“However, picking up the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo< >began to check, but how the world really works. His turn to experiment should, by and large, be recognized as the moment of the birth of science, at least in the modern sense of the word. In fact, Galileo proposed a new methodology for scientific research: instead of speculative knowledge of ideal laws, he set an ambitious task for science - to comprehend the Creator's intention by studying the real world he created. In a certain sense, such a science was much more Christian than the former medieval scholasticism (which is a synthesis of Christian theology and Aristotelian logic), constantly referring to the authority of Aristotle. Indeed, since the world was created by the Creator, it should be studied as thoroughly as the Scriptures, striving to find in it an impeccable divine harmony.
This approach has proven remarkably effective. It turned out that new laws and patterns almost fall on your head by themselves. Moreover, many of them quickly found surprisingly useful applications (pendulum clocks, a chronometer with a spring balancer, steam engines, thermometers, etc.). Science became the engine of technological progress, whose impressive achievements, ultimately expressed in money, weapons, and partly comfort (that is, everything that is primarily of interest to those who fund science), sharply strengthened the credibility of the new methodology of knowledge. Its essence was reduced to the construction of natural sciences on the model of mathematics: from "self-evident" axioms to rigorously proven theorems. It is no coincidence that Newton's fundamental work was called "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy."
Differences between theory and practice, which for the Greeks were an immanent problem, now became a source of problems, many of which could be successfully solved. It turned out that a huge number of phenomena can be explained on the basis of a small number of simple and beautiful laws-axioms, which, it was believed, are discovered speculatively, thanks to the intuition of the researcher, but are confirmed and proved by experimental verification of the consequences arising from them. Scientific theories were perceived as a property of the real world itself, it was just necessary to recognize them, “read the book of Nature”, and confirm the correctness of the reading with several examples. This approach was later called justificationism (from the English justify - “justify”, “justify”). The Justificationist foundation, laid in the 17th century by the works of Galileo and Newton, turned out to be so strong that for two centuries it determined the development of science. But the crisis turned out to be all the more serious when experimental data began to appear that were incompatible with Newtonian physics.
And there were many such examples by the end of the 19th century. There was no way to explain the slight discrepancy in the motion of Mercury, discovered by Le Verrier in 1859. The planet's orbit systematically "left" from the calculated one. The deviation was tiny, only 43 arc seconds per century, but an evidence-based theory based on divine laws cannot be inaccurate. Newborn electrodynamics threw up another problem. According to Maxwell's equations (1864), the electromagnetic force always propagates equally fast - at the speed of light. But this directly contradicts the principle of addition of velocities in Newton's mechanics: how can a beam of light have the same speed, say, relative to a moving train and a stationary platform? In addition, it was not possible to explain the stability of atoms and the regularities of thermal radiation within the framework of classical mechanics.
The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics made it possible to cope with all these problems, which showed that Newton's theory is not absolutely accurate. Even worse, the very basic principles of the new theories turned out to be completely different. For the concept of justificationism, this was the verdict. There could no longer be any talk of any evidence of natural-scientific theories. “The discovery by the Greeks of the critical method first gave rise to the erroneous hope that with its help it would be possible to find solutions to all the great old problems, to substantiate the reliability of knowledge, to prove and justify our theories. However, this hope was generated by a dogmatic way of thinking, for in fact nothing can be justified or proved (outside of mathematics and logic),” the philosopher of science Karl Popper summed up the collapse of justificationism in the book “Assumptions and Refutations”, published in 1963.
But then Dmitry Bayuk very irresponsibly reports: “The theory of the ether. Put forward to explain electromagnetic waves in the framework of Newtonian mechanics. Light was considered to be vibrations of the ether - a hypothetical medium with very strange properties: solid, but practically weightless, all-penetrating, but at the same time being carried along by moving bodies. The mechanical model of the ether turned out to be extremely unnatural. The special theory of relativity got rid of the ether, making changes to the Newtonian model of space and time. It dramatically simplified the description of electromagnetic phenomena and gave a whole series of new predictions, the most famous of which is the equivalence of mass and energy underlying nuclear energy E = mc2.
I cannot agree with the theory of aether as presented by Dmitry Bayuk. The ether theory appeared in the writings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle long (2000 years) before us. And it is closely connected with the problems of modern physics. I write about it below.
By our World, the Universe, I understand everything that exists, regardless of our observational and cognitive abilities. Let's assume that this World is one. Then it will definitely be infinite. If we assume that somewhere there is its edge, the border, then a question arises. And what about abroad? Perhaps another world. But this contradicts our original premise.
We cognize, observe our World due to numerous contrasts. Hence we assume that the whole world is not homogeneous. It must consist of NOTHING and SOMETHING. Nothing is empty space - a container of material objects. Something is discrete matter. The World has a monstrously large, but constant amount of identical elementary particles (bricks), from which all of its architecture is built. But any constant number is always finite. Meanwhile, many different hypotheses come and come to false conclusions due to the assumption that there is an infinite amount of matter in the infinite World.
We do not know how the only elementary and smallest particle of matter is arranged. But somehow these particles can connect and separate. Let's leave this problem for future generations.
In the World, in which there is neither an edge nor a dedicated center, there can be no absolute or ultimate speed. All speeds are relative and can be of any value. And any body is always in a contradictory state, it is both at rest and moving relative to other bodies.
The main source of knowledge is light, which is the "darkest" place in physics. Let's try to shed some light on this problem. There was the physics of Aristotle, in which there was no emptiness, but there was an ether that slowed down the movement. And Newton's elder contemporary Christian Huygens suggested that ether waves create optical phenomena. But Newton suddenly realized that if the planets revolve around the Sun and do not fall on it, then this means that there is no ether, space is empty, and matter is discrete. But if there is no ether, then there is no wave theory. Light can only be a stream of some special particles (corpuscles). This is how Newton's classical physics arose with the corpuscular theory of light. But the wave theory was so sweet that it was hard to refuse it.
Here is how a modern physicist describes the history of the rejection of the corpuscular theory: “Considering the waves on the surface of the water from two thrown stones, you can see how, superimposed on each other, the waves can interfere, that is, cancel out or mutually reinforce each other. Based on this, the English physicist and physician Thomas Young made experiments in 1801 with a beam of light that passed through two holes in an opaque screen, thus forming two independent light sources, similar to two stones thrown into water. As a result, he observed an interference pattern consisting of alternating dark and white bands. The dark bands corresponded to zones where the light waves from the two slits cancel each other out. Light streaks appeared where the light waves mutually amplified. Thus, the wave nature of light was proved.
A few more years passed, and the Parisian Academy of Sciences favorably accepted Fresnel's explanation of the diffraction and interference of light using the wave theory. But although many physicists understood that the combination of the wave theory from Aristotle's physics with Newton's physics contradicts logic, they could not do anything. Facts are stubborn things. Moreover, the famous philosopher of that time, Hegel, soon came up with a “higher” logic, now called dialectical. If ordinary logic can be described by the triad "thesis-antithesis-analysis", then Hegel's logic is described by "thesis-antithesis-synthesis". Then a few more speculative logics appeared. And which of the logics is true, physicists do not know. This led to the fact that different people began to explain the results of the experiments in different ways.
And throughout the 19th century, physics developed on the basis of the wave theory of light. And only at the beginning of the 20th century it was necessary to return to the discreteness of radiation and, finally, to legitimize the dual nature of the radiation of light, and then of all matter.
Let's give the floor to the Nobel Prize winner, theoretical physicist R. Feynman on his book "The Nature of Physical Laws" (M. 1987, p. 116 et seq.).
“Let's start with the history of the study of light. At first, light was thought to be very much like a rain of particles, or corpuscles, flying like bullets fired from a gun. However, subsequent studies have shown that this view is incorrect and that in fact light behaves like waves, for example, like sea waves. Then, already in the 20th century, after additional research, it again began to seem that in many cases light behaves like a stream of particles. By observing the photoelectric effect, one can count the number of these corpuscles, now they are called photons. When electrons were first discovered, they seemed to behave exactly like particles (or bullets). As easy as pie. But further experiments, for example with electron diffraction, showed that they behave like waves. And the further time passed, the more and more unclear it became how they behave - like corpuscles or like waves. All the growing confusion was resolved in 1925-1926. discovery of the exact equations of quantum mechanics.
Note that Feynman, like many other physicists, does not know history, since Huygens' wave theory preceded Newton's corpuscular theory, and not vice versa.
Let us continue to quote the physicist who believes that Young's experiment in 1801 allegedly proved the wave nature of light: “An experiment carried out in 1961 by the German physicist Klaus Jonsson, in which he proved that the laws of interference and diffraction are valid for beams of elementary particles in the same way as for light waves. Jonsson's experiment practically repeated the experiment of Thomas Young two centuries ago, only instead of a beam of light, a beam of electrons was used.
But if Klaus Jonsson's experiment had taken place not in 1961, but in 1802, then he would have proved not the wave nature of light, but the corpuscular one. But now the train has already left, it is impossible to prove anything. Faith in the duality of light, that light and waves of ether and corpuscles is stronger than even faith in God. And this belief does not allow scientists to think. Yes, plus fears for a career. Moreover, duality is very convenient. It allows, in the right cases, to apply one or another aspect of the problem (both ours and yours). Michelson tried to experimentally determine the speed of the Earth relative to the ether. Nature answered that the speed of the Earth relative to the ether is equal to zero. It could only mean that there is no ether. There was no need to talk about the immobility of the Earth at that time. But Einstein declared that the speed of light is a special speed and does not add up with any other speed. He went even further and announced that there was no ether. But if there is no ether, neither Michelson nor Einstein is needed.
Duality is very convenient for unthinking scientists. It allows you to use at any time that part of it that is more suitable. So, when it was discovered that the light from distant galaxies has a redshift, then, in accordance with the Doppler effect, this was taken as real evidence of the expansion of the Universe after the big bang. But if there is no ether, then what kind of Doppler, what extension?
But what about wave-particle duality? Paul Davies writes: “Our imagination is powerless to imagine something that can be both a wave and a particle, but the very existence of wave-particle dualism (the so-called corpuscular-wave dualism) is beyond doubt”("Superpower" M. 1982, p. 30). He really exists. This was noticed by Newton (Newton's rings). If there is no ether, then corpuscles must have wave properties. But how?
For example, yes. Imagine a corpuscle in the form of a figure eight. She flies and spins. Its number of revolutions per second is the frequency, and the path traveled by the corpuscle in one revolution is the wavelength. The plane in which the corpuscle rotates is the plane of polarization. Then our corpuscle, passing through a small opening of the screen, deviates from the straight path (diffraction) and hits the screen. If at the same moment a corpuscle from another hole gets into the same place, then their interaction will occur. If they meet in the same phase, the light will intensify (addition). If the corpuscles meet in antiphase, then the light will go out (subtraction). This corpuscle also allows us to understand why part of the light always passes through a transparent body, and the other part is reflected.
The famous redshift taken as the expansion of the Universe is also easily explained. The longer the corpuscle has traveled, the slower it rotates due to numerous contacts (turns red) with various material particles.
Then I came across a book where I read: “Let's direct the beam of electrons from the electron gun to an impenetrable obstacle in which there are two holes. We place a Geiger counter at a distance behind the obstacle and close one hole. Let in this case the counter register every second 2 electrons. If we open this hole and close another, we again get 2 readings per second. And finally, open both holes. Experimentally, it is sometimes observed that the counter stops registering electrons at all (2+2=0)!... If you move the counter a little in the vertical direction, you can find the point at which it will give 8 counts per second (2+2=8) , i.e. twice the simple sum of the terms. At first glance, all this is hard to believe, but it is true, and such unusual phenomena are due to the wave nature of electrons.
I “constructed” a corpuscle in the form of a figure-eight in 1965-66 without knowing about the strange arithmetic of interference. But isn't this arithmetic clear now? The eight is broken into rings. Two corpuscles consist of 4 rings. And then when the light is strengthened 4+4=8, and when the light is weakened 4 - 4=0.
Of course, this is just a hypothesis. It can become a theory only after it has been tested in scientific circles. But these circles do not want to know anything new, it is easier for them to live in the old way. Even in the US, NASA scientists expelled a spokesman in 2006 for calling the Big Bang not a fact but a theory.
My hypothesis allows us to explain almost all problems of modern physics, including universal gravitation. The world becomes understandable and cognizable, physics too.
Justiceism is back.
Pavel Karavdin 11.03.2012
Russia at the edge of an era
How the world actually works and the meaning of history
Vadim Kirpichev
© Vadim Kirpichev, 2017
ISBN 978-5-4485-0606-2
Created with the intelligent publishing system Ridero
© Vadim Kirpichev
Russia at the edge of an era
How this world works and the meaning of history
End of history or beginning of an era?
History is the science of the future.
The meaning of history
Does world history have a root, basic meaning? And if so, can it be stated simply and clearly?
A little lower, the essence of the story will be formulated literally in a nutshell, but for now I’ll tell you why this is so important for all of us. Yes, because countries and peoples who risk going against the vector of world history always lose in the end. And this is disintegration, dismemberment, extinction, and in the best case, vegetation on the sidelines of world processes.
For us, this is doubly important for the reason that right now there is a change of cycles through which the meaning of history is realized. The fact is that…
Our era is over.
Fukuyama's idea of the end of history, if taken to its logical end, leads to this conclusion. And even if the change of the chronology itself will not happen soon, but the very turning point of the era is happening now before our eyes. If you look into the meanings and experience of world history, then the conclusion is immutable: the end of history is always a sure sign and the basic condition for the change of eras. So it's not really history that ended, but our era.
Fukuyama argued that in the victory of liberal democracy and the West, history finds its logical end. The further spread of liberal democracies throughout the world will be the final point in the socio-cultural evolution of mankind. In general, everything is like in the history of one city, where "History has stopped its course."
Only a quarter of a century has passed since the “end of history”, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is already asserting that the long era of dominance of the historical West is ending. Europe is constantly shaking. The economic center of the world is gradually shifting to Southeast Asia. The end of the dollar era, if not far off, then low.
There is a general feeling of a change of times, a global turn of history.
But what is the meaning and purpose of such a breakdown? And, perhaps, this is not an era coming to an end, but, as already mentioned, an entire era?
In this book, I hope, it will be objectively and systematically proved that we are now experiencing precisely the transition to a new era. What is the name of the post-Christian era? When will it start? Answers will be given to these and many other equally important questions. But the root idea is that we are experiencing precisely the transition to a new era.
Humanity changes chronologies for a reason. A colossal change in the entire world order is required so that people can abandon the chronology rooted in the centuries. The calculation of years by millions of threads is connected with culture, civilization, politics, therefore, for the turning point of eras, events of a geohistorical scale must occur. It requires new geopolitics, geo-economics, geohistory, and a new worldview, and new ideals in addition.
The topic of changing the era is so important and responsible, the conclusions from it are so fundamental and cardinal that one cannot be unfounded here - a systematic proof is required.
But for what?
Well, a new era, well, a change in history instead of its end, but what about us?
Understanding the meanings of the ongoing processes is vital for the preservation and development of Russia. There are hundreds of examples of how states tried to go against the flow of time, and everything ended with a feast of the winners on their ruins.
Are you coming?
For the past fifty years, we have clearly gone in the wrong direction. Since Brezhnev's stagnation, our civilization has suffered defeat after defeat. The nineties of the twentieth century are just a shame and collapse, which are best described by the words of the same Saltykov-Shchedrin: "... in Rome, the vile mob raged, and we have bosses."
In the 2000s, the siloviki closed up the holes in the Russian bourgeois Titanic, but failed to turn off the suicidal Western course. Export-raw material Russian capitalism still hinders the industrial development of the country. The share of the Russian Federation in world GDP is declining. The geopolitical situation is gradually deteriorating. Separate tactical victories (Crimea) only mask common strategic defeats (Ukraine). The latter came under the control of the United States, and now Ukraine is being feverishly formatted into a fiercely Russophobic state.
At the moment, the situation in Russia is frozen. Now the country has slightly moved away from the abyss, where it was persistently pushed. The Russian Federation is now “on a pause”, as if thinking whether to follow Ukraine along the path of bourgeois-national disintegration or still find the strength in itself for another overtaking modernization.
But fatigue from constant defeat accumulates. We were defeated in the Cold War, and the ashes of the USSR are still pounding in many hearts. Moreover, the dismemberment of Soviet Russia and the defeat in the Cold War is primarily an intellectual and moral defeat. The Soviet elite did not respond to the challenges of the time, did not realize the meaning of the ongoing globalization, unlike the Chinese elite, and paid for it with the disintegration of the country and the loss to the West. Now the West is not letting up again, sharpening the knife of the color revolution on Russia, feeding our liberal swamp and Russophobic forces in the border states, moving NATO closer to the Russian Federation. Russia for the West is the unfinished Soviet Union.
The hunt for the Russian bear has been announced. The organizer of the hunt, as expected, keeps aloof for the time being, and henchmen "dogs" chase, disturb and distract the bear.
Is the current Russian elite capable of giving the people an attractive, worthy image of the future? Does not look like it. Patriotism as a national idea? Won't save. Patriotism is a feeling. Feelings cannot replace intellectual and moral work on the formation of a national idea.
More and more questions arise for the current political leadership of the Russian Federation.
Is the current Russian elite capable of protecting Russia from the West's plans for our liquidation, which the latter does not particularly hide? Moreover, the West plans to dismember the Russian Federation through the mechanisms of self-destruction, to repeat the victorious strategy of extermination of the USSR.
Is there gunpowder in ideological powder flasks? Does the current socio-political system of the Russian Federation have the ideological, economic and geopolitical resources to win the next cold war that has started? Or drag out the resistance for 10-20 years - that's the whole maximum of the bureaucratic-oligarchic system that has developed in Russia? And then - a repetition of the fate of Ukraine or the USSR? Russia is still being saved by the sovereign resource of the vertical and our patriotic, Soviet, victorious anti-Western reserve, which is not completely eroded, but all this is a purely defensive weapon. And one defense of the war is always lost.
I repeat, defeat in the Cold War is always an intellectual and moral defeat. When the elite is not able to generate its own positive idea directed to the future, it either intellectually submits to the ideas of the enemy and destroys the country quickly, like Ukraine. Either he chooses a purely defensive option - he takes Orthodox-Communist fragments from the past in order to drag out the resistance at least for his lifetime. Isn't this what we are seeing in Russia? Along the way, we will hear endless disguised talk about new industrialization, about plans to attract investment, but in reality the usual export of resources and finances abroad will continue. And when investments are in the sieve, the economic degradation of the country is inevitable, even if it is not immediately noticeable due to the sluggishness of the process itself and the veil of television success.
The terrible nineties were corrected only politically - through the strengthening of the vertical, but ideologically nothing has changed. Therefore, the Russian elite is still forced to carry out the liberal program of the geopolitical enemy - the delete program. This is what happens when a country changes its history and goes with the flow of someone else's history.
But what about the change of era?
It determines the meaning of the current era, and the fate of Russia has always been closely linked with the course of world history and its meanings. If we are convinced that the change of the era is really happening, if we realize the reasons for the turning point of times, then Russia's path along the blades of the eras will become clear.
There is a classic example in history of what happens to a people who go against the course of a new era. We are talking about the defeat of Judea in the first century AD. Then the Jewish elite led the people against the meanings of the coming new era, which led to the defeat in the Jewish War, and the Jewish people were scattered around the world for two thousand years. In the next chapters, we will return to this instructive page of world history and figure out what was the essence of the then catastrophe of Judea.
You can often hear such a parable (called "The Rich Tourist"), the whole point of which is to determine where the catch is. The parable tells about money, and that everything is done for its sake - while in itself they are, paradoxically, nothing! Let me remind you the essence of the matter: “A wealthy tourist came to a certain town. Leaving $100 as a deposit to the owner of the hotel, he went up to look at the rooms of the hotel. The owner of the hotel, without hesitating for a minute, takes the bill and runs with it to the butcher to repay the debt. The butcher, with a banknote in his hands, runs to the farmer and pays him a debt for beef ...
The farmer repays the debt to the owner of the auto repair shop.
The owner of the workshop goes to the local shop and repays the debt for the groceries.
The owner of the store ran to the local travel agency - to repay the debt. The manager of the travel agency immediately runs to the owner of the hotel and repays him the debt for the rooms that were rented for clients during the crisis...
At this moment, the tourist comes down and says that he did not find a suitable room, takes the deposit and leaves. No one has received anything - but the whole town is now debt-free and optimistic about the future. So what is the point of this focus? - the narrator usually asks slyly.
According to numerous "applications of workers" I explain the essence of the focus.
In the parable, money is an obvious, disappearing, dissolving in the air NOTHING. However, they - being nothing - are desperately needed by everyone for some reason.
Of course, if the described case were in life, the participants in the transactions would have agreed with each other “barter” and would have gotten along before the arrival of a rich tourist by offsetting.
However, there is salt and pepper in the parable.
And they are in the very title of the tale. "Rich tourist" - once called "rich", instinctively perceived by the narrator as the master of life. It does not matter whether he himself - being the owner of the territory - prints dollars, or he is only the favorite of the owner who prints dollars.
Directly or indirectly but the rich tourist acts as the OWNER of the EARTH. It issues PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES to economic entities. After the issuance of this permission, the exchange processes begin to follow their own laws, but before such permission they could not begin.
Why? The answer is very simple: the owner of the territory did not give (did not put into circulation) money, which means that he forbade farming on his territory. If you have a garden, then you will understand what I mean.
Let's say you can grow pumpkins, beets, squash and carrots in your garden. If different people grow them in different beds of YOUR garden, they can then begin to change them. But since they grow vegetables in YOUR garden, they need your permission to trade (as well as grow).
This permission of the authorities to operate is money. Money itself is something like scales, rulers, arshins, that is, a technical means of measurement.
No one would ever bow to the scales and beg the ruler for something - this is madness! Another thing is the weigher or land surveyor, on whom the licensing system of the national economy depends.
Money in itself has no value, and without the government that issued it, they do not exist at all.
Money is not pieces of paper or mugs of metal. Money is a SETTLEMENT RELATIONSHIP. Any ordered settlement relations can be considered a variant of the monetary, financial system.
I'll tell you another story.
A brick manufacturer needs to buy an earthenware jug. And the manufacturer of jugs needs to buy 100 bricks. But both have no money: the brickmaker, in order to get money for his purchases, must first sell the bricks, and there is no one to buy them except the potter. And the potter, in order to get money for his purchases, must first sell the jugs: but there is no one to buy them, except the brickmaker.
Of course, they could exchange without money: this is called barter. But it is suitable if the goods are ALREADY produced. And if they still have to be done, then after all, no one will launch machines for the missing demand, which there is no one and nothing to pay for!
Where does money come from? They come from the owner of the resources, in our parable, the one who owns the clay. Both a brick and a pot are made of clay. Both producers need clay, and it is a gift of nature. The one who owns it does not expend labor on its production.
Giving it to the potter and brick-maker, the owner of the clay (territory) takes on the obligation to make him some bricks and some pots. It is the owner of clay who is the SOURCE OF MONEY - after all, money circulation begins with him, he is the first to release to the market an initially free product (raw material) - products from which manufacturers then change.
The owner of the clay (if he wants to) - orders the work of the craftsmen and pays them money for this - i.e. units of account provided with gifts of nature, resources, raw materials, infrastructure base. The economy, as an exchange process, starts from here - it has nowhere else to start!
Without this primary order, the potter cannot order bricks to the brickmaker, and the brickmaker cannot order pots to the potter. If clay is not provided, there is simply nothing to make them from.
And there is no need - after all, there is no money in circulation: the potter who did not sell the pots does not have them in the same way as the brickmaker who did not sell the brick. Not a single sale means not a single penny.
Only the resource owner can issue money. In what form he will release them - paper, metal, in the form of collective farm "sticks" in the register or electronic "blip" - is his business. But the source of money circulation is he, the owner of the territory.
Only by understanding this chain: "Discovery of resources in the territory - usurpation of these resources by the invader - lease and sublease relations of resource users with the usurper of resources" we will understand the nature of the financial system, and how the economy actually works!
The submarine was laid down in 1979 in Nizhny Novgorod (at that time - the city of Gorky) at the Krasnoye Sormovo plant
From 1980 to 1998, the submarine carried out combat service as part of the squadron of the Northern Fleet, performed tasks in the Atlantic Ocean off the western coast of Africa, in the Mediterranean Sea, carried out combat patrols to protect the state border in the Barents Sea.
In 1998, the B-396 submarine was decommissioned and withdrawn from the Russian Navy. On October 20, 2000, it was delivered from the city of Polyarny to the city of Severodvinsk to the Northern Machine-Building Enterprise, in April 2001 it was lifted onto a slipway and then transferred to a workshop for conversion into a museum.
On July 4, 2003, the submarine-museum was launched into the water in a festive atmosphere. At the end of August, the ship set off on its last voyage along the Severodvinsk-Moscow route. Having passed the White Sea, the White Sea-Baltic Canal, Lake Onega, the Volga-Baltic Canal, the Rybinsk Reservoir, the Moscow Canal, the submarine arrived in Moscow.
Now the Museum and Memorial Complex of the History of the Russian Navy, located on the Khimki Reservoir in the Severnoye Tushino Park, has become the place of its permanent parking.
The entrance to the submarine in the museum version is carried out from the starboard side through a specially equipped vestibule.
Before the conversion, the crew entered through the hatch.
The first compartment contains 533 mm bow torpedo tubes. On the right is a torpedo screw, on the left - torpedoes before loading into a torpedo tube.
If necessary, the crew could leave the submarine through the torpedo tubes, which served as airlocks. To perform work overboard or emergency ascent, there were SSP-K1 submariner equipment sets on board, consisting of an insulating breathing apparatus (rebreather) IDA-59 and SGP-K wetsuit, in addition, to ensure ascent from great depths (up to 220 m) in the kit included a DGB cylinder with helium (as part of breathing mixtures for deep diving, air is replaced by a helium-oxygen mixture, which makes it possible to avoid nitrogen intoxication and reduce the risk of decompression sickness).
There are changes in the interior of the submarine, in particular, openings are equipped in the sealed bulkheads between the compartments of the boat for the unhindered movement of visitors. During the period of combat service, crew members moved between compartments through hatches.
Galley. Soviet submariners at sea were supposed to have three meals a day: breakfast (also called morning tea), lunch and dinner. The first meal of the day was the lightest of all. Mandatory elements of breakfast were tea with sugar and white bread with butter. The second meal of the day was the most plentiful. The traditional first course was naval borscht with fresh cabbage, soups were also prepared - bean, potato and rice. The main dishes were various canned meats with a side dish of rice, buckwheat porridge, beans or mashed potatoes. The third dish was naval compote, which was sometimes replaced with cocoa or jelly. In autonomous navigation, dry red wine was served without fail for dinner, as a rule, from the Cabernet Sauvignon grape variety, 50 ml per crew member. For dinner, as a rule, there were boiled or fried potatoes, buckwheat porridge, beans with pickled herring, canned fish or meat, cocoa with cookies.
The submarine is installed on an underwater hydraulic base, the ship is raised by 4 meters, which made the propeller-steering complex open for viewing.
The submarine carries the guis of the Russian Navy.
Project 641B submarine diagram
1 - main antenna of the Rubikon SJSC, 2 - Rubikon SJSC antennas, 3 - 533-mm TA, 4 - bow horizontal rudder with a tilting mechanism and drives, 5 - bow emergency buoy, 6 - cylinders of the VVD system, 7 - bow compartment (torpedo), 8 - spare torpedoes with a quick-loading device, 9 - torpedo loading and bow hatches, 10 - aggregate partition of the Rubikon SJSC, 11 - second (fore residential and battery) compartment, 12 - living quarters, 13 - bow ( first and second) group AB; 14 - automatic battery box 15 - navigation bridge, 16 - gyrocompass repeater, 17 - attack periscope, 18 - PZNG-8M periscope, 19 - PMU of the RDP device, 20 - PMU of the Kaskad radar antenna, 21 - PMU of the Ramka radio direction finder antenna , 22 - PMU antenna SORS MRP-25, 23 - PMU antenna "Topol", 24 - conning tower, 25 - third (central post) compartment, 26 - central post, 27 - modular enclosures REV, 28 - enclosures for auxiliary equipment and general ship systems (bilge pumps, pumps of the ship's general hydraulic system, converters and air conditioners), 29 - fourth (stern residential and battery) compartment, 30 - living quarters, 31 - aft (third and fourth) group AB, 32 - fifth (diesel) compartment, 33 - auxiliary mechanisms, 34 - DD, 35 - fuel and fuel-ballast tanks, 36 - sixth (electric) compartment, 37 - electrical panels, 38 - GGED of the shaft midline, 39 - aft anchor capstan, 40 - seventh (stern) compartment , 41 - stern hatch, 42 - economic propulsion power plant, 43 - midline of the shaft, 44 - stern emergency buoy, 45 - stern rudder drives.
Tactical and technical data of the Project 641B submarine
