Posts from Forum

You make it sound so simple, but doctors of physics, like A. Smirnov, claim that there are contradictions.

Are you talking about a director or a philosopher? )
You talk as if I've never had the pleasure of communicating with doctors and professors ;)

The forum's technical capabilities couldn't accommodate your thought.

New trends. New fashion in the new year. Ariputra simply attaches a Word file weighing ... kilobytes :D And those who want to download it and read it:D

Who is this director? Or perhaps a philosopher? )
You speak as if I have never had the pleasure of communicating with doctors and professors ;)

He is a Doctor of Physical Sciences.

And you speak as if there are no contradictions in physics at all. There are still 2-3, well, at most 4 small, insignificant uncertainties that will definitely be resolved today, tomorrow, or at the latest, the day after tomorrow.

And this weekend, the issue of the immortality of the soul, which is already inherently immortal, will definitely be resolved, and the issue of how Leolopus will become a god will also be resolved. Well, it's just a legend, of course, but... :)

J. Jauncey is a Doctor of Natural Sciences, a mathematician, and the author of books on guided missiles: "There are more contradictions in physics than in religion."
A. Smirnov says that there are as many contradictions in the theory of physics as there is water in the ocean.

_____________________________
You wrote quite a lot in response to the first question, but you still didn't answer it.

What about the other 4 questions:

2) Physics cannot explain why an airplane flies – the lift of today's aircraft is 10 times greater than the lift theoretically possible (according to the current theory of physics).

3) Hydroponics – today, physics cannot explain why, in hydroponics, products (nuclei, elements) appear in the soil that were not present in the original substances in the fertilizers, in the air, or in the soil.

4) Mollusks - today, physics cannot explain why, in some mollusks, a chitinous shell appears in conditions where there is no calcium, and chitin contains calcium.

5) Lightning – modern physics cannot explain it.

New trends. New fashion in the new year. Ariputra simply attaches a Word file weighing ... kilobytes, and those who wish download it and read it.

And you, in general, are a pain. You promised not to read my messages?!
And you have already broken your promise 101 times.

Promises made to you can be broken without hesitation!

But if that's the case, I didn't even read that post; I just quoted what I saw. But frankly, what's the difference?

Added 3 minutes later
I was advised that it's better not to use a Word file, but to attach a presentation in ppt format with a video of flying elephants :D

He has a Ph.D. in Physics.

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

There are more contradictions in physics than in religion.

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

You wrote quite a lot in response to the first question, but you still didn't answer it.

What about the other 4 questions:

I answered the first one easily, without hesitation. If someone tells us some nonsense about a phase transition, then there's not much point in commenting on the rest. Okay.
2) The lift force, within an acceptable margin of error, corresponds to theoretical calculations. I have done such calculations myself, I know.
3) It took me a long time to understand what "Hydro-phonics" was. What do you think Google search gave me? That's right, a podium. Finally, I realized: "hydroponics"! But in hydroponics, the plant receives minerals from the water, which is specially saturated with these minerals. Everything else, as you know, it takes from the air. What do the elements' nuclei have to do with it? Nothing, gentlemen, nothing. And in general, this is not physics, but agriculture.
4) Give an example of at least one such mollusk that definitely receives calcium and everything else it needs, not from the environment. And for now, let's, like Stanislavsky, shout "I don't believe it!"
5) It's possible. It was explained to everyone in school.

Probably, they meant ball lightning.

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.

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

Here is a link to this person on his institute's page and a link to the quote.

In this 40-minute film, A. Smirnov says that Feynman, in one of his lectures, said that "modern physics is a complete sham."

Ariputra says that A. Smirnov says that Feynman says... ))))

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

I didn't say that. On the contrary, I said that some things are not explained and gave examples, and so on.
I won't post the calculations; you won't understand them anyway. I didn't work on a Boeing; I took wing models, adjusted them manually, and calculated for them.

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

Again, who is A. Smirnov?

A. Smirnov claims

A. Smirnov claims

But A. Smirnov claims

No, I can't )

To this day, the phenomenon remains poorly studied.

I agree with this; it is indeed a very interesting thing. This needs to be studied seriously; we can't just talk about it at a forum level.

Moderated: FLOOD in the message

Added 40 minutes ago
[/U]

Ariputra says that A. Smirnov says that Feynman says... ))))

Well, I hope Feynman has some weight in your eyes?

Richard Phillips Feynman is an outstanding American scientist. His main achievements are in the field of theoretical physics - he claims that "modern physics is a complete hoax".

But students claim that everything is very easily explained. :)

Ment
I didn't say that. On the contrary, I said that some things are not explained and gave examples and so on.
I won't post the calculations, you won't understand anyway. I didn't do it on a Boeing, I took wing models, which I adjusted manually, and calculated for them.

You didn't say that literally. But you are smoothly leading to the fact that in the theory of physics, contradictions with practice are very small, and that they are not so significant.

Are you sure that your model 100% reflects the situation with Boeing?
By studying an ant's leg, you extrapolate the experience gained to all other legs of that ant, to all other ants, to the entire anthill, to the entire forest, to all the legs of other living beings, to the entire planet, the universe, etc.

Once again, who is A. Smirnov?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDX380P1qh4
Once again, in that 40-minute video, as in this one, you can see that he is a scientist-physicist.

If a scientist-physicist is not currently an active employee of any institute, does he cease to be an authoritative source of information in the field he studies?

No, I can't )

Well, can you?

The question of the lift force of modern aircraft, as well as the other 4, remains open.

I agree with this, it is indeed a very interesting thing. This needs to be studied seriously, not just talked about on a forum.

And there are hundreds of such examples:

Spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Classical theory (see the Rayleigh-Jeans law) did not provide a satisfactory description of the spectra of radiation of an absolutely black body (see the ultraviolet catastrophe) and significantly deviated from the experimentally observed. Line spectra of the emission and absorption of light by gaseous substances also could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

The source of energy of the Sun and stars. Hypotheses about the origin of the energy of stars, which classical physics could offer, gave negligible values of this energy, which clearly did not correspond to reality.

The phenomenon of radioactivity, discovered in 1896 by A. Becquerel, and studied at the end of the 19th century by Marie and Pierre Curie, testified to the fact that there is a huge amount of energy in the atoms of matter (compared to their size and mass), the origin of which could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

The red boundary of the external photoelectric effect is the maximum (for a given cathode material) wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, above which the photoelectric effect is not observed at any intensity of irradiation, which also could not be explained in classical physics.
Experimental observations of the electron, a particle discovered at the end of the 19th century, showed that the ratio of its charge to mass is not constant, but depends on its velocity, which contradicted the theoretical provisions of classical physics.

By the end of the 19th century, more and more doubts arose about the concept of absolute space, which (in accordance with this concept) is unobservable. A contradiction arose: for physics (by definition) there are no things that are not detectable in any experiments, and yet, in all the theoretical constructions of classical physics, the existence of absolute space is explicitly or implicitly assumed. For some time, there was hope to resolve this contradiction by discovering the ether, a hypothetical material medium that fills absolute space, and in which (it was assumed) electromagnetic waves propagate, but the Michelson experiment, carried out in 1887 for this purpose, did not detect the existence of the ether.

The mismatch of these and other observed phenomena with classical theories gave rise to doubts about the universality of those fundamental principles on which these theories are built, including the laws of conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. The famous French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré called this situation the "crisis of physics".

But these classical theories are still taught in schools and institutes.
The Big Bang theory remains the dominant official hypothesis of the formation of the universe in academic science.

How could such a strictly regular, harmonious structure as the universe have arisen as a result of an explosion? An explosion destroys, not creates.
This is approximately the same as assuming that an airplane can be formed as a result of an explosion of an aircraft factory

The Big Bang theory remains the dominant official hypothesis for the formation of the universe in academic science.

How could such a strictly regular, harmonious structure as the universe have formed as a result of an explosion? An explosion destroys, it doesn't create.
It's roughly the same as suggesting that an airplane could form as a result of an explosion at an aircraft factory.

I'm just observing your dialogue, and I get the impression that you haven't even bothered to read a Wikipedia article; it's just some kind of populism. It really is just a theory, but a very well-structured and logical one. And you're talking about factories and airplanes. It's completely irrelevant, seriously. In this case, it might seem that you're the one with a cognitive dissonance, not your opponents.

I'm just observing your dialogue from the sidelines, and I get the impression that you haven't even bothered to read the wiki article; it's just some kind of populism. It's really just a theory, but a very well-structured and logical one. And you're talking about factories and airplanes. It's completely irrelevant, seriously. In this case, it seems like you're the one with a cognitive dissonance, not your opponents.

He was simply able to break free from the boundaries of the ordinary, familiar, logical, and adequate, which is what he encourages us to do.

Part one.



Added 1 minute later
«People who are spoon-fed esoteric-schizophrenic vomit by various Oleg Torsunovs, Sergei Serebrikovs, and Alexei Trekhlebovs are incapable of producing heroes and thinkers. They will only spawn infantile idiots and crazy ladies.»

..............................................................................................................................Journalist Alexander Koloiev



The followers of Father Alexander Khinevich have spawned many rumors, distortions, and outright lies! Inglism is a religious movement of the late 1990s, and is currently characterized as a pseudo-pagan cult. But let us discuss it in more detail.

All serious criticism was conducted in 2002 and 2004, but today this problem is no less relevant. Today, one can observe its decline and death throes on the Internet. The leader of this sect is Alexander Khinevich (Pater Diy Alexander). He, either alone or in co-authorship, released a series of books: "Book of Light," "Inglism," "Vedas of Perun," and others. In Omsk, there operated a spiritual academy and a temple of Perun. A series of lectures, now banned, were passed from hand to hand, and were sometimes distributed through the public organization KPE (apparently before General Petrov's video address on the topic "Provocateurs in Slavdom"). The lecture course on digital media constituted a correspondence course. True, we never encountered a second course, but they say it existed. Pater Diy appeared in several documentary films: "Awareness of Knowledge," "Games of the Gods," "Veche of the Old Believers," and many others. The vigorous activity of Khinevich's pseudo-pagan sect sparked a lively, intense interest in the Rodnoverie community during 1999-2000 and 2005-2006. By 2009, the apogee of this sect's informational lies was reached, with them calling for people to move into communities and prepare for the arrival of Perun on a Vaitmara in 2012. Such an openly eschatological turn became the spark for the most constructive criticism of the entire spectrum of this sect's activities. Previously, a certain educational path was seen in their work, but the feedback from participants of the Inglistic sect regarding the cult of personality around A. Khinevich finally dispelled that myth. In 2010-11, the arrival of Perun no longer interested the followers. Everyone was waiting for the arrival of the lizards to conquer earthlings. To get a closer look at this material, you can read this article http://via-midgard.info/news/article/8912-kratkij-obzor-proshlogo-nastoyashhego-budushhego.html

For a long time, I didn't want to dirty myself with criticism of such an obviously destructive phenomenon, but constant articles on the Internet and constant conflicts across the web gave us food for thought and an understanding of the problem.

The problem is enormous! And Asov's fantasies pale in comparison to the activities of the Omsk school. Everything is turned upside down; the process of drawing in immature, romantically-minded minds into this ideological system continues. It's glaringly obvious that this is a sect of Scandinavian-Indo-Slavic orientation with a ufological and esoteric bent. We will examine many aspects of Inglism's ideology in detail. We will look at why and for what purpose the leaders of Inglism divide power. We will demonstrate the inconsistency of the ideas and prove that Inglism is in no way related to Slavic Rodnoverie.

Inglistic Runes

One type of Slavic-Aryan runic futhark
In his lectures and books, A. Khinevich, albeit unsuccessfully, tries to present us with several Slavic-Aryan runic futharks (at the time of writing this article, there are 9 of them, although he previously spoke of 3). He presents all of this as various types of runic writing. These futharks contain runes – syllables-images. These are the well-known Ra, Ve, Izm, Fash, and others. The interpretation of these newly-made runes is strictly ritualistic. We were unable to find more than 24 runes. There can be no talk of 144 runes. And the claimed syllabic figurative system of the Russian language, in the Old Russian language, only spawned Zadornov's researches and the final popularization of the topic. Lexical analysis showed that the semantics of the syllabic figurative system do not reveal the deep essence of words, and carry only ritual significance or the spiritual greatness of the Slavs-Aryans. In fact, there is no graphic system; the vocabulary is crippled. And most importantly, although this is where we should start, there are no archaeological or other data even indirectly indicating the existence of such a futhark among any people, let alone the Slavs. This idea was supported by the followers of VseyaSvetnaya (They graphically prefer to write this word as: "VseYaSVetnaya"), which spawned hundreds of interpretations, variations, and other linguistic tomfoolery. For example, one would then need to derive not syllabic writing, but ideographic writing. But for this, 144 (for the Sveyasvetlye - 147) runes (letters) are extremely few to create a lexicon. This only gave rise to polysemy of interpretations, failure to follow a single method (for example, sometimes an ordinary morphological system is accepted and the root of a word is isolated, then in another example each letter is a word, and in the next word everything breaks down into syllables, there are also mixed types). This leads to various interpretations and creates confusion even within the ranks of the linguofreaks themselves. I think examples are necessary:

- ”RazbiratSya” – to analyze oneself; «BoRoda» – Wealth of the clan

- In the word «POTOK» the following letters are visible:
Pokoy kolO Tverdo kolO Kako
PO TO(myslete) Kako
Pokoy OT i (very and very beautiful) letter OK
It's all SIMPLE.
Pokoy ROST O. Calm down, and growth O will begin by itself, like grass grows.

- RaDuGa – The Light of RA in motion

Naturally, without a unified beginning, we have a multitude of interpretations and opinions, sometimes diametrically opposed. And the "fence-like" style of writing was adopted by the Volkhv of All Rus' Bogumil 2 Golyak, but we digress a little. Although we will draw your attention to the different readings of the Phaistos Disc by V. Chudinov and G. Grinevich. This example is illustrative.

Khinevich provided raw material, which resembles Scandinavian runes and the Indian linear script (though Khinevich is unaware that the horizontal script appeared in the Middle Ages), gave these runes a spiritual richness, and included the swastika in the runes to pique the public's interest. And the variants of reading and writing graphemes in the VseyaSvetnaya script generally exceed all acceptable norms, with solar symbols being interpreted as letters. The second point proving the falseness of the futhark is the absence of an original source, and Khinevich's phrase that "all peoples guard their spiritual books" is not an argument, it's just a beautiful excuse. Thus, neither Mirolyubov nor Asov, nor their ilk, have yet provided a single source. It is easy to verify our words: take sources on Inglism (link to original sources http://narod.yandex.ru/100.xhtml?chertogisva.narod.ru/links/inglingi_mat.zip)), write out the runes, count them, try to form words from them. And everything will fall into place. It is no accident that all attempts to artificially create a language have been unsuccessful. After all, language is a dynamic structure that lives and develops in an ethno-mental environment. And most importantly, in the creation of all these pseudo-runes, historical grammar is not taken into account. This leads to curiosities, but this is amusing only to linguists; others do not know these laws, and the Inglingi take advantage of this ignorance.

History of the Slavs-Aryans

Khinevich, working in the vein of historical revisionism, claims that the history of the Slavs spans millennia, if not hundreds of thousands of years. He takes advantage of the complete historical ignorance of his disciples, who do not even understand the elementary fact that Inglism is a word characterizing the Swedish ruling dynasty.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia (If for someone this is not a reliable source, read A.A. Khlevov: http://ulfdalir.narod.ru/literature/Hlevov_A_Predvestniki/1realn_epingl.htm):

«The Ynglings are the most ancient and influential dynasty in the countries of Scandinavia, whose representatives became the first historical kings of Sweden and Norway. In the "Ynglinga Saga," Snorri Sturluson tells of them as descendants of Odin and provides detailed genealogies. They are also mentioned in the most ancient Anglo-Saxon epic, "Beowulf." The capital of the 1st dynasty of the Swedish Ynglings (which is semi-legendary) was Old Uppsala. In historical times, kings from the house of Ynglings ruled in Sweden (first half of the 9th century — 1060) and Norway (first half of the 9th century — 1319). The "Sagas of Icelanders" tell of a number of representatives of the dynasty who settled in Iceland and became part of the local aristocracy ("People of Laxardal," etc.).»
Example regarding the calendar. Or, if you will, the Krugolyot Chisloboga. Their own "Da'Arian" calendar, as the Inglingi claim, was taken from the book by Zharava "Krugolyet Chisloboga" (1888). But such a book does not exist in nature. But if you have nothing better to do, try to find at least one mention of this book in third-party sources or find the original book. And an experienced eye will immediately notice Photoshop (differences in fonts, colors, etc.). Research has already been conducted, but for the unbelievers, here is a book from A. Khinevich's collection:

Real book
And here is the mentioned Photoshop:

Fake
Don't even touch the fonts, just look at the spots and creases on both examples. Everything will immediately fall into place. The first book really exists; the second does not exist in nature.

But I will cite a collective study on this topic, systematized by Artyom Vinokurov:

1. The texture of the title font is inconsistent; moreover, the dark and contrasting letters are too "well-printed" compared to the rest of the text. The title falling on a fold is not deformed.

2. The title font is Church Slavonic, not secular (cf., for example, the shape of the capital letter "A" with the same letter on the stamp and other inscriptions).

3. The title font is not a 19th-century typographic font at all (see samples http://www.whitemouse.ru/font/rus13.wmb) neither in the shape of the letters nor in the standards for the ratio of letter height/width and inter-letter spaces.

4. The paper texture, including the arrangement of creases, is absolutely identical relative to the original.

5. The library stamp is distorted (flattened) upon rotation.

6. On a 19th-century title page, the Slavic surname of the author should be declined according to the rules of the 1st declension and be in the genitive case: "A.A. Zharavy." Even if we imagine that the surname is foreign (there is indeed a surname Jarava somewhere in Barbados, and in Latin jarava is a feather grass), the male surname should still be declined like a Russian one, and an explanation would need to be concocted as to why some female resident of Barbados wrote about "Krugolyet Chisloboga"... However, given that Mr. Khinevich himself speaks of "the book of ZharavA," this explanation will not be needed for the Inglingi – the author of the photomontage simply did not know that authors' surnames on 19th-century title pages were placed in the genitive case.

7. The author's initials, with absolutely identical scuffs and texture on the two letters "A," were clearly obtained through the COPY+PASTE function, rather than typographic typesetting.

8. The unnatural contrast and brightness of the image suggest editing to conceal the overlay of montage elements on the original.

9. The letter "Zh" in the author's surname was obtained by copying the capital letter "K" in the word "Karysheva" from the original. Hence the strange discrepancy in shape between the lowercase and capital letters "zh."

But let's go over the essence of this calendar. Let's look at it from the outside.

Adherents are told that the year 7715 or 16-17 Summer is the date from the creation of the great peace with the Chinese people in the Star Temple (S.M.V.Kh.). Not too little, but it turns out we had a great battle with the Chinese (Huns?) people approximately 7700 years ago. Out of curiosity, look into university textbooks on ancient world history and read the chapters on Egypt and Mesopotamia. They describe events from 5-5.5 thousand years ago. There were no Slavs, nor the Huns themselves, in sight back then. This is from thousands upon thousands of studies in archaeology, anthropology, history, and related disciplines. We are somewhat at a loss, as to confirm our words we would need to provide thousands of different publications across various disciplines. But knowing the Inglingi's thesis that history has been rewritten many times and that scientists hide the truth because they fear losing their positions... This is the foundation of followers of historical revisionism, who often don't even have a higher education in history, and, naturally, cannot navigate historical issues. But Fomenko and Nosovsky do their thing, and we have to ask people every time to first familiarize themselves with the official theory, and only then read Fomenko and Nosovsky… Another striking, memorable image presented by Khinevich is Prince Skand. He, too, naturally, is a Slav. And nobody cares that there is the Old Norse "Ynglinga saga," which tells a completely different story (we gave the link to Khlevov above. It is described in detail there). And the Scots, it turns out, originate from the name of the cattle god Veles (Wales in English). These are excellent poetic devices used with pseudo-linguistics. A. Khinevich tells this legend beautifully, and the listeners, falling under the influence of his charismatic personality, don't even doubt his words. All the links are provided; drawing conclusions is not difficult. But one can consider the interstellar wars of the ancient Slavic Gods and the arrival of lizards – the "Greys" – to enslave earthlings. The script could then be sent to G. Lucas. I simply can't fathom how to refute this. This is Ufology and fantasy… Here one can analyze the expressive and visual aspects, the authorial method. But how to approach this problem from a scientific point of view is already a question.

About the Slavs-Aryans as an Ethnic Group

Following Asov (Barashkov), Khinevich began to mix Slavs and Aryans. If in his early translations, Asov mentioned "Father Orey" as a descendant of the Slavs in his interpretation of the Book of Veles, he later corrected this unfortunate mistake…

The identification of Slavs and Aryans began with the interpretation of the proto-urban complex of Arkaim (naturally in a non-scientific environment), publications by Asov and Belov. I dare to assume that they developed the hypothesis of Demin-Zharnikova-Guseva. There is an influence of Indian culture on Russian culture, visible in the language and the names of some Gods. But the point is that Inglism claims that the Rus influenced the culture of India. Khinevich knew all this when he developed the ideology, and created his "Slavic-Aryan Vedas," which satisfied everyone as much as possible. This is partly because, at the beginning of his spiritual path, Khinevich tried to create a religion that would unite all known religious teachings. Naturally, there are absolutely no archaeological or anthropological data that would allow identifying these two, completely different, ethnic groups. One could talk about this issue at length, but Khinevich divided Russians into 4 types. The difference is only in eye color and type of activity, and he introduced his mythological horror story of enemies, replacing them with the epithet "Grays." All this resembles the eugenics of the 1930s, or, if you like, an attempt, colored in eugenic tones, to create a caste society on the model of India. In the interpretation of the Inglingi, this is unvarnished fascism, unrelated to Rodnoverie! For this, he subsequently received several criminal cases:

- http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/perechen/ (Ban on activities)

http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%83_%D0%90._%D0%AE._%D0%A5%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0_%282009_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%29

(Criminal case of A. Khinevich. He was sentenced to 6 months probation for creating an extremist organization. On 11.04.2011, the conviction was expunged.)
.........................
Continued below

I'm just observing your dialogue from the sidelines, and I get the impression that you haven't even bothered to read the wiki article; it's just some kind of populism. It's really just a theory, but it's quite well-structured and logical. And you're talking about factories and airplanes. It's completely irrelevant, seriously. In this case, it might seem that you're the one with a cognitive dissonance, not your opponents.

I've read the article on Wikipedia more than once. And I can't even imagine a more absurd theory. The problem is that we are being misled by absurd theories, and we swallow them without even trying to understand them.

Populism (from Latin populus – people) is a political position or rhetorical style that appeals to broad popular masses.

I'm just pointing out that we, the people, are being misled by using the authority of official academic science. They are counting on the fact that we won't try to delve into the essence of the theories that official academic science offers us.

The thing is that the "Big Bang Theory" is just a theory that has no basis in terms of structure and logic. And yet, they present it to us as the main, dominant, and most authoritative version of the universe's formation (while excluding the divine version of the universe's creation – this is the goal of the creators of this Big Bang theory) – and who is doing this? The International Academy of Sciences!

Where did you see the structure and logic???
What, in your opinion, is the logic of the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe originated from a point with zero volume, infinite density, and infinite temperature as a result of an explosion. This state, which exploded with tremendous force, was called a singularity. But this singularity not only cannot be mathematically described but also does not obey any known law of physics.

1) What is this point? Where did this point come from?
Has anyone ever encountered a zero volume from which a harmonious structure with infinite volume arises? And all this as a result of an explosion.
Can something come from nothing?

2) An explosion can only destroy!

Please give at least one example in which an explosion can create a harmonious structure or a harmonious complex object?!

3) If we assume that the universe was created by an explosion, and that the explosion created a strictly regular structure, then we can assume that a spaceship can be built using the explosion of an aircraft factory. These are equivalent statements, and the absurdity of the second is obvious to everyone, but the absurdity of the first is somehow not even considered.

4) In addition, no existing theory can explain how galaxies, planets, and stars arose from a homogeneous gas? And even the formation of our solar system is still a mystery for modern science.

5) According to Nobel laureate Weinberg, "The origin of galaxies is one of the most difficult problems in astrophysics, which is still far from being solved."

And yet, this theory, like many other "scientific" theories existing in official academic science, is presented as an absolute reality.
_________
Modern science describes the processes that occur in nature, describes the laws, but it cannot currently explain the nature of the described phenomena and laws (why the laws are exactly as they are). Who is this legislator whose laws physics describes and studies?
If we assume that the universe has a разумный creator, wouldn't he have created an instruction manual for it? Wouldn't it be logical to study the instructions from the chief designer?
If I buy a complex mechanical or electrical device, and I have no experience with it, wouldn't it be logical to read the instructions from the creator of this device?

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
In the kindly moderated part of my previous message, Lider1 claims that the statements I make are inadequate and stupid, in general, nonsense.
In my response, there was no rudeness or flooding; I asked him on what basis he considers this or that statement to be nonsense?

Well, he probably means 1) 650 million warriors that don't fit into his understanding of reality, and 2) elephants that were launched into Earth orbit, for which there is evidence in the form of testimonies from astronauts on the Mir station – this also does not fit into our understanding of reality. 3) Huge, unsinkable stones weighing 10, 15, or 20 tons, with the word "Rama" written on them in Sanskrit, which are found in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. These stones contradict the official theory of physics today, and if we recognize the existence of such stones – the nature of which modern physics, modern science, cannot explain – then we will have to admit the invalidity of the current academic science. But academics, doctors of science, professors with degrees, positions, and respect cannot do this. These are all the facts that modern science cannot explain and that are being kept silent. (In 20–30 years, I think these archives will be declassified)
Although they may not be declassified, for example, the fact that the Leningrad blockade was organized by the Soviet government itself, which has not yet been officially declassified. The fact that no one has ever flown to the moon, that no lunar rover has ever been on the moon (neither Soviet nor American) is also a secret. The fact that the budget in Russia, America, and Germany allocated for research on extraterrestrial civilizations is 10 times greater than the budget of these countries is also a secret. There are hundreds of such facts.
I make certain statements and provide certain evidence; you disagree with them – that is your right.
But at the same time, Lider1 makes statements that all this is nonsense, without providing any arguments in favor of this:
If you call something nonsense, then at least provide some arguments; otherwise, how can we have a constructive dialogue?
1) Inadequacy, nonsense #1 – why is this nonsense – the basis, and your vision of the question.
2) Inadequacy, nonsense #2 – why is this nonsense – the basis, and your vision of the question.
etc.

________________________________________
Before that, I said:
1) If there is a concept, then there is also an object that is described by this concept. If there were no God, then there would be no concept of God.

The thought is absolutely incorrect and illogical.
If the roof is wet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's raining.

That's right, if the roof is wet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's raining. But what does this have to do with it?

I was saying that if there are such concepts as a roof, rain, and wetness, then there are also objects described by these concepts.

2) Atheism is a form of perceiving God through its denial.
If there were no God, then there would be nothing to deny.

Please give an example of at least one statement in which something that does not exist in nature, in the universe, or with God is denied.
1) ?

Well, Feynman, I hope he holds some weight in your eyes?

Of course, he does. But you are distorting the meaning of his sayings along with A. Smirnov. If he thought so in a negative sense, he wouldn't have given lectures on this pseudo-science. But these lectures exist, they are recorded, and they represent excellent literature for studying physics, presented in an amazingly simple language.
And the meaning of the saying is obviously that physics, as is well known, is a science of errors. And it is a pseudo-science from the point of view that it constantly builds models that only describe real situations with a certain, pre-calculated accuracy, and not precisely.

Well, are you sure that your model 100% reflects the situation with the Boeing?
By studying an ant's leg, you extrapolate the experience gained to all other legs of that ant, to all other ants, to the entire anthill, to the entire forest, to all legs of other living creatures, to the entire planet, the universe, etc.

Of course, why not? Induction. Any aircraft flying relatively slowly (clearly slower than the speed of sound) have approximately the same structure; in the first approximation, this is almost imperceptible. The differences become apparent in the first approximation when you put the model in an aerodynamic tunnel.

Electromagnetic radiation spectra. Classical theory (see Rayleigh-Jeans law) did not provide a satisfactory description of the spectra of radiation of an absolutely black body (see Ultraviolet catastrophe) and significantly diverged from experimentally observed ones. Linear spectra of emission and absorption of light by gaseous substances also did not find an explanation within the framework of classical physics.
You didn't say exactly that. But you are very smoothly leading to the fact that in the theory of physics, there are very few contradictions with practice, and that they are not so significant.

There are certain models for certain life situations that correspond to these situations with a certain accuracy. This accuracy is enough to develop Boeings and pots for cooking pasta. That's what I want to say.

The phenomenon of radioactivity, discovered in 1896 by A. Becquerel, and studied at the end of the 19th century by Marie and Pierre Curie, testified to the fact that atoms contain a huge (compared to their size and mass) energy, the origin of which could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

You cited a quote, but you didn't even bother to find out what it means. Classical physics = not quantum physics, actually ;)

The red edge of the external photoelectric effect.

Likewise. What do you think Einstein was striving for?

But these classical theories are still taught in schools and universities.

To the extent that they are applicable. Quantum physics is also taught in schools, the very one with which Albert explained the photoelectric effect. Ariputra, where were you in physics class? And in Russian class?

How could such a strictly regular, harmonious structure as the universe have arisen as a result of an explosion? An explosion destroys, not creates.
This is roughly the same as assuming that an airplane can be formed as a result of an explosion of an aircraft factory.

I can only note that the Big Bang hypothesis does not contradict creationism, without going into the details of the hypothesis itself, which, in principle, may turn out to be incorrect, given how dynamic modern astrophysics is.

Part Two..

Stanislav Sviridov

To speak of Slavic-Aryan culture in the full sense of the word is simply unimaginably foolish! There is a Slavic linguistic community with specific, related ethnicities: Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians… Aryans were never part of this linguistic community. And indications of the kinship between Sanskrit and the Russian language are not comprehensive. There are more coincidences of the proto-Russian language in Baltic linguistic roots… And the study of toponymy and hydronymy by Demin only proves that the migration routes of the Aryan cattle-breeders and plowmen passed through the northern lands of our homeland. Perhaps these tribes also passed through the Ural Mountains. To identify us with Aryans solely because of this is the same as identifying us with own Tatar-Mongols… Although some cultural continuity may have remained, and these points of assimilation are what's interesting. Everything else is a erroneous interpretation of facts to suit the nationalistic and chauvinistic delusions of Khinevich. The Sanskritologist Professor Guseva reached such a position when she realized what ground for interpretations she had created (Guseva N. R. Arctic Cradle? // Rodina. – 1997. – No. 8. – pp. 81-83; She same. Russians through the millennia: Arctic theory. – M., 1998; She same. Arctic homeland in the Vedas // Who are they and where from? Ancient links between Slavs and Aryans / N. R. Guseva (ed.); Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS. – M., 1998.)

Asov's Open Letter to the Inglingi

Funny enough, Barashkov wrote to the Inglingi ("Instructions for creating a 'filthy' sect using the Internet"). There is no need to provide the text of his letter, but we will name the main theses. Asov declared the ideas of Akhinevich (this word formation was first introduced by Asov. Italics mine S.A.) as nothing other than low-grade plagiarism. Although the tone of the open letter is somewhat cynical, it is not devoid of references to primary sources, so at least in this matter Asov's hands are clean. For those interested, the text can be found here: http://educatorsoft.com/alexandracov/default.aspx?PageID=77

Barashkov accuses Akhinevich of gross plagiarism of his own works, Belov's works, and a number of works by Professor M.I. Steblin-Kamensky and O. A. Smirnitskaya were also affected. True, Asov cannot help but criticize publishing houses, Rodnovers, and exalt his own works, particularly on decipherment, although it is no secret to anyone that he cannot provide primary sources for his own work. The difference between Asov and Khinevich is that Asov at least reads a little and refers to academic literature. Although his works are not recognized by official science…

Ingliism and Ultra-Right Nationalism

All criminal cases regarding Ingliism have a nationalistic tinge. This is caused by a number of factors. In his lectures, Khinevich fiercely pits against and humiliates all religions except the faith of the ancestors. He exalts the Slavic-Aryan past in his mythological schemes and clearly opposes ethnicities, with Slavs in the leading position. Most offensive of all is that this fictional semiotic structure is currently the most popular and sought-after among Rodnovery! All "Valkyries," "Heavenly Boars," and other solar symbols were invented by Khinevich. Hardly 3-4 symbols out of all the solar ones have archaeological and ethnographic confirmation; barely 1-2 symbols bear the name that has become attached to them in ethnography. But Khinevich positions his symbols as a great heritage. And allegedly there are 144 of them. Undoubtedly and unconditionally, science has proven that Slavs possessed a solar symbol in various forms, but we consider it blasphemous to invent variations and names for symbols!!! This humiliates our cultural memory, discredits today's endeavors, and frankly reeks of mercenary goals (the sale of souvenirs with these symbols is very widespread). All symbols are filled with high spirituality and meaning. But I do not think the authors of this work know the difference between a symbol and a sign, and naturally, they have not engaged in archaeology to find confirmation for anything! This swastika diversity became the basis for many political nationalistic parties and societies; these theories were adopted by other leaders of Slavic-Aryan ideology (Trekhlebov, Levashov). All this simply discredited the topic of Slavic paganism in a crude manner. Khinevich does not even realize that fertility symbols played the most important role in the daily life of Slavs, or that the Sun can be interpreted as emerging, fertile, etc., based only on its seasonal activity. The raising of the hand at holidays is very offensive to Slavs, and generally, this gesture is not characteristic of Slavs (more details here http://slaviy.ru/yazycheskoe-mirovozzrenie/kak-zdorovalis-predki-slavyan/)), but this does not stop him from promoting this symbol.

There is a confession from a person once close to Khinevich, who now openly says that the symbols—for example, the today-popular "Valkyrie" symbol—were developed in Photoshop. This is not surprising; at the beginning of the article, we said that Ingliism is a sect with a Scandinavian-Indian-Slavic bias. That is why the Valkyrie is present in the symbols. And some symbols resemble those of the RNE. Simply put, as we will tell you shortly below about the glorious history of the Omsk sect, Khinevich collaborated closely with the RNE and then created his own spiritual school. Yes, and let's not forget Midgard and its connections to Slavs, which naturally do not exist, but Ingliism says otherwise…

Pantheon of Gods

A. Khinevich
Reveals the essence of Ingliism as a sect based on the Indian Vedas, allowing for a pantheon of Slavic gods. This includes Ra-m-kha, Ingl, Vyshen, Kryshen, Tara…

All this is passed off as genuine and as Slavic-Aryan Gods! This is simply outrageous, blasphemous. Often entering into disputes with adepts of the Ingliism sect, we ask them to provide even one source where such Gods are mentioned. To this, I received the answer "that you need to believe and then everything will become clear." To all those who continue to believe in these gods, we ask the same question: "in which sources are there mentions of these Gods?". But that's not all; in the Ingliism pantheon, the God Pater Diy appears, and the photograph looks too much like A. Khinevich. For what purposes this was done is, we think, obvious.

The Personality of Khinevich

From his biography, we know that he received a mediocre education, traveled through Europe, was a mediocre bard, engaged in esotericism and healing, even created the "Zhiva" temple, and was a DJ—only then did he create the sect known to us. Here is the full description of the sect and Khinevich's wanderings from one teaching to another:

http://ukrsekta.info/2008/11/03/dzhivakhram_inglii.html


Here is his poster from the pre-Ingliist period.

Khinevich smokes, drinks, according to eyewitness accounts, harasses young girls, and is extremely cynical. Here, for example, is a video where he smokes

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3044069.html?v=8ca207e836524d324387d613650b333a

Here are the memories of an eyewitness: "A. Khinevich gives only very rare and meager lessons to just one 3rd-year group consisting of 5-6 people. The 2nd and former 1st-year students, having studied via cassettes, pack their things and leave for their home regions. Deceived people, striving to obtain knowledge, came for training as entire families, leaving their own homes and selling apartments and belongings. But upon arrival, they encountered the real, not the staged A. Khinevich: he showed interest in students only until their modest savings ran out (his interest in young and trusting girls lasted a bit longer, sometimes 'unhealthy', to put it mildly); further, he became either excessively rude to the newcomers or ignored them, playing computer poker while they waited for an answer about their further fate, pretending not to notice those who approached him. Those who had any self-respect left. Only those remained who either had no money (they can be counted on one hand) or those who found themselves by fawning over a false priest worthy of them, selling trinkets to newcomers and stripping them bare."

Many suspected Khinevich of hidden Semitism. It is not for us to judge. And this topic does not interest us. For those who wish to read material on this subject, read here: http://via-midgard.info/razoblacheniya/12209-koe-chto-o-nacionalnosti-patera-diya-xinevicha.html

But for the especially non-believing, we provide a video by A. Budnikov:

http://www.teknikdestek.tv/–izle-1sWto6usqLXV1rc.html

Although Budnikov confirms the words of eyewitnesses, he does not criticize the teaching itself, as Ingliism lies at the basis of his own. Later we will analyze other examples of why this happens.

We could finish now, but what about Trekhlebov, Levashov, Darislav, Kurovsky, Globa…?

Currently, A. Khinevich is not very popular among Rodnovers and slightly more popular in the so-called Old Believer community. Yes, he is less popular than Trekhlebov. Trekhlebov is now the spiritual teacher of the Slavic-Aryans. He develops the ufological component of Ingliism more deeply. And unlike A. Khinevich, he promotes vegetarianism. His book "Koshuny Finista" is a mixture of antisemitism, Krishnaism, and linguofrikery, which he learned from Grinevich. There are barely 10 pages about Slavs there. But nevertheless, this man, having adopted Khinevich's ideology, now carries ufology and same-style Krishnaism to the masses in a Slavic manner. He says that his mother is from Sirius, that one must bury weapons and prepare for an invasion of lizards. Inglingi even began to speculate when they will arrive, on what they will arrive, and what armament the invaders will have. It should be said that Trekhlebov gets along with Khinevich. The same cannot be said about the alleged academician Levashov (more about his falsifications can be read here: http://www.slovensk.su/msevm/). This "prophet" also bases himself on the ideology of Ingliism, but already with a lean toward the pseudo-scientific environment. Above we gave a link where there are many critical articles examining his activity. And how can an academician end up on the list of extremist materials http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/fedspisok/ (Number 809)? And with Levashov entering the game, a struggle for Ingliism followers begins. But since Trekhlebov and Khinevich most likely came to an agreement, Levashov joined the trough without their permission.

Levashov
But many suspect him of conspiracy with Lawrence Rockefeller. In any case, we see the following: http://rutube.ru/tracks/3861364.html?v=713c142e279619138a8b5176f7a43b1e

In this video, Trekhlebov exposes Levashov. To which he responds:

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3844707.html?v=9878c5b3663678e20bad2d71bfe3c146

But all this is not liked by General Petrov, as some followers of KOB also fell into Ingliism. And we get an exposure from him:

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3114251.html?v=4e28f1ccddc0bca55a438e4e95015bbc

But after his death, Petrov's former comrade, Zaznobin, exposes Rodnovery in general: http://rutube.ru/tracks/2569410.html?v=c0dc6e8ad1d8912e761d9ef27d4d31d4

Only the KOB-ers criticize the ideology to some extent; others don't even touch it, simply attacking personalities. No one cuts the branch they are sitting on; everyone just throws mud at opponents. Although from our article it is clear how Ingliism was built, what it is based on, etc.

We could also mention Globa, the editor of "Vedic Culture," which, like Levashov's work, is included in the list of extremist materials under numbers 595-96. He acted as a fervent follower of Khinevich even before Trekhlebov and Levashov appeared on the scene, but disappeared after court cases regarding his journal.

Ukrainians suffer from Kurovsky, who adopted Ingliism and implemented it in his homeland.

Darislav continues to carry Ingliism to the masses in its pure form. Can all of them even be mentioned?

One could also analyze the activities of all these Inglingi and consider the specifics. Only a very reasonable question: why? Is it not obvious that a redistribution of power is happening in this sect? Is it not clear that Rodnovers are being stupefied? At the end of this section, I would like to quote the statement of Rodnover communities on the topic of pseudo-paganism:

http://yggeld.livejournal.com/49791.html

Conclusions

Self-respecting Rodnovers have long since begun a struggle against Ingliism as a natural disaster, as a provocation, and as any sect. One often hears the argument of the Inglingi that Rodnovers and they have nothing to divide—the Slavic faith is one and its essence is one! They try to find a compromise that cannot exist, because Ingliism substituted many concepts and eventually turned everything upside down. Ingliism is the main destructive element; it is by this that any Rodnover is characterized, and washing off this filth is very, very difficult, if possible at all. Ingliism is not Slavic paganism (they do not use this word at all; for them it means foreigners and non-believers). According to Vadim Kazakov's concise designation, Ingliists are "White-paranoid and rakomoltsy." According to Rodnovers, wherever the Inglingi appear, everything collapses: people eventually quarrel, industrial artels and communities break up. What was intended by Khinevich to unite Slavs actually defiled and divided them. And from the last quotes, I would like to bring the words of one Rodnover: "Looking for rational grains in Ingliism is like looking for gold in a chamber pot."

Added after 3 minutes
Frequently asked questions about Ingliism (i.e., the fetish of the ariputra)

http://slaviy.ru/faq-po-ingliizmu/