**<<< At the beginning**

The preface

The
present book is not a review on the theme in any degree. First of
all, the theme is rather old. Not only Rene Descartes discussed a theme of vortexes, but many other scientists before him. We only added the adjective
electromagnetic to the word «vortex». Secondly, there are a few modern works, which can be cited. Mainly it is only special
literature. Probably, the cause is the occupation of the author which
scientific career deals with a radiolocation, i.e. the world of quite real
waves. Anyway, it was known many years ago that alternative electromagnetic
fields must create charges and its moments. But concerning the theoretical
physics of the 20^{th} century, there are many doubts.

The matter is that the problem of the vortex has
forced to get acquainted with this discipline rather comprehensively because
the solution of this problem would allow discovering the structure of
fundamental particles. There was also a hope to find any reference points,
useful for concrete calculations. The logic was simple. If we need data on bolts
and nuts, we take the manual on mechanical engineering. If we want to renew the
knowledge of equations, it is possible to use the manual on mathematics. So in
theoretical physics we expected something similar. However we have touch to large surprises and we are not going to hide them
from our readers.

One can read in the book of L.D. Landau «Theory of Field» (Moscow, 1967) on p. 355: « … in the presence of electromagnetic field
without any masses the scalar space-time curvature is equal to zero». After translation
into understandable language it means, that the electromagnetic field cannot
create mass. This strong statement should correlate with Maxwell equations. However
there is no at least one such equation in this book. There are some equations,
assigned to Maxwell, but absolutely not peculiar to him since he never confused
a field with induction. Simply it is the essence of his theory. Thus, the
Landau’s textbook material is based on a conscious forgery. But who will work
by obviously false tool? Therefore Landau verses can
be ignored simply. But is interesting to find out how such things get into
textbooks.

One more
textbook by Landau «The quantum mechanics»
(Moscow, 1972) begins with the statement: «The classical mechanics and
electrodynamics enter the sharp contradiction with experience at attempt to apply
them to an explanation of the nuclear phenomena results. Most clearly it is
visible from the contradiction gained at application of a usual electrodynamics
to model of atom in which electrons move around of a nucleus on classical
orbits». «Foul play» again. Again forgery: the obviously false Boor hypothesis
named as atom model is thrown to the reader. Next the conclusion necessary to the author is drawn that the physics is erroneous, but not a hypothesis.
Such is Landau and such is its craft.

It is
impossible to tell, that scientific ethics so strongly limped at all
physicists-theorists of 20^{th} century, as at Landau. For example, P.À.Ì. Dirac adequately and
fairly divides physics and its craft - mathematical models. In occasion of
orbital model of the Boor he has noticed [12]: «… connected with a stationary
state in the theory of the Boor changing quantities, amplitudes and frequencies
of an orbital motion, have no physical sense and any mathematical value». It is
known [13], that Landau has disagreed with Dirac’s viewpoint and has called him
a fool (the outrage in use of a speech as we shall
see below, it is characteristic and for other academicians). However
participants of this discussion strongly are not equal among themselves.

We know,
that all the authors are either creators or interpreters. In poetry, for
example Shakespeare, Pushkin etc were creators. Critics were their
interpreters.

In the
physicist it is possible to compare Dirac who has created a quantum
electrodynamics, has opened spin at an electron and a positron, with Landau who verbalized but nothing discover in view of
boundedness of talents. The quantity of
interpreters occurs in orders of magnitude more than creators. Approximately their
incomes differ also. And the main thing here is that interpreters do their work
from position of their own quite another culture. Here we have been compelled
to get acquainted with this culture and world-view of possible opponents. Development
of an original theme is gained: lie in a science.

So, the
impudent lie is the principle of Landau’s scientific culture as we see. But he
had some financial support. Therefore there always were some scientists wishing
to join Landau and to go his way.

The "Electrodynamics" by C.P. de Groot and
L.G. Suttorp (Amsterdam, 1972) looks quite respectable. In the preface one can read: «… it is possible to get laws of
electrodynamics of continuous medium from the laws of point particles. Such
approach is offered in this book». It is possible to discuss what was early: an
egg or a hen. But there is another case with field and particles. The
electromagnetic field is measurable and also
predicted in all details, i.e. there is a reality given in sensations. But a particle is the convention with suspicion on a field origin. Therefore the sense
of this Amsterdam work is similar to a book on meteorology, which begins with
the statement: «the wind blows because trees
shake». We could not include this book in the list of the recommended
literature also. It is obvious, that this book is not of a practical
value. But it shows the scientific culture of scientists, which cautiously
demonstrate loyalty to an especially dishonest group.

The almost
encyclopedia of academician L.B. Okun under the name of "Physics of fundamental particles" [4] has appeared more resolute. The sensational maxim
is there on page 19: «A source of a
gravitational field is the tensor of energy-impulse». And what is the source of
this tensor – a part of linear algebra, i.e. the matrix? Remembering the
history, it is worth mention of talented
mathematician Mileva Marich, the co-author, and may be the author of the
relativity theory, officially named by Albert Einstein, which did not know the
mathematics, according to his teachers and his own words. Her signatures
under her works had been erased (due to discrimination by two attributes:
sexual (woman) and national (Serbian)). And Poincare review has been simply
eliminated. It is possible to read this, for example, in the book
by I. Bojarintsev [13]. And source of Mileva were her daddy with mum, her
grandmother, etc. The academician was not casually mistaken regarding
gravitation in all three editions of his book. And his statement is not a fruit
of a children's fantasy. But L. B. Okun swears allegiance to someone. He has
shown the mendacity (or the succession in mendacity) already in the third or
fourth generation. I.e. here the lie acts already in a sacral sense. Some
people offer worship to it, swears to it. The author of known Wlasow equations
has not sworn, and consequently has not been appointed an academician. Neither
a scientific school, nor pupils has remained after him. Only the equations of
plasma dynamics have been kept. But what hides a behind academic lies? The Okun
book will not answer this question. However it gives a key to understanding of
the technology of a pseudo-scientific demagogy, which covers a primary
inconsistency of the far-fetched theories. It is a question of the methodology
of a modern theoretical physics in a view of the hypotheses quantity, which it
operates. This quantity has appeared equal approximately 100 or more. In the book there are sections «Models, models …» and
«Models, models, models … ». But when they use the word "models", they
mean hypotheses.

Then a question arises: how many hypotheses it is
possible to use simultaneously without fear to receive the false result? To get
the answer, it is useful to know the opinion of great thinkers.

Rene Descartes in his «Reasoning on a method » (1637) recommends:
«the First - never to accept anything as a truth if one is not able to accept
it as a truth with all evidence, i.e. carefully to avoid haste and a bias and
to include in the judgments only what, which is represented to my mind so
clearly and that cannot give an occasion to doubt at all». In other words,
Descartes does not advise to begin a work with hypotheses. And «the Third -
arrange ideas in the certain order, beginning with the simple subjects up to
knowledge of the most complex …». Here hypotheses are pertinent, but by the
piece and in the rigorous order.

Isaac Newton wrote in his letter (1672): «The best and
the most correct method to study the nature is a careful examination of the
properties of things, finding these properties by means of experiments, and
then descend very carefully to hypotheses for their explanation, because
hypotheses are suitable only for an explanation of properties of things, but
hypotheses are not to define these properties, hypotheses can only stimulate
the experiments. Because if a hypothetical opportunity would be recognized as
the truth, I do not see what reliability could be reached in a science».

It is interesting, that Emmanuel Kant has declared
repeatedly the same thesis about the hypothesis and science interrelationship
but in a voluminous form as a philosopher. In H. Poincaré's book «The science and a hypothesis» (1902) the same
ideas were brought out.

All the
listed authors have understood a hypothesis not as the high-grade statement,
but as a certain question. Newton had in view of: «only stimulate the
experiments». This question is necessary to be answered by proving validity of
each hypothesis separately. Ensembles from hypotheses, which are not proved,
are any more not hypotheses, but inspirations, which do not belong to natural sciences. Thomas Aquinas (13-th century) suggested even to put to law as false-coiner, those scientists who confuse a science with
inspiration.

As a
result we see that founders of a modern physics were strictly against
multihypothetical system in science. However why? What did they know, and we
have forgotten?

Medieval scholastics discussed a lot of different subjects in a sphere of multihypothetical systems. Let’s consider, for example,
their favorite problem about quantity of devils on a needle tip. Let we have
filled with hypotheses all mechanical aspects of the problem. Have assumed,
that a tip of a needle is a sphere, have set the average size and elasticity
(potentials of interaction) of devils, friction ratio
etc. But how they can be devils if a belt can connect them? They will slide out
of a belt. The additional hypothesis from area of psychology of a devil is
necessary to define a degree of their desire to participate in experiment - to
be linked. From here at once follows: the multihypothetical system in the
senselessness withdraws to other areas of unknown. And so it is ad infinitum. It in addition illustrates its absolute
uselessness particularly for a science. Certainly, profitableness is defined
already by other factors: desire of the deceived customers to pay for any
nonsense and patience of students that it to listen. Both Descartes and Newton
knew about it for certain.

So, we approach nearer to
understanding of culture of modern physicists-theorists or of
swindlers-practitioners. As the Okun oath has shown, their strategy contains
the latent mystical aspect. But tactics is
simple. They
juggle with uncountable hypotheses to divert the attention from profitable for
them pseudo-theories. Certainly, it is difficult to define a circle
of known cultures or civilizations to which these people concern, because they
will jump out of this circle as devils jumps out of a belt.
But we can go by exception and list those cultures to which they obviously do
not belong.

Let's
begin with Christian culture. Everything is simple here: the devil «is lie and
the father of lie». And it is impossible to expect any science in general and
physics in particular from the devil.

The Islam
blames lie also. «Avoid are nasty idols, and also false speeches» (Koran
22:30). And «Do not mix up the truth and the lie, do not hide truth if you know
it» (Koran 2:42).

Such is the attitude to the lie by the transnational
world religions. But there are national religions and paganism, including
atheism. Probably here one can find some roots of the rubbish, which some
authors set as a base for the theoretical physics. At presence of
desire, the reader "will calculate" itself these roots and the
corresponding culture.

Anyway
physical hypotheses of the 20^{th} century have appeared absolutely
useless for the present work. Therefore we do not
cite them. The classical mechanics and electrodynamics were for us quite sufficient.

This book can be interesting to students, teachers, engineers,
physicists and other inquisitive people even superficially familiar with
electricity and a personal computer.

We cannot assert, that work is finished
or the material does not contain technical discrepancies and mistakes. For such
greater theme in principle cannot be mastered by one author. Naturally we hope
for an aid of new researchers and for an objective criticism.

The author is grateful to relatives and
friends who promoted the creation of this work. They cannot be listed all owing
to size of the list and indeterminacy by
order of its filling.

Author

**<<< At
the beginning**