The outdated working model of Physicists
My second book proves that the current applied working model in Natural Sciences is outdated.
a—-This claim admittedly may seem to be provocative and insolent but isn’t it a fact that natural scientists and in particular physicists encounter unsurpassed and unsolved riddles?
b—-Therefore, for what reason, do I consider their working model to be outdated?
c—-But, is it really possible or logical to expect to interpret the deep causes of phenomena through measurements and descriptions when the word itself (phenomena) reveals its futility?
d—-Can the apparent also be real?
e—-Is the well known saying “appearances are deceptive” a wise or a mistaken point of view?
f—-Hasn’t this saying been used by wise thinkers?
g—-Is it logical and respectively correct for physicists to state and accept apparently irrational interpretations of phenomena, simply because their experiments have led them to these?
h—-Isn’t it obvious that all kinds of riddles they encounter in their studying objects are danger signals which need special attention?
i–.–Isn’t it obvious that natural scientists overlook these signals lightly?
j—-Does the result of an experiment mean something more than a just the verification of an empirically perceived phenomenon?
k—-Could researchers follow another method better than the current one?
l–.–Isn’t it obvious that modern physicists missed the opportunity to adapt themselves to the … metaphysical logical way of thinking of ancient Greeks and particularly that of Eleatic philosophers?