which is expressed by the mathematical formalism of quantum theory? ". Philosophical questions of modern physics. M. 1950 p. 23.

"There is a philosophical question: does the abstract formalism of the quantum theory of a satisfactory picture of the phenomena? In my opinion, he does not give. In this opinion I am not alone. " J.A. Smorodinskii. About modern physics teacher. M. 1975 p. 72. "In modern physics - echoes Hungarian Academician Ludwig Yanoshi - there are many issues that must be resolved philosophically. We can not avoid this decision, because for the further development of science requires a certain position in this matter. Such questions is the choice between the solutions of Einstein and Lorentz positions or between the orthodox quantum theory and attempt a causal interpretation. In both questions, of course, most physicists believed actually found a solution. But lately, getting louder voice doubting that whether correctly found in its decision time. This is - a serious problem, which is necessary to take a stand, and it is obvious that for the further fruitful development of physics is very important that the correct position has been found. What can be risky for the dogmatic physics and possibly incorrect position in a particular issue, it shows us a retrospective look at the history of the kinetic theory of gases Boltzmann. In Boltzmann's been the greatest difficulties with the recognition of his brilliant theory. Counter-arguments against his theory, which from a modern point of view looks perfect and almost obvious place on the surface of philosophical argumentation. It criticized the fact that it makes no sense to use the heat of a mechanical model. Let us quote here from the Boltzmann book: "If the history of science shows how certain theoretical generalizations are often found to be false, it can not be whether the currently fashionable trend, negatively related to any special ideas, as well as recognition of the qualitatively different forms of energy, be a step backwards? Who can predict the future? Therefore, the wider the road each direction, away from any dogmatic in atomistic and anti atomistic sense! ". Situation today resembles the situation in the Boltzmann times. Today is also certain dogmatic conceptions spread. I would like here to exclaim with the Boltzmann: who can predict the future? But perhaps it is a result of a tragic accident with Boltzmann, we will learn prudence; I, on the other hand, today reject dogmas. And every physicist must see clearly, that today we, the physicists must take a position on the fundamental questions and that the right or wrong direction of our work is associated with the final result depends on our correct or incorrect position in these philosophical questions. " Philosophical questions of modern physics. M. 1950 p. 78.

Academician L. Yanoshi rightly points out that it is philosophically antagonistic confrontation, in denying the idealistic materialism is the essence of the crisis in theoretical physics. In this regard, the Boltzmann despair and suicide is not an accident. Anti-scientific forces will not learn to be careful. This is a natural process of dying struggle, ready to commit any crime to science and humanity, steeped in lies and unscrupulousness of idealism. Bullying and harassment modern Boltzmann: Denisov Sekerin, advanced editions of magazines - the clearest proof. The history of science is replete with examples of this kind. Here is another one:

"In 1845, work Waterston was introduced to the English Academy of Sciences, - writes J.A. Smorodinskii. - It has been shown that the gas pressure on the vessel wall can be explained blows atoms. Although the idea that the gas consists of atoms, was not new, few take seriously the claim that atoms can fly freely from the wall to the vessel wall, and the elastic properties of the gas can be reduced simply to the classical mechanics of atoms. Waterston Jobs did not like the members of the scientific community and was rejected by them. Only many years later, it was found in Raleigh archive and published in 'Philosophical messages of the Royal Society "magazine in 1892. Raleigh, among other things, noted that Waterston enrolled in hindsight, is not told in the beginning of his predecessors. Meanwhile, even Bernoulli in 1727I wrote gas pressure communication with the square of the velocity of its particles. If Waterston mentioned his great predecessor, the way he wrote Raleigh, reviewers at the Royal Society would not have the courage to declare the work of "senseless, even unsuitable for reading to the public."

This sad episode of expensive cost physics ... This story is instructive. " J.A. Smorodinskii. About modern physics teacher. M. 1975 p. 9.

Instructive it? ... But not for the Academy of Sciences of the USSR! For even Raleigh could not anticipate that 150 years later, a similar work successfully solves the problems of physical interactions coming from the mechanical concept of a material medium - the ether, which mention the names of all his great predecessors scientists and materialist philosophers and provides irrefutable evidence of philosophical and natural science insolvency quantum-relativistic subconscious will boldly and categorically rejected by reviewers, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, "but are at the present level not of scientific interest "?!

On this occasion, Professor V.V. Cheshev writes: "... study the Lorentz model and the Einstein model for the physical justification for the Lorentz transformations are equally ephemeral.

It seems to me that the debate should not focus on the longer distance traveled oppositions Lorentz model, the Einstein model. We need a search of the third way, for this would be followed, including the appeal to the ideas of the Ritz, forgotten because of the dogmatic worship of Einstein's model. The search for alternative ways of building electrodynamics actually never stopped. On this quest, we do not know only for the reason that the orthodox science puts an impassable barrier to such research to journals and publishing houses. Just open the possibility of publishing nonrelativistic work to get ready-made electrodynamics, which will eliminate the problem hopeless, for the sake of a phantom solution of which need either a little or a lot of both "restructure their thinking." Everything is very simple.
It is necessary that uncles who are accustomed to penetrating their house through the chimney are allowed to approach the door which they so stubbornly guard against wanting to touch the input handle. Then it turns out that the door was not locked and the habit of climbing into the pipe just an amusing oddity. Protective ban on alternative - that's the reason ... " ! Newspaper "Science in Siberia" on 07/28/89, 07/28/89

So vividly described the state of self-imposed problems and suggested natural remedy from now artificially created crisis Professor V.V. Cheshev and could not agree more.

Hopelessness pushes idealists desperation resistance to strengthen the attacks and a strict ban on the materialist views. And if yesterday this fight took place on the atomic and molecular level through the molecular-kinetic theory of gases (which has won a landslide victory over idealism, thanks to the mechanical theory Waterston and Boltzmann), today it is just moved to a new and probably the last frontier of idealism - quantum-relativistic subconscious.

Let us sum up. Charges academicians A.D. Alexandrov and V.L. Ginzburg in "ignorance" and "pseudoscientific positions ," remarks against Professor A.A. Denisova, as well as accusations of academician A.F. Joffe addressed academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimov "unworthy slander", "lethal ignorance", "physical ignorance", "cheeky illiteracy", "scientific backwardness" and so on - are untenable for the simple reason that their views are not only all previous naturalist and materialist philosophers but also outstanding contemporary scholars. And the inability of the Academy of Sciences deny revelations in the insolvency of quantum-relativistic subconscious townsman Sekerin, Denisov and many other scientists, as well as the existing strict ban on dissent and fear in conducting scientific discussion, give the hopelessness of their position. So that all the "epithets" which Academicians A.F. Ioffe, A.D. Alexandrov and V.L. Ginzburg "awarded" his opponents may be full, and deservedly so, returned to the authors.

Rejecting the failure of Einstein's relativity, Heisenberg determine the program of building a new physical theory:

"A Unified Theory of field could be the subject of speculation for Einstein; to this day it is absolutely necessary theoretical physics. Of course, one might ask whether this theory is a unified field theory or any other mathematical tools are more suitable to describe the experiments. But this future theory must be united, embracing the totality of empirical fields. In the present state of physics we are still far from a complete solution of all the problems ... But the program ... has retained its philosophical strength in spite of, or rather, thanks to all the new experimental data on elementary particles and this program (against which so actively resists Academy Science in the face of academicians Aleksandrov, V.L. Ginzburg  / author /) offers perhaps the most exciting area of research of our time. " Einstein collection. 1969-1970. M. "Science." 1970, p. 93, 96.

Summarizing the opinions of scientists about the ways to implement the exit program from the created quantum-relativistic subconscious crisis, Heisenberg states: that "desirable would be a return to the concept of the reality of classical physics, or, speaking more generally, to the ontology of materialism, in other words, to the idea of ​​an objective real world. " Nils Bohr and the Development of Physies. p.16.

So, "With all due respect to the scientific community - he writes Professor in Krasnoyarov - you can not get rid of the horrible thought that it had been misled (which has a number of inside and outside the scientific reasons), that his head was wearing a fool's cap relativism. Aware of this painful and humiliating, but a bitter and difficult path of purification necessary science! ". Journal. Inventor and innovator. № 7, 1990 p.23.

Summarizing elephants G. Khromov, note the following: "Our own science, especially its base - the fundamental science, is now in critical condition ...

Soviet science ... should be protected from itself, from its unsustainable organizational structure, from its bureaucratic monopoly infected nomenclature. " The newspaper "Izvestia" article "Science needs protection" from 08.23.89, the

Based on the foregoing, in the science of salvation addressed to the Soviet public, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to support the demand for the establishment of the Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to investigate the anti-scientific activity of academician A.F. Joffe group and his ideological heirs, as well as scientific rehabilitation of Academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazeva A.A. Maksimov and their comrades on the immediate abolition of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences shameful, discriminatory regulations prohibiting the publication of works of the materialist content to hold broad scientific discussion on the philosophical problems of natural science and modern physics.

Today pseudoscientific swindlers dropped the mask "undoubted materialists." The main aim of modern "graduated flunkeys of clericalism" is the destruction of dialectical materialism and the substitution of scientific knowledge obscurantism and religious ignorance.

Those vices sublime nonsense, ignorance and incompetence in philosophical thinking, which warned of Friedrich Engels and V.I. Lenin, captivated today the official academic publications in the field of fundamental research.

Academy of Sciences welcome any extravagant ideas of mystical and religious enthusiasm, only to return to the dialectical materialism was not in sight.

Our modern "graduated flunkeys of clericalism" of the Russian Academy of Sciences so surpassed their predecessors, which sunk in its stupidity and absurdity to the point of absurdity:

"Everything created one God, is One. If there is one God, a single fish, then there is a single object of study ... The world is one and the unknowable human intelligence because, and only because there is one God who created the single crafts and the world, and man, and that's why there is a single object of study. " President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Osipov Y.U., vice president of Forts VE Interview with the Moscow weekly "Search», № 13, 1998.

March 10, 2000 at a conference on cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the scientific centers V. E. Fortov on behalf of the Academy of Sciences gives research centers under the control of the Russian Orthodox Church: "In addition to knowledge and explanation of the world and man in it, there is another, even more important side contact areas of science and religion. This is - the moral law - the commandments formulated two thousand years ago in the Sermon on the Mount. The practice of totalitarian regimes clearly demonstrated the consequences of the attempts to replace these commandments on the other. In our society there was a certain vacuum in the spiritual life, which quickly filled with perverted ideas, primitive superstition, anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas. It is important to unite the efforts of scientists and ministers of the Church to combat quackery irresponsible followers of these beliefs and pseudo pseudo teachings ... In our materialistic (? !!!) Century serious scientists can only deeply religious people. " There is no limit to hypocrisy and lies at RAS "graduated flunkeys of clericalism". As you can see, Osipov, President and Vice-President of the Forts lie with even greater arrogance than their ideological mentor, Academician A.F. Joffe.

April 26, 2000 President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Osipov, president of RAO N. Nikanorov, Rector of Moscow State University Sadovnichy and patriarch of the ROC MP Alexei Rediger publish an open letter against the secular education where defame atheism and require the introduction of Orthodox theology in schools and universities.

Shybko believer RAS President Yuri Osipov said the Presidency podium in 2000: "I really liked the expression of Eduard Pavlovich Kruglyakov -" hydra pseudoscience "- better than you can imagine. Win this many-headed monster is difficult, because in place of the severed head he grows new; it spreads infection and absorbs minds. "

But right Kruglyakova and Osipovy about "hard to beat"! No matter how much chop the head scientist - truth is always absorbed, absorbs and will "absorb the minds", no matter how zealous bigots RAS - inquisitors.

"Our Russian intellectuals, who love to consider themselves progressive - wrote about these pseudoscientific frauds V.I. Lenin - as, indeed, and their counterparts in all other countries, is very much averse to shifting the question to the plane of the assessment, which is given to the words of Dietzgen. But they do not like this because the truth stabs them eyes. It is enough to think about anything in the state, then the overall economic, social and every other kind of dependence of modern educated people on the ruling bourgeoisie to realize the absolute correctness of Dietzgen's scathing description. Suffice it to recall the vast majority of the fashionable philosophical trends that arise so frequently in European countries, starting with at least those who were associated with the discovery of radium and ending with those who now seek to cling to Einstein,- to represent the connection between the class interests and class position of the bourgeoisie, its support for all sorts of forms of religious and ideological content of the fashionable philosophical trends. "

First obscurantists by lies and falsifications were trying to hide his foolishness, the absurdity lies and reactionary nature. Now ignorance of the fundamental questions of natural science and philosophy is demonstrative, and madness has become for them the criterion of truth: "This theory is not so crazy to be true" - they claim, rejecting dialectical materialism.

Today's academics and Nobel Prize winners, in general, is not in harmony with the philosophy and the natural sciences - scientific knowledge, they simply do not recognize, because they prevent them to spread "even worse nonsense, the height of absurdity and insult to common sense."

For example, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg admits frankly, in the publication of "Dreams of a Final Theory" that he was "against the philosophy." " My thought - invents anti-philosophical quantum-relativistic subconscious S. Weinberg - lies in the fact that the philosophical principles, generally speaking, we do not provide the correct bias. In search of the ultimate theory of physics reminiscent of more dogs than eagles: we squirm, sniffing all around in search of traces of beauty, which we hope to find in the laws of nature, but it is unlikely we would be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy ... do not expect that. philosophy of science can give into the hands of modern scholars some useful guidance on how to work, or that it would be desirable to detect.

The thing is - it is not clear where the physicist can use knowledge of philosophy, except in cases where the study of individual works of philosophers helps us to avoid the mistakes of other philosophers. In reaching this conclusion, I have to honestly admit its limitations and partiality. "

Exhaustive description of pseudoscientific swindlers. They can really create nonsense, to bark - slander; bite - to expel opponents of the Supreme Council to deprive the scientific degrees and titles, prohibit teaching activities, prohibit the publication and dissemination of works of scientific content, for example, it spreads its Academy of Sciences with my friend A. Denisov - the chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Commission on the Ethics forcibly hone in psychiatric hospitals, according to A. Bronstein ; Finally, even a tear - physically destroy - for example, because they acted with A.I. Reed, John Forbes Nash, Jr., my friend Stefan Marinov, pushing it out of the library window and many other outstanding scientists, dared not understand the theory of relativity.

But to create something of value - useful for science and mankind from the point of view of the "notorious common sense," as they casually expressed, can not. I did not pass it to this characteristic and himself - "honestly admitted his limitations and partiality."

"So, - continued to broadcast anti-philosopher - a substance loses its leading role in physics: all that remains - this symmetry principles and different ways of converting the wave functions under the influence of symmetry transformations. Even after the triumph Newtonianism mechanistic tradition continued to bear fruit in physics "- forced to acknowledge the anti-philosopher. "Theory of electrical and magnetic fields, - it continues - XIX in developed. Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were framed in shape and laid out mechanistic using the concept of pervasive voltages in the physical environment, often called ether. Physics of the XIX century. behaved is not stupid - to move forward, any physicist in need of some quality outlook and mechanistic world seemed in those years is no worse than other views. Unfortunately, this world lasted too long.

The final turn from the mechanistic to the electromagnetic theory occurred in 1905, after Einstein's special theory of relativity, rejected the ether and replaced it with an empty space - the environment, the transfer pulses of electromagnetic waves. But even then, the mechanistic view of the world hung over the older generation of physicists.

In addition, the mechanism has spread beyond science and settled down there, bringing a lot of trouble later scientists. In the XIX century. the heroic tradition of mechanism was, unfortunately, included in the system of dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels and their followers. Lenin, in exile, wrote in 1908 a book about materialism rant, quotations from it have become scripture to his followers, so that while dialectical materialism stood in the way of recognition of the general theory of relativity in the Soviet Union ...

But now we're stuck. Years since the mid-1970s, were the most barren in the history of physics.

It is safe to say that now we have a final theory, and it seems that she is not coming soon. But from time to time we catch hints of what to her is not too far away. "

Not only "not too far" - it has long been established, only bigots its emphasis not notice, ignore, prohibit and prevent her sane humanity.

Open your eyes - anti gentlemen philosophers. You are stuck because, in their ignorance, neglecting and rejecting the philosophy and science, had driven up a blind alley, turned it into a "height of absurdity and nonsense even worse."

And these seemingly elementary truths of dialectical materialism categorically reject pseudoscientific swindlers, spreading instead of "the worst real and imaginary fantasy ... and nonsense."

In general, so things really stand. But they, the dogs, do not understand. In one, they are absolutely right. Before eagles: Newton, Marx, Engels, Lenin and all the outstanding scientists of all times and people they do not reach. They are, in fact, - a pack of rabid dogs.

In his intellectual nullity and ignorance they try to crush the methodological basis for constructing a final theory - dialectical materialism.

As we had the opportunity to make earlier, the same disdainful attitude towards philosophy and science demonstrate A.F. Joffe, S.I. Vavilov, Y.I. Frenkel, Y.S. Osipov, V.E. Forts and all RAS pseudoscientific brethren.

They still hope that the situation will not change and will continue to "sublime nonsense with a claim to superiority and depth of thought," and has long been established by a final theory would be rejected as "not located on the current level of" stupidity and absurdity of pseudoscientific fraud. Dream of, "she did not seem to soon be" stupid and exemplary, with their help, will continue to pay in the mind of madness.

But let no one deceive. Anyway, sooner or later: "The basic materialist spirit of physics, as of all modern science, will overcome all crises, but only by the indispensable replacement of metaphysical materialism by dialectical materialism" - predicted V.I. Lenin. As you can see, V.I. Lenin, as well as Engels, as well as all of the outstanding scientists come to the inescapable conclusion about the need to return to the theoretical thought a dialectical materialist views.

"Modern naturalists will find (if they know how to seek, and if we learn to help them) in the Hegelian dialectics, materialistically interpreted a series of answers to the philosophical questions posed by the revolution in natural science and which" get off "reacting intellectual admirers of bourgeois fashion ...

Without having to itself such a task and systematically fulfills it, materialism can not be militant materialism. He remains, to use an expression of Shchedrin, not so much fighting, much to fight. Without this, eminent natural scientists will as often as hitherto be helpless in making their philosophical deductions and generalizations. For natural science is progressing so fast and is undergoing such a profound revolutionary upheaval in all spheres that with philosophical deductions can not do in any case.

Taking the path of Marxist theory we shall approach the objective truth more and more (without ever exhausting it), but by following any other path we can not come to anything but confusion and lies. "

It is to uncompromising militant dialectical materialist approach to the solution of fundamental scientific problems of natural science and philosophy called VI Lenin.

Today still ongoing feast pseudoscientific scams during the plague. The names of the muddled, hypocrites and liars, replacing scientific knowledge obscurantism, former president of the USSR S.I. Vavilov, Acad. A.F. Joffe and others like them are immortalized their heirs, to usurp power in the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the name of the scientific departments and institutions.

Pseudoscientific swindlers even managed to establish a name S.I. Vavilov and A.F. Joffe and award them to yourself - a favorite for "outstanding service" to destroy the fundamental science, while the generation of true materialist scientists anathema and oblivion, and their modern receivers are persecuted and repressed.

And all this is despite the fact that their own mechanical models of physical interactions in the formulation of Faraday and Maxwell, known to everyone at school, long ago got its scientific analytical resolution. As predicted great scientists are physical interactions is the mutual impact of material objects to each other via streams emitted and absorbed material particles ether. Confirmed Engels brilliant foresight that "as we move forward so that we can give the mechanics of the ether, then it is, of course, will go down, and more so that it is now ranked as the need for physics."

These studies, based on the principles of dialectical materialism, for overcoming the artificially created crisis pseudoscientific frauds in the field of natural science and philosophy for decades categorically rejected the reactionary obscurantist Academy of Sciences, as "not being up to date" of their stupidity and absurdity.

And all this is happening in spite of the policy statement the ex-president of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, who proclaimed: "Our priority - is the production of knowledge, new technologies and advanced culture ...

Strong state and powerful bureaucracy - this is not the same thing. The first need for civil society as a tool for development and maintenance of order. The second - is deadly for him.

Intellectual energy, creative power - it is the main wealth of the nation and a huge resource of progressive development. "

Meanwhile, the "all-powerful bureaucracy", representing "a grave danger to civil society" with the support of officials of the highest echelons of power, roughly ignoring the laws of the Russian Federation, continues to mercilessly destroy the fundamental science knowledge, advanced culture and the best representatives of Russian national scientific intelligentsia.

The fear of exposing pseudoscientific activity, deprivation of privileges and prosecution for crimes committed to science and humanity, gives rise to lies, hypocrisy and violence, leading to the destruction of scientific knowledge, the degradation of social consciousness and the death of civilization.

In the present circumstances, when all available means, including through education in schools and universities plans, the media, the public imposed anti-scientific idealistic and religious outlook, in-depth study, development and advocacy work classics of natural sciences and the dialectical materialism is the most important area of ​​the fight for science, culture against barbarism, slavery, barbarism and civilization of death.