Delusions of modern science
Unfortunately modern exact sciences such as physics and chemistry have a great and insurmountable shortcoming. These sciences are based on discrete views. I mean to say, they are composed from huge amount of small different theories, which explain separate phenomena. So it is practically impossible to notice correlation between different theories from different spheres of natural science.
Sometimes it is hard to find out interconnection between theories that describe the same physical phenomenon. Here is another example. Usual light is considered in geometric, wave and quantum optics. One phenomenon is considered from three different positions, which sometimes are incompatible.
Some of theories draw conclusions, which are at variance with results of experiments from other sciences. But scientists usually pay no heed to these discrepancies. The most obvious example is phenomena of pass of light. Theory of relativity asserts that the higher is speed of particle, the larger is its mass. But photons are the single particles, which move with the speed of light, and mass of the photon is vanishing. How can we connect one with another?
I suppose that algorithm of “scientific cognition” occurring everywhere is absolutely unfounded. It is my second reproof. If difficulties with explanation of some processes occur, we usually affirm that classical physics can’t explain these phenomena. In that case we introduce new conception into practice and base all subsequent reasonings on it.
It was so in case of implementation of conceptions of weak and strong interactions, explaining of emission and absorption spectrums, explaining of character of chemical bond and etc.
Let’s invent nuclear forces (or strong interactions, if think wider), if we can’t explain why protons in nucleus don’t push off from each other. Let’s invent elusive particle without charge and mass if we can’t explain disappearance of energy during the β-decay. But nobody tries to explain the way of taking energy away and nobody knows why amount of this energy is different every time.
So scientists don’t pay attention to the arising logical discords. Some of really existent particles consist of pair “quark-antiquark” according to the theory of quantum chromodynamics. But nobody apparently think about the annihilation in this case. There are many such examples in modern conceptions of natural sciences. We will discuss the most discrepant of them lately.
CONTINUITY encloses such conceptions as INFINITY and BOUNDLESSNESS, which enclose continuity and make it more exact. For example, boundlessness implies the absence of sharp boundaries.
What is the result of persistent compliance with the principal of continuity? Scientific coup truly results from this principle.
So, look further.
Search on pages of a site