Brief review on alternative physics – An alternative opinion on physics

Aleksei Savchenko
A.A. Bochvar Institute of Inorganic Materials (VNIINM), Rogova 5A, Moscow, Russia, +7-977-520-5299

Introduction by V.B.Ivanov
General Director of A. A. Bochvar’s High Technology Research Institute of Inorganic Materials (VNIINM)

Alternative ideas empower the scientific and technological progress.
Exactly now we need new approaches and solutions that will lead us to a qualitatively new level.
This has always been the definitive scientific principle, and it will stay so.
Even dubious solutions give rise to discussions where the grains of truth are born. Refusing is easy.
Understanding, finding grounds and defining new solutions is hard, but it is necessary.
We offer for discussion a summary of report by A. M.Savchenko who works at our Institute, on some new trends in (alternative) physics and its place in the general development of the scientific thought.
Some parts of this paper may be questionable, and they are not always backed up by the official opinion. Yet, this is a real initiative.
Let us discuss.


Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file


3 comments to Brief review on alternative physics – An alternative opinion on physics

  • Eric Ashworth

    @ Alexei Savchenko:
    This article is extremely informative and should be posted in every university in the world so as to help explain to students why physics as an important subject remains as it were ‘ in the Middle Ages’ as according to Ch Stemmenos of which I agree.

    Only since the Academy of Science (AS) became an institution did the emergence of alternative physics become a reality. What this article infers is but for the (AS), physics would be a lot further along the road to understanding both the physical and the physical vacuum together with that of gravity. In other words the (AS) has been a detriment to the advancement of scientific discoveries and this I can only but support as my own theoretical understanding and practical applications have been peer reviewed and rejected as not suitable for present day understanding i.e. considered before their time.

    One part of the paper that caught my attention was its reference to a peculiarity of alternative physics (AP) regarding its cheapness being its strength and weakness. One obvious strength being that the (AP) physicist cannot waste a ton of taxpayers money being independent and thereby has to be more sure of his scientific reasoning due to a limited budget. I do not think it hard to get necessary results if what is required has been fully understood but I do agree that the understanding is most important but not impossible as to contemplate does not require finance. Research equipment and meticulous studies do feature in most (AP) programmes. However, regarding the alternative physicist having neither the time, opportunity nor experience I cannot agree with due to my own personal experience in my own line of research. To demonstrate is to prove but the (AS) has no interest in the proof of an (AP).

    ‘A non-final conclusion’ in the paper is absolutely correct as it states that todays most active opponents of pseudoscience will manage to switch sides to that moment and take the lead of then recognized (AP) because of privileges bestowed upon them. So the future sciences will occur but when is anybodies guess unless you are the instructor of the programme.
    Regards Eric Ashworth

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    I agree.
    In October we will publish the third paper we received from Dr Aleksei Savchenko.
    Warm Regards,

  • Koen Vandewalle

    I am very impressed with this publication.

    The author manages to describe incredibly succinctly and comprehensively about what others need a whole series of books.

    This deserves to be read several times. The younger generations, in particular, would benefit greatly from knowing about censorship in science.
    Kind regards,

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>