Why these views are errenous,  it was shown  in the "Abstract" and why it can happen so, that we shall not be able to overcome them, it will be shown in the "Warnings".

To forewarn a reader against a hurry in judgement of the new theory, some known opinions about estimation of the newest hypotheses are given below.

          "The triumphs of science have generated something close to an idolisation of science. All presented from its name was perceived as absolute truth.

          As soon as we get used to consider, that science orders something to us, as soon as we do absolutise its particular achievements, we betray the science. We dogmatise it, and then it obtains outlines of a stiffened myth ".

          "At the end of the past and in the beginning of this century the notion was widely spread that we already have learnt the basic laws of the nature, and it is necessary only to apply them to new phenomena. Even such large physicist, as Kelvin, in the speech dated for the beginning of our century, sympathised with the subsequent generations of physicists, by telling that nothing essential did remain on their share. To say the truth, he has exhibited insight, by specifying that on clear horizon of physics there were only two small clouds: one was bound with Michelson's experiment and another - with equilibrium thermal radiation of light. From one "cloud" the theory of relativity soon has grown, and from another - the quantum theory.

          On experience of these new, revolutionary theories we have understood that the advancement of science has no limit. The essence consists in the fact that our concepts and notions are not given a priori, but grow out of the analysis, they are quintessence of human experience. Such analysis allows us to create concepts and notions, theories adequate to a circle of phenomena known for us. But each time, when we penetrate in essentially new area of physical phenomena, whether it be an area of very high velocities (special theory of relativity and cosmology) or microcosm, world of atoms and fundamental particles (quantum theory), we should cardinally change the usual concepts and notions.

A B. Migdal (From a paper in magazine "Science and life" (in Russian), 1982, No. 1, pages 60 - 67)

           "Problems of science lie on a boundary between known things and unexpected things. Hence, one of its main features is openness to new things, ability to revise customary ideas and, if it is necessary, to refuse them.

          The science is formed by the facts, relation between them and explanation of these relations. The facts and relations should be honoured as the criminal Code. The well proved facts are invariable, the relations are only improved with an advancement of science. But explanations of the facts and relations, that is, ideas based on a consciously simplified picture of a phenomenon, must not be absolutised. The ideas, or models, are improved and are changed after each discovery.

          In order to establish truth, it is necessary to carry out scientific experiment, that is an experiment performed by experts. The experiment, which gives results that can be reproduced and confirmed by independent experience of other contributors.

          Any general idea gains value, only if it is confirmed by scientific arguments, and the honour of discovery belongs to the one who promoted transmutation of this idea into the proved true.

          A goal of science is to select the most plausible explanations and to adhere to them as long as experience or theory will not force to refuse from that explanation."

          "The Novelty in science always means discovery of new phenomena, build-up of new hypotheses and theories explaining and predicting the experimental facts better and deeper, than preceding theories."

           "We are disturbed by tragic destiny of great thinkers, we condemn our ancestors who have poisoned Sokrates, executed Lavuazje, burnt D. Bruno, imprisoned Galileo etc. We feel like considering them awful criminals and we are ready in a broil of indignation to tear them into pieces or to promise them eternal posthumous fire and brimstone, whereas we do the same, but we do not take any note to our criminal acts. We must not become exasperated, and it will be better to find reasons of this phenomenon, which is unprofitable to us, to eliminate them and to be on the guard in order to avoid recurrence of historical errors.

           If a poor and unknown man will tell a truth, he will not be listened and his words will be immediately forgotten. Those, who are more cunning, will borrow an idea of a poor man and will even forget that the idea does not belong to them.

          If an accredited authority will tell something rash, thoughtless and even silly thing, he will be listened with attention, his statement will be printed and will be discussed seriously. If everybody speaks about something and asserts something, than there is a probability to consider this something to be a truth (the voice of the people is the voice of God). If somebody (a minister, a professor) has got promotion by the chiefs, we consider that it was done not without reason. There is also probability to trust into printed matter, because there is less lie in books, than in words. But how easy it is to make an error. Only reason and science must be trusted.

          Let us take an example: new spelling. Everyone considered himself educated and competent, and others, ordinary people, were considered illiterate. The innovation has made an inverse. It is so insulting, in particular to inertial people and old men! The refutation of some false discovery is even burdensomer.

           Those things, to what we got used for a long time, seem to be true. In our brains the relevant nerves and deferents are formed, which are very constant and are uneasily replaced by new ones, expressing unusual ideas. In the years of maturity the elimination of old ideas and the birth of new ideas are very difficult and this process is accompanied by sufferings stimulating indignation against the innovator. And the more is the age, the sharper is this phenomenon. That is the reason, owing to which the established authorities, who became old, with covert rage negate all young, new things, which are not consent with their dogmatized ideas. The feeble educabillity, overfatigue (upcoming to many working scientists even in young years) hinders a correct estimation.

           Even if a judge is educable, knowing and equitable, it also sometimes does not help. Really, a new idea, invention is known well only to an innovator, who has donated, may be, his whole life and all his uncommon energy, what, certainly, cannot be done by a man with general extensive knowledge. He is not a specialist in a new affair, and only the inventor is a specialist in this affair. That is almost inevitable reason of an error.

          We even do not speak about other, less excusable, brakes of education: competition, envy generally, envy professional, class pride etc. We do not speak also about predilections of different kind: friendly, blood relative, sexual, national, religious, patriotic etc.

          Owing to these and other reasons an idea, even most fruitful, perishes more often than not, not having achieved recognising and realisation. At best a good idea is braked and is delayed on tens and hundreds of years, depending upon circumstances.

A. Patsuk (From a paper in magazine "Chemistry and life" (in Russian), 1982, No. 10, pages 84 - 85):

            "Unknown things are regenerated into known things any otherwise than through an intermediate state - hypothesis, which can be confirmed or refuted only after a long time, only in a furnace of historical practice. And this, certainly, is impossible without publication of hypotheses, without their approbation. As the hypotheses are frequently indistinguishable at first glance from mad delirium, their publication encounters insuperable difficulties even for many professional scientists, dilettantes (amateurs of science) encounter difficulties of higher order.

           The well-known American organiser of manufacture Henry Ford has told: "The specialists are harmful because they will discover deficiencies of any new idea faster than other people and by that they will hinder its application. They are so clever and have so much experience, that they know with great accuracy, why it is impossible to make that or another thing; they see limits and hindrances. Therefore I do not take on service the thoroughbred specialist. If I wanted to kill my competitors by dishonest resorts, I would submit them hordes of specialists. Having obtained a mass of good recommendations, my competitors could not initiate with work".

           Perhaps, these words contain not footless opinion expressed capaciously and actively, that professionalism has historically discredited itself as the appraiser of fundamentally new ideas. It is known, with what difficulties, with what reluctance the professional science mastered new ideas, which are considered now as obvious trues, and how violently it protected fallacies, which became now obvious nonsense.

          Professionalism is, perhaps, peculiar manner of thinking, special manner of perception of the material world through its abstract-logic structure. It is considered that the higher is the degree of identification of this structure with an objective reality, the higher is the degree of professionalism. Consequently, every thing existing in reality, but logically not originating from our imaginary paradigmatic idea about this thing, a professional perceives as something not existing in reality, as something impossible, as nonsense, as delirium. At the same time any change of the most formal-logic structure, which outsteps the limits of its interior logic, is perceived by the professional as contortion of the reality.

           Let us, for example, take the classical electrodynamics - the science which has reached, perhaps, the best degree of professionalism. The logic structure of Maxwell's equations incomprehensibly envelops all variety of actual electromagnetic life. Thus, the degree of identification of logic structure of abstract concepts and material world, their adequacy reaches here the highest level: the material reality and its abstract conceptual structure are completely identified here - all really observed phenomena are originating logically from Maxwell's equations and all phenomena, which are logically originating from them, necessarily exist in reality. To achieve such degree of professionalism, what was achieved by the classical electrodynamics, for many sciences is an unattainable ideal.

           And now we shall imagine, that some hypothesis having relation to the electrodynamics was sent to a professional for estimation. The professional has the unique method to find correct judgement about this hypothesis - to compare, to identify it with the reality, but the reality is seen by the professional only through a prism of Maxwell's equations.

           Let us presume that the hypothesis asserts existence of a new phenomenon. The professional, having executed a procedure of identification, gives one of two possible inferences, either: "Yes, such phenomenon exists actually, but it is trivial, because it is logically subsequent upon Maxwell's equations. Consequently, the offered hypothesis is innovation of an ignoramus who did not see general in individual". Or: "No, such phenomenon can not exist unconditionally, because its existence contradicts the logic of Maxwell's equations. Consequently, the offered hypothesis is a pure nonsense".

           But now let us assume, that the hypothesis concerns a new law, to which the known electromagnetic phenomena obey. Again, having executed the procedure of identification, the professional will answer doubly. Either so: "Yes, such law is correct, but it is known, because it is a special case of Maxwell's equations. Consequently, the offered hypothesis is innovation of the ignoramus, who is far from understanding of the electrodynamics ". Or so: "No, such law does not fit the reality, because it does not conform with Maxwell's equations. Consequently, the hypothesis, forgive me, is again a pure absurdity".

           To put it briefly, in perception of a professional every new thing is certainly either an absurdity, or an error of an ignoramus.

           Let us recollect a history of transmutation of the greatest of hypotheses into the greatest of the theories - Maxwell's electrodynamics. Models and analogies, from which, according to Maxwell, his equations assertedly followed and which assertedly proved their conformity with the reality, seemed to Maxwell's contemporaries so chimerical, that all hypothesis as a whole proved, softly speaking, only mental ill health of the author, and scientific public of those days has met his article "About physical lines of force", published in the beginning of sixties of the last century, with a polite professional silence.

          Afterwards, after tens of years many contributors have spent a lot of time for study of Maxwell's proofs, trying to understand, in what degree the equations named after their founder do follow (or do not follow) from his paper. Gradually the opinion was generated, that these efforts could remain fruitless, and the equations should be simply accepted in such a form, in which they are written, without logic proofs. On this occasion Genrih Hertz pronounced winged words: "Maxwell's theory is the system of Maxwell's equations".

           And it was apparently uneasily for Hertz to utter this phrase. The matter is that namely Hertz, aiming to prove experimentally the absurdity of Maxwell's hypothesis, has discovered electromagnetic waves and by those he promoted to transmutation of an absurd hypothesis into the recognised theory.

          Namely in this sense of word the famous Newton's phrase: "I do not fabricate hypotheses!" becomes clear.

V. V. Nalimov (From a paper in magazine "Chemistry and life" (in Russian), 1978, No. 1, pages 43 - 49)

           "The science is arranged so, that today those things become scientific that yesterday were unscientific. It is easy to be convinced that the brightest and fruitful scientific hypotheses at the moment of their occurrence call desperate resistance in scientific medium.

          Only those hypotheses become scientific, which can be put under conditions of risk at checkout.

           The growth of science is not only accumulation of knowledge, but also incessant overestimation of accumulated ideas - creation of new hypotheses refuting previous. But then the scientific progress is neither more nor less than a consequent process of destroying the before existing ignorance. Continually old ignorance is destroyed by build-up of new and stronger ignorance, to destroy which in its turn becomes more and more difficult as time goes on.

           May be the physics has reached now such state, especially the theory of fundamental particles. The yesterday's concepts appear to be insufficient either for deep understanding of new experimental material, or for prediction of new effects. At the same time these concepts are strong enough to counter their revolutionary change.

           One of physicists said some time ago that new truths in science get win not in such a way that their opponents acknowledge their mistakes, but in such a way that these opponents gradually die off and young physicists acquire new truths at once. But how can young physicists know about new hypotheses,  if they are not allowed to publication? And how many generations of physicists must die in order the following generation will not consider crazy the idea that some affirmations of the very Albert Einstein could be erroneous?   And are we sure that losses caused by such dyeing out will not become irreversible for human civilisation?