About scientists and linguistics

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The discussion about the stupidity of the organization of Soviet and Russian science led me to the idea to once again talk about the deafening of people by modern education, in particular, about that deafening principle that Landau followed, and which he taught: to operate with words, without trying to figuratively understand what kind of with these words is covered. A number of Landau's defenders stood up to defend this very principle, moreover, they even noted it as the main sign of a scientist.

In his memoirs about L. Landau “Thus Spoke Landau”, M. Ya. Bessarab says that “when one of the journalists asked him to tell if he had been to Kapitsa's laboratory, Dau replied:“Why? Yes, I would have broken all the devices there!"

Note that Landau received a Nobel for Kapitsa's work, but in this case we are talking about something else - about his inability to represent not only the operation of physical devices, but in general the operation of something.

“Dau knew nothing about cars and never ceased to be surprised when his growing son was fixing a bicycle or an alarm clock,” Bessarab continues, and this is what surprises - how can a person who wrote a textbook on physics understand nothing about mechanics or electrical engineering? Unfortunately, with the current idea of who a "scientist" is, a handless chatterbox who has no idea what he is talking about will be praised by the chorus of the same chatterboxes as a genius. I can be told that in this case this Bessarab has confused something. Nothing of the kind, I'll give you a similar example myself.

In the mid-80s, the chief engineer of the plant called me, said that the rector of the Pavlodar Industrial Institute was in his office, who asked in our experimental workshop to test some serious idea. Therefore, I urgently need to come, pick up this visitor from the Main, a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences and a professor, take him to the experimental workshop and evaluate there what will need to be purchased, where to locate the installation and what else will be needed to test this scientist's idea.

I take him to the experimental workshop, sit down at the table in the control room of the furnace, and I begin to question this physicist about the essence of what I have to do. The rector somehow incomprehensibly darkens, but nevertheless says that we are talking about a revolution in the field of copper production by electrolysis. Copper and electrolysis are not ours, this is Mintsvetmet, but the revolution is interesting. Since he assured that all the experiments had already been carried out at the institute and now a semi-industrial installation was needed, I ask him to draw a sketch and an electrical diagram. He draws, and I somehow immediately stopped liking everything - the circuit was too primitive, like from a school textbook: network - transformer - rectifier - electrodes in the electrolysis bath. So what is the essence of the revolution? - I began to pry. The rector obscured, I insisted, threatening that I would not do what I did not understand. And he, in the end, said that according to this scheme, his power in the electrolysis bath is greater than the electrical power that the installation takes from the network. Thus, part of the copper will be obtained free of charge in terms of electricity costs.

After these words, I began to look closely at him.

- But you get that the efficiency of this installation is more than unity?

- Yes! - he proudly replied, surprising me extremely, since I have not yet met such oak trees.

- Listen, but if in your circuit the electrodes in the bath are connected with conductors to the input to the circuit, then the installation can be disconnected from the mains - it will work by itself.

- Yes! - again he proudly confirmed.

- But this is a perpetual motion machine, and a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Then the rector looked at me with all the arrogance of a professor and candidate of physical sciences, and gave something about the fact that it is difficult for people with little education to understand the inexhaustible mysteries of nature and the greatness of the minds that cognize these mysteries.

This angered me, and I asked him to show on the diagram in what places and with what devices he measured the power. It turns out that in the network he measured the power with an active electricity meter, the current and voltage at the electrodes - with an ammeter and a voltmeter, respectively. Everything became clear.

- I will not spend a single factory penny on the construction of a perpetual motion machine, and I will not do anything even for your money, so as not to disgrace myself.

Here the "scientist-physicist", of course, took offense and left the experimental one without saying goodbye. We were sitting at a table in the control room of the furnace, and next to it, a young KIPovets was filling up the recorders with ink and paper. I called him over.

- Look at the diagram! This guy has more power at the output than at the input.

- Naturally, - said the electrician, casting a cursory glance at the diagram, - he measures the active power at the input, and the apparent power at the output.

It should be clarified that electrical power is calculated as the product of current and voltage - this is school knowledge. But in the case of alternating current, the matter becomes more complicated, and in order to calculate the power in this way, it is necessary that the sinusoids of the current and voltage absolutely coincide, i.e. so that the maximum voltage corresponds to the maximum current. In real circuits, this does not happen due to the presence of reactive resistances, due to which the maximum current either lags behind the maximum voltage, then ahead of it. Therefore, in such cases, three powers are calculated: active - real power, which is measured by an electricity meter for everyone in the house; reactive and seeming. There really is no last power - it's just the product of current and voltage, and, as you can see, the boy who graduated from the vocational school immediately understood what was the matter. And the fact is that the apparent, non-existent power is always numerically higher than the active one, sometimes, if the reactances are large, several times higher.

Thus, this "scientist-physicist", having passed all the exams at school and university, and having defended the corresponding dissertation in physics, not only did not understand the most elementary things from electrical engineering, but did not even understand the principles of physics! But on the other hand, he taught students the greatness of the Theory of Relativity and said that only such outstanding minds as he could understand it.

About the exact name

After the smartest representatives of its many nations seized power in the USSR, these representatives in parliaments sat down for a long time for the exciting work of renaming cities and streets, and for destroying monuments. This is understandable - they worked at the limit of their mental abilities. And at this time, knowledgeable people quietly rewrote the dictionaries, and a lot of words in our language suddenly acquired a slightly different, if not exactly opposite, meaning. And few people noticed it!

But I'm not talking about this quiet fraud, but about something else - but how did it happen that we do not immediately represent figuratively what the words we use describe, but are forced to look for the meaning of these words in dictionaries?

There are two cases. Firstly, for several centuries the dumb part of our, so to speak, intelligentsia, in order to give some cleverness to their chatter, dragged foreign analogues of Russian words into the Russian language, and with their persistent chatter of these very words, they ousted Russian words from the language. In addition, new phenomena were discovered, new words were required for these phenomena, but this stupid intelligentsia of ours was not able to figuratively imagine the essence of these new phenomena, respectively, was not able to construct a description of this essence in terms of the Russian language. Therefore, she stupidly transferred the name of new phenomena from a foreign language. It can even be seen. If there were talented electrical physicists in Russia, then in physics the terms “current” or “voltage” or “resistance”, which are understandable to a Russian person, are still encountered. And if the flourishing of chemistry fell on the repeaters of foreign truths, then thermodynamics is also full of entropies and enthalpies.

But let us return to the unmotivated replacement of Russian words with foreign words.

For example, why is the Russian word "democracy" replaced by the word "democracy"? Yes, then, to assure that democracy, in fact, is when the majority imposes its will on the minority by secret ballot - after all, this is what they mean in practice by democracy. And if you call this situation imposed on us in Russian - the majority power - then the question immediately arises - and when will democracy be? After all, any Russian or Russian-speaking without a dictionary understands that majority power and democracy are far from the same thing. The majority is not yet the people, and the election of government bodies by the majority is not the government of the people. And, of course, the introduction of the foreign word "democracy" replaces the search for real power of the people with meaningless chatter about the necessity and greatness of democracy, just as in physics the search for truth is replaced by chatter about the greatness and necessity of the Theory of Relativity.

Why do we need the Greek words "economy" and "economist" in Russian if we have our own words "economy" and "owner"? And then, that the economy is inconceivable without the owner, and when a mess arises in the economy, the question immediately arises - where is the owner looking? And if the economy is a mess, then who is to blame? Who knows? The President and the Prime Minister are exceptional fellows, academic economists - you cannot imagine any smarter. Are they to blame? The people are to blame, drunkards, panmash, and so on.

Why do we need the word "plan"? Didn't we have the Russian word "plan"? That - Gosplan sounded clever, and the State Committee for Economic Plans (Goszamysl) - stupid? No, not stupid. The mere use of this Russian word, without a dictionary, suggested the idea of who is our boss, and what kind of thinkers did he recruit for his headquarters, to conceive the success of the national economy? In addition, if we use this native word, how could one abandon the national economy of economic plans in favor of a brainless national economy - an economy without an owner? Even a stupid intellectual would have thought about it. And to abandon the planned economy in favor of the market one? Yes, easily!

Or the word "philosopher" is a person who comprehends the phenomena of nature and life and finds connections between them. Well, why not call him in Russian "comprehend"? And I would begin to talk such a schmuck about the greatness of Hegel and Kant, ask him - what have you understood yourself?

I recently wrote about culture. Culture is the sum of the knowledge accumulated by humanity. So what does it have to do with those who call themselves "cultured people" in our country? These are buffoons-entertainers. No, the buffoon, of course, likes it when he is called a cultural worker, but why should the people deceive themselves for the sake of these buffoons?

The second case is when a new concept is given, although a Russian word, but given somehow thoughtlessly.

Let's say the word "writer". Who is not a writer? And the scoundrel is also a writer of the toilet walls. There was also the exact meaning of the word "storyteller". But, you see, storytellers are from the people, they are rednecks, and we are white bones, we need to be called in a special way. Well, they flattered the idlers, but the meaning of the profession is lost!

And the same happened with the word "scientist". And who is not a scientist among us?

Let's say that the boy's grandfather learned to read in warehouses, and then the boy sowed bread until old age. He is not a scientist. And for twenty years the teachers and tutors hammered the idea of life into the head of the goof - he is a scientist. Okay. But did the guy turn off his brains for the same twenty years? No, he also studied, but only the boy learned directly from life, and the dunce from specialists who believe that a perpetual motion machine can be invented. And now, just because the dunce was hammered into his head with knowledge of life, he considers himself to be something smart, and the rest are fools, and only calls himself a scientist, and only therefore considers himself entitled to parasitize on the rest.

No, scientist is not the right word! And it makes no sense to keep scientists on your neck, on the contrary, since you, a scientist, have been taught for folk remedies, so you keep the people on your neck!

Let's think, what do we need from science? Let's muffle the sound until the screams: "Knowledge!" No, knowledge is streaming on TV in a continuous stream - that marijuana artist got high, that artist came to the reception without panties. Recently I have breakfast, and they load me with knowledge on Mayak: in Australia, a dolbon decided to get a tattoo on his back, but he offended the master, and he knocked out a beautiful 47 cm long penis on his back instead of the ordered picture (they measured it). Dolbon had to pay 2 thousand dollars to fix the piece. Is that not knowledge? Knowledge, and "Mayak" enriched me with them, you see, I even memorized the numbers without a tutor. And to what extent is the knowledge that our scientists are gaining in their mass, more valuable than that obtained by the morons of the Mayak?

So, we do not need knowledge from science, but benefit. A scientist without knowledge can benefit - let him do it - it does not matter to us how he found benefit. A scientist cannot find benefit without knowledge - his problems, he himself obtain the knowledge that you want, BUT WE NEED A POSITIVE! Therefore, what we now call science should be called knowledge (of a particular field), and scientists should be called seekers of benefit. It turned out a bit long, but more accurate than the current "scientists".

And that's what happens. The French have compiled a list of 100 scientists of world history, whose work has brought the maximum benefit to humanity. By this criterion, in this list, of course, there is no Einstein at all, but T. D. Lysenko, although in 93rd place, but in a hundred. And here, the more a scientist thinks of himself as a scientist, the more he vilifies Lysenko, the more he praises Einstein. It is also understandable: after all, our scientists are not seekers of benefit - they are the ones who have been hammered into their heads with some knowledge, therefore Lysenko is nobody for them, but they are sorry to lose what they have hammered into their heads about Einstein.

And rename them as seekers of benefit, and they will instantly stop clinging to the stillborn Theory of Relativity, and will value only those ideas that will give them the benefit to find. Otherwise, what are they seekers of benefit?