Forum

A link to this person on the page of his institute and a link to the quote. I searched on Google, but couldn't find this doctor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiSIYgGt1i0

I don't rule it out. I was just surprised by the illiteracy of a particular person in specific physical matters, such as a bubble.

All of his "illiteracy," as you call it, is based on the fact that he compares the current theory of physics with the phenomena that it tries to describe.

I answered the first one easily, without thinking. If they tell us some nonsense about a phase transition, then there's no point in even commenting on the rest. Okay.

Richard Phillips Feynman, 1918–1988, was an outstanding American scientist. His main achievements are in the field of theoretical physics. He was one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics.

In this 40-minute film, A. Smirnov says that Feynman said in one of his lectures that "modern physics is a complete sham." In the same film, Smirnov says that as a result of research, physics learns many interesting things, but does not understand either one or the other. The theory cannot be applied. It is impossible to explain why this is the case.

And you, as a student, claim that there are practically no contradictions in the theory of physics and that everything is easily explained.
So, are you more qualified in the theory of physics than Feynman?

2) The lift force corresponds to theoretical calculations with an acceptable margin of error. I myself conducted such calculations, I know.

A. Smirnov claims that the lift force of modern aircraft is 10 times greater than theoretically possible.

Have you conducted calculations on real aircraft? On a Boeing?
Please send me a link or post your calculations here.

3) I couldn't understand for a long time what "Hydro-phonics" was. What did a Google search give, do you think? Correct, a podium. Finally, I realized: "hydroponics"! But in general, with hydroponics, the plant receives minerals from the water, which is specially saturated with these minerals. Everything else, as is known, it takes from the air. What do the nuclei of elements have to do with it? Nothing, gentlemen, nothing. And in general, this is not physics, but agriculture.

Yes, I apologize, hydroponics.
A. Smirnov claims that in hydroponics, products, nuclei, elements arise in the soil that were not in the original media, neither in the air nor in the water, nor in the fertilizers, nor in the soil itself.

4) Give an example of at least one such mollusk that definitely receives calcium and everything it needs, not from the environment. And for now, let's, like Stanislavsky, shout "I don't believe!"

I don't have a specific example.

But A. Smirnov claims that in some mollusks, the chitinous shell appears in conditions where there is no calcium. He doesn't seem like a deceiver or a fantasist, and I am inclined to believe him.

5) Maybe. Everyone was told this in school.

Describing lightning and explaining its nature are different things.

Ball lightning is a phenomenon of natural electricity, lightning that has a spherical shape and an unpredictable trajectory. To this day, the phenomenon remains poorly understood and provides a basis for speculation. Currently, there are about 200 theories of its origin. Ball lightning is a phenomenon that physicists have not yet found a worthy explanation for.

What kind of speculation can there be in an exact science? In my understanding, science is that area of knowledge that accurately knows and explains the nature of things and phenomena, and does not speculate about them.