I think the right idea is fulfilling one's potentialities by meeting others' needs.

All of that + having fun + working with great people + learning + teaching + competing with peers and more.

Being curious about how nature works (packing observations into mathematical models) is probably #1.

Another reason for studying "nature" is to see what the effects thereon are of over-population of the world with humans. And then to give consideration to what remedial action might be attempted in whatever respects, to try and ameliorate the ongoing destruction (directly and indirectly) by mankind of what is on the surface of the planet. In the process of harming/upsetting "nature" (living organisms; inanimate things; climate), humanity could perhaps ultimately destroy itself, either sooner (facilitated by nuclear warfare) or later. If humans can save nature, etc., so to speak, and control their population growth, then they might in the long run save themselves.

Dear Elena,

Since most of the nowadays theoretical science (Gravity, Astrophysics, Cosmology) is only done by indirect instead of direct observation, and since mostly, a selection of outcomes and reasoning have been made, we come in the situation that these theories have got the status of "stories" that are fed by other selection of indirect observation.

That means that another selection of indirect observations and other reasoning could lead to different or even opposite findings, that would compete against the establishment current.

However, the establishment current is a monopoly that is maintained by universities and Journals.

The choice of Doppler effect as cosmological redshift is a selection, that is leading to the belief of the Big Bang and that is strongly supported by the Catholic Church. Zwicky dismissed in 1936 (or so) the alternative of light fatigue by the Compton effect. However, now it seems that the SZ-effect (inverse Compton effect) is accepted without discussion, and is allegedly feeding the Big Bang story. Hence, the light fatigue is not unrealistic.

The planet formation theory out of a nebula needs many weird suppositions of flattening, the sudden miraculous migrations and the selective ejection of matter out of the rings.

Gravity is supposingly compliant with GRT, but to calculate binary black holes, another theory is used, allegedly a linearized form, which however doesn't explain Mercury's perihelion advance, neither the bending of light.

The shape of SN1987A cannot be explained, "dark matter" is allegedly existing, "dark energy" is allegedly existing, but simple calculus like the virial theorem is wrongly applied, and the Kepler Law is applied in disc galaxies whereas it is only valid for a very small mass orbiting about a very big mass, and so on.

The conclusion is that one needs to start again from scratch for these domains of science, in order to find new ways of understanding Nature.

Dear Thierry,

Your conclusion: “The conclusion is that one needs to start again from scratch for these domains of science, in order to find new ways of understanding Nature.”

My answer: We started 10+ years ago (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235351966_Generalized_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_the_living-matter_simplest_elements_transformation_of_the_Archean_atmosphere_and_the_formation_of_methane_-_Hydrate_deposits ) “to find new ways of understanding Nature” after several-decade by no means unsuccessful work in different fields of physics and physical chemistry. In 2011, we set ourselves a task to develop on OK Theory “of the Universe development for the period from the explosion of the presolar star to origination of cellular living matter (OK is the abbreviation of the family names of the authors)” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342937_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis ) and extended it later, bearing in mind the period from Beginning and including the Sun and Solar System formation and transformation, our days, and the further events in the Sun/Earth system. Moving ahead, perfecting the theory, and correcting our own errors, we formulated the Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory), Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Theory (MRH-Theory), Theory of appearance of monochirality of chemical substances and delay of racemization, PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation from the Beginning, and prediction of the future development of the Sun/Earth system. As you can see, we work in the context of the conclusion in your issue.

All above-listed works in their updating are available at the RG site by the address: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elena_Kadyshevich/contributions and in numerous discussions with my and Victor Ostrovskii’s participation at the RG site.

Dear Kirk,

I think that you expressed a splendid requirement to scientific works. Like you, I think that scientific works should be aimed at satisfying people’s needs and improving their living conditions. But I think that scientific works should be also aimed at warning people against forthcoming harmful freaks of nature to make possible beforehand arrangements allowing for defending the population as efficiently as possible.