I read some texts and theories of Einstein in a variety of fields, and as I understand applicable and admirable. I don't understand why people at that time required universality, and impossible interpretations. It is not scientific.

The two views are incomparable because they do not talk about the same thing:

(A)

The atoms Leucippus (teacher of Democritus) thought of, were never found. The modern day "atoms" are named as such because people thought they found the "indivisible" constituents of the ancient philosophers. Then, we discovered protons, neutrons and other subatomic particles. Afterwards, quarks... and nowadays we're moving to "weirder" directions. This means that the notion of "atom" may be considered as the smallest unity of matter. But who can tell if we found it... or that is discoverable... or that it exists...? The meaning we take from the phrase

"The first principles of the universe are atoms and empty space"

...is that is an opinion! Interesting, inspiring but nevertheless useful when people didn't have empirical science! It shows a universe that dislikes absolutes (although the write is kind of strong "everything else is mere opinion"), deities, constants, a universe like the one we observe today. But aside from the philosophical/historical value, it has no scientific value.

(B)

Einstein uses a field theory to describe nature which is different than the classical view of having particles moving around. But... does this mean that one of them is right or wrong? What if they're both right, two sides of the same coin? Why do we need to choose side aside from the fact that it's more elegant, tidy and consistent to have one theory instead of two or five? In Physics we use outdated theories to describe systems when the modern theory does not make any difference but only complicates computations. We also use theories that do not agree with each other when our model/experiment does not approach the contradicting regions.

Concluding...

Science is the constant effort to make more elegant mistakes. No absolute truth to be discovered, no ending game, no right or wrong (in the sense that people usually mean it). We only care about what works and succeeds in describing the physical world in a satisfactory level. No matter how romantic the atomism is, no matter how impressive Einstein's work is, ... we do not have to choose.

Thank you for the summary. I feel, having read your text and other recent modeling, that the particle format will be used and useful also in future science, since vortices in fields behaves that way although not always isotropic, and the perfect sphere appears as bubbles, and distorted as dense shapes and cavities. It is easily extrapolated to higher dimensions, which may be the truth for some believers, but when describing magnetic fields , it gets more complicated.

Dear Lena and Konstantinos,

It is not a spurious question as you might think. It is a question of the philosophy of science and not a pure scientific question as such. Democritus and Einstein are separated by many centuries. Natural science as we know it is only few hundred years old and it always expands; so a direct comparison from this perspective is meaningless.

What is meant here is the relative strength of the conceptual and perceptual merit of their ideas or theories and also prescribes the criteria for making this judgement in the following way: “ What the historical, social and scientific practices (as the criteria of knowledge) of the last few centuries tell us about who is right?”. Of course I have my own opinion on this subject and that influences my work and my view on natural science. This question is meant to challenge the generally perceived notion of “science” (particularly physics) both by the physicists and the general public.

There are two streams of philosophy of science (natural philosophy) and both of these originated with the early Greeks. One stream (dialectical materialism and classical materialism including Newtonian physics)) represented by Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus and others among the important names like Spinoza, Hegel, Marx; flows still today and to which I subscribe. The other stream (mathematical idealism) represented by Pythagoras, Permenides, Plato and other innumerable official philosophers and theologists of various epochs including the modern Vatican, form the essential basis of Einsteinian (New) Physics. On the basis of the above criteria of knowledge, I assert that field-based Einsteinian physics provides no positive knowledge of the world but only mathematics driven myths and phantasm. I know that it would be outrageous to many; but I am trying to justify my stance through my various works and publications (books, journal articles) and public media like RG. Please see my comments in various RG forums, specially the following few:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible#view=5c2949a9a4714b0c505a2fbb

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories

An atom in the conception of the Leucippus and Democritus is the smallest unit of elemental matter (that still retains the property of the bulk matter); forms the essential basis for modern science (especially physics, chemistry and biology). With the present knowledge of the structure of atoms, the whole wealth of knowledge is summarized in the Periodic Table; which was in fact formulated even without the knowledge of atomic structure. The knowledge about the structure of atoms was built up through centuries and was impossible for Leucippus and Democritus to know; but it was their essential concept of the atom that led natural science to the present stage and naturally also ushered in the revolutionary quantum phenomena. Social/historical practice, technology, industry etc., that followed from that concept prove its validity in everyday modern social life.

Einsteinian physics is here with us for more than hundred years; but provided not a single social/historical practice, technology etc. The virtual edifice of “field”-based new physics, which Einstein himself called the “Castle in the Air” is only metaphysics that has dragged back physics to the level of decadent medieval scholasticism. We have apologist official physicists like Carroll (in the YouTube video) to justify Einsteinian (abstract) "field"- physics (as opposed to Democritus' material atoms) through abstract mathematical cobweb-spinning and contrived and fraudulent experimental “proofs”. The physics based on Democritus’ concept never needed centuries long (or any ) “proofs” at all! Even now his physics is “proved” through our everyday life experience!