Search

Due to the special working conditions in the heavy water plant, an extensive research and program has been developed for the operational safety of the installations, based on specific action methodologies and in situ experimental programs for the evaluation of the long-term behavior of materials and installations. After December 1989, the operation of the modules was stopped for about three years, for the modernization of the technological equipment and the surveillance and environmental protection systems. In September 2015, the production of heavy water was stopped and the plant staff was laid off.

From a methodological point of view, both Newton and Einstein, and later Dirac, unreservedly supported the principle of mathematical simplicity in the discovery of new physical laws of nature. They were joined by Poincaré and Weyl. Eduard Prugovecki states that quantum gravity has forced the consideration of some fundamental epistemological questions, which can be identified in philosophy with the mind-body problem and the problem of free will. These questions influenced the epistemology of quantum mechanics in the form of von Neumann's "psycho-physical parallelism" and Wigner's subsequent analysis of the thesis that the "collapse of the wave packet" takes place in the mind of the "observer".

Over time, general relativity has accumulated several anomalies and discrepancies, indicating the need for better theories of gravity or other ways of approaching it. The ad hoc assumptions introduced into general relativity to explain gravitational singularities based on energetic conditions are not very effective. More detailed assumptions about the content of matter are needed. Many scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that singularities must be associated with reaching the limits of the physical validity of general relativity, necessitating the development of a new theory, quantum gravity.

Throughout the Second World War, the Romanian secret services collected information on the location of German units in the country. The officers from the conspiratorial group for the return of arms against Germany increase the number of Romanian units present in the capital, in order to be able to face the Germans. A clandestine inter-allied mission was parachuted into Bucharest and secretly hosted by General Constantin Sănătescu. Following the success of the German offensive on the Iasi-Chisinau alignment, the conspiratorial group decided to speed up preparations. On August 20, Michael I and the group of soldiers in the conspiracy set the date of action for August 26. On the night of August 21, in secret, the opposition members agreed to this date. However, learning that Marshal Antonescu intended to return to the front on August 24, King Mihai was forced to change the date to August 23, 1944.

The interpretation of Isaac Newton's texts has caused controversy to this day. One of the most heated debates concerns the action between two bodies distant from each other (gravitational attraction), and the extent to which Newton involved God in this case. Practically, most articles deal with four types of gravitational attractions in the case of distant bodies: direct action at distance as an intrinsic property of bodies in the Epicurean sense of the term; direct action at a distance divinely mediated by God; action at a distance mediated by a material ether; or action at a distance mediated by an immaterial ether. The purpose of this article is to argue that Newton categorically rejected the types of direct action as an intrinsic property of bodies and action at a distance mediated by a material ether. Regarding the other two types of actions, direct by divine intervention and mediated by an immaterial environment, Newton repeatedly said that he did not know the exact cause of gravity, but in both cases he had directly involved God, directly in the first case. and as the primary cause (the environment/ether being the secondary cause) in immaterial mediated action. But since the recognition of direct action at a distance might have given some credence to those who thought that gravity could be essential to matter, and therefore to atheism, Newton never openly recognized the possibility of such idea. Toward the end of his life, Newton leaned more toward action at a distance mediated by an immaterial ether.

One of the disputed controversies on the priority of scientific discoveries is that of the law of universal gravitation, between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, of taking up his ideas expressed in earlier works. I'm trying to show, based on previous analysis, that both scientists were wrong: Robert Hooke because his theory was basically just ideas that would never have materialized without Isaac's mathematical support Newton; and the latter was wrong not to recognize the ideas of Hooke in the elaboration of the theory of gravity. Furthermore, after Hooke's death and his accession to the presidency of the Royal Society, Newton removed all traces of former president Robert Hooke from the institution. For this, I detail the accusations and arguments of each of the parties, and how this dispute was perceived by the contemporaries of the two scientists. I end the paper with the conclusions drawn from the content.

About the possibility of time travel based on several specialized works, notably those of Nicholas J. J. Smith (“Time Travel”), William Gray (“Troubles with Time Travel”), Ulrich Meyer (“Explaining causal loops” ), Simon Keller and Michael Nelson (“Presentists should believe in time-travel”), Frank Arntzenius and Tim Maudlin (“Time Travel and Modern Physics”), and David Lewis (“The Paradoxes of Time Travel”). The article begins with an Introduction in which I give a brief overview of time travel and continues with a History of the concept of time travel, the main physical aspects of time travel, including time travel in the past in general relativity and quantum physics, and time travel in the future, then a presentation of the Grandfather Paradox addressed in almost all specialized works, followed by a section devoted to the Philosophy of Travel in time and a section in which I analyze Causal Loops for time travel. I end my work with Conclusions, in which I maintain my personal opinions on time travel and the Bibliography on which the work is based.

General relativity spawned various early philosophical interpretations. His followers highlighted the "relativization of inertia" and the concept of simultaneity, the Kantians and neo-Kantians emphasized the approach of certain synthetic "intellectual forms" (especially the principle of general covariance), and the logical empiricists emphasized the methodological philosophical significance of the theory. Reichenbach approached the general relativity through the prism of the "relativity of geometry" thesis, attempting a "constructive axiomatization" of the theory of relativity based on "elementary factual problems" (Elementaratbestande) regarding the observable behavior of light rays, rods and clocks.

Newton supported the idea of ​​absolute time, unlike Leibniz for whom time is only a relation between events and cannot be expressed independently, consistent statement but the relativity of space-time. Eternism holds that the past and the future exist in a real sense, going as far as the idea that time is a dimension similar to spatial dimensions, that future and past events are "present" on the time axis, but this view is disputed. The most famous example of the impossibility of time travel is the grandfather paradox or the self-infanticide argument: a person who travels back in time and kills his own grandfather, thus preventing the existence of one of his parents, and therefore his own existence.

Tarkovski’s film is a drama of pain and partial recovery centered on the psychology of the Solaris station crew. Tarkovski wanted to address this way the deeply emotional and intellectual science-fantastic genre, considered by him to be superficial. The film approaches a central phenomenon of Klaus Holzkamp’s critical-psychological analysis of human perception: the perceptions of the human world are significant to human beings. In perception, human beings are oriented towards an objective sense, which objects possess it in connection with the vital activity of the people. By virtue of this quality, the localization of meanings in objects is exclusively a characteristic of the human world.

The interpretation of Isaac Newton's texts has sparked controversy to this day. One of the most heated debates relates to the action between two bodies distant from each other (the gravitational attraction), and to what extent Newton involved God in this case. Practically, most of the papers discuss four types of gravitational attractions in the case of remote bodies: direct distance action as intrinsic property of bodies in epicurean sense; direct remote action divinely mediated by God; remote action mediated by a material ether; or remote action mediated by an immaterial ether. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Newton categorically rejected the types of direct action as the intrinsic property of bodies, and remote action mediated by a material ether. Concerning the other two types of action, direct through divine intervention and mediated through an immaterial environment, Newton has repeatedly stated that he does not know the exact cause of gravity, but in both cases, he has directly involved God, directly in the first case and as the primary cause (the environment/ether being the secondary cause) in immaterial mediated action. But since recognition of direct distance action could have given some credit to those who thought gravity could be essential to matter, and hence to atheism, Newton never openly acknowledged the possibility of such an idea.

The interpretation of Isaac Newton's texts has raised many controversies to this day. One of the most heated debates is related to the action between two bodies at a distance from each other (gravitational attraction), and to what extent Newton involved God in this case. Basically, most works discuss four types of gravitational attractions in the case of bodies at a distance: direct action at a distance as an intrinsic property of bodies in the Epicurean sense; direct action at a distance divinely mediated by God; action at a distance mediated through a material ether; or action at a distance mediated through an immaterial ether.

As John Henry states, Newton simply wants to reaffirm the truth of God's omnipresence without directly involving him in the physics of the world system. Newton simply wants to distance himself from a Cartesian concept of God and convince the atheists that God is a real presence extended in the world. God must exist in space for the space to exist, but God does not only act through contact. Henry believes that Andrew Janiak and Hylarie Kochiras give us a wrong picture of a Newton who believes in opportunism. Newton, Henry asserts, has always assumed that God acted through secondary causes:

About the possibility of time traveling based on several specialized works, including those of Nicholas J. J. Smith ("Time Travel"), William Grey (”Troubles with Time Travel”), Ulrich Meyer (”Explaining causal loops”), Simon Keller and Michael Nelson (”Presentists should believe in time-travel”), Frank Arntzenius and Tim Maudlin ("Time Travel and Modern Physics"), and David Lewis (“The Paradoxes of Time Travel”). The article begins with an Introduction in which I make a short presentation of the time travel, and continues with a History of the concept of time travel, main physical aspects of time travel, including backward time travel in the past in general relativity and quantum physics, and time travel in the future, then a presentation of the Grandfather paradox that is approached in almost all specialized works, followed by a section dedicated to the Philosophy of time travel, and a section in which I analyze Causal loops for time travel. I finish my work with Conclusions, in which I sustain my personal opinions on the time travel, and the Bibliography on which the work is based.

Time travel involves moving to a time other than the present, past or future, in principle without a movement in space with reference to a local coordinate system. Time travel can be done by a material body that may or may not be a living being, and for which a special device called a time machine is usually used. Time travel is a recognized concept in philosophy and science, but whose possibility is highly contested, giving rise to numerous paradoxes in both philosophy and science. Time travel is considered by some to be supported by both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but there is unanimous consensus that it is not feasible with current technology. The issues raised are different for time travel in the past versus time travel in the future.

There is, among some scientists and philosophers, the idea that any theory that would allow the time travel would introduce causal issues. These types of temporal paradoxes can be avoided by the Novikov self-consistency principle or by a variation in the interpretation of many worlds with interacting worlds. The world in which we live has, according to David Lewis, a Parmenidean ontology: "a manifold of events in four dimensions," and the occupants of the world are the 4-dimensional aggregates of the stages - "temporal lines". The causal loops in backwards time travel involve events that appear to "come from nowhere," paradoxical "self-existent" objects or information, resulting in a bootstrap paradox. Many believe that causality loops are not impossible or unacceptable, but only inexplicable.

Classical Newtonian gravity admits a geometrical description. Together with special relativity, this allows for a heuristic description of general relativity. Inertial motion in classical mechanics is related to the geometry of space and time, basically along geodesics where universe lines are straight lines in relativistic spacetime. According to general relativity, the force of gravity is a manifestation of the local space-time geometry. General relativity is a metric theory of gravity. At its base are Einstein's equations, which describe the relationship between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing space-time and the energy-momentum contained in that space-time. Gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn alter the paths of objects.

General Relativity generated various early philosophical interpretations. His adherents have highlighted the "relativization of inertia" and the concept of simultaneity, Kantians and Neo-Kantians have underlined the approach of certain synthetic "intellectual forms" (especially the principle of general covariance, and logical empirics have emphasized the philosophical methodological significance of the theory. Reichenbach approached the GR through the "relativity of geometry" thesis, trying to build a "constructive axiomatization" of relativity based on "elementary matters of fact" (Elementartatbestande) for the observable behavior of light rays, rods and clocks. The mathematician Hermann Weyl attempted a reconstruction of Einstein's theory based on the epistemology of a "pure infinitesimal geometry", an extended geometry with additional terms that formally identified with the potential of the electromagnetic field.

Newton supported the idea of absolute time, unlike Leibniz, for which time is only a relation between events and cannot be expressed independently, a statement in concordance with the relativity of space-time. Eternalism claims that the past and the future exist in a real sense, going to the idea that time is a dimension similar to spatial dimensions, that future and past events are "present" on the axis of time, but this view is clenged. On four-dimensional vision, the universe is an existing space-time topology, containing everything that has happened, everything that happens and everything that's going to happen. It follows that there is no singular moment to be considered as insignificant as present. Time travel is possible if the four-dimensional vision including the time is correct, but it is not possible if presentism is true. William Godfrey-Smith says that "the metaphysical image underlying the discussion of time travel is that of the universe block, in which the world is conceived as extended in time as it is in space."

The most well-known example of the impossibility of traveling in time is the grandfather paradox or self-infanticide argument: a person who travels in the past and kills his own grandfather, thus preventing the existence of one of his parents and thus his own existence. A philosophical response to this paradox would be the impossibility of changing the past, like Novikov self-consistency principle (if an event exists that would cause a paradox or any "change" to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero, thus it would be impossible to create time paradoxes).

One of the most disputed controversy over the priority of scientific discoveries is that of the law of universal gravitation, between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, of taking over his ideas expressed in previous works. In this paper I try to show, on the basis of previous analysis, that both scientists were wrong: Robert Hooke because his theory was basically only ideas that would never have materialized without Isaac Newton's mathematical support; and the latter was wrong by not recognizing Hooke's ideas in drawing up the theory of gravity. Moreover, after Hooke's death and taking over the Royal Society presidency, Newton removed from the institution any trace of the former president Robert Hooke. For this, I detail the accusations and arguments of each of the parts, and how this dispute was perceived by the contemporaries of the two scientists. I finish the paper with the conclusions drawn from the contents.

The singularities reached in general relativity by solving Einstein's equations have been and still are the subject of numerous scientific debates: Do singularities exist or not? Was the Big Bang an initial singularity? If singularities exist, what is their ontology? Is general relativity a theory that has shown its limits in this case? There are singularities, and general relativity, like any other scientific theory today, is not valid within the event horizon. But this does not mean, as some scientists believe, that it should be considered obsolete. After a brief presentation of the specific aspects of the classical Newtonian theory and the special theory of relativity, and a brief presentation of the general theory of relativity, in the Ontology of General Relativity chapter I present the specific ontological aspects of general relativity. The next chapter, Singularities, is devoted to presenting singularities that result in general relativity, specific aspects of black holes, and event horizons, including the debate about the Big Bang as the original singularity, and the arguments for the existence of singularities. In Ontology of Singularities I talk about the possibilities of ontological framing of singularities in general and black holes in particular, about the hole argument put forward by Einstein, and the arguments presented by scientists that there are no singularities and therefore that the general theory of relativity is at a standstill . I conclude with the Conclusions in which I briefly state and resume the arguments that support my views presented above.

As eugenics is defined, it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between science (medicine, genetic engineering) and eugenics as a included field. And to set a line over which genetic engineering should not go further, according to moral, legal and religious norms. If we accept the help of genetics in finding ways to fight cancer, diabetes, or HIV, we also accept positive eugenics as they are defined now. And if we accept genetic screening, and interventions on the unborn baby, or abortion, we also implicitly accept negative eugenics. In addition, at government level, although eugenics are officially denied, it has been legalized in many countries until recently, and is still accepted and legalized, albeit in subtle forms, even these days. The section Introduction defines the term and classification modes. The section History of Eugenics follows eugenics from the ancient period, the introduction of eugenics by Francis Galton, the practice of eugenics as a state policy in various countries, and the present eugenics (liberal eugenics). I then analyze various issues raised by the Ethics of Liberal Eugenics, and I have developed a special section for the Future of Eugenics, focusing on the human genome project. Finally, in the Conclusions, I express my personal views on the current practice of eugenics.

One of the most contested controversies regarding the priority of scientific discoveries is the one regarding the law of universal gravitation, between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. In this essay I expand on an older work on the same theme, "Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke in the law of universal gravitation”. Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, taking over his ideas expressed in earlier works. In this paper I try to show, based on previous analyses, that both scientists were wrong: Robert Hooke because his theory was basically nothing more than ideas that would never have materialized without Isaac Newton's mathematical support; and the latter was wrong in not acknowledging any merit to Hooke in working out the theory of gravitation. Moreover, after Hooke's death and assumption of the presidency of the Royal Society, Newton removed from the institution all traces of the former president, Robert Hooke. Also, his "inferior" social status contributed to the denial of Hooke's contribution, being nicknamed by his contemporaries "the mechanic", in contrast to the noble Sir Isaac Newton. For this I detail the accusations and arguments of each of the parties, and how this dispute was perceived by the contemporaries of the two. I finish the paper with the conclusions drawn from the table of contents.