It presents the basics of the “Relativistic theory of gravitation”, with the inclusion of original texts, from various papers, published between 1987 and 2009, by theirs authors: S. S Gershtein, A. A. Logunov, Yu. M. Loskutov and M. A. Mestvirishvili, additionally, together with the introductions, summaries and conclusions of the author of this paper. The “Relativistic theory of gravitation” is a gauge theory, compatible with the theories of quantum physics of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, which defines gravity as (...) the fourth force existing in nature, as a static field equipped with the transmitter particles of the virtual gravitons of spins 2 and 0, within the spirit of Galilei's principle of relativity, in his generalization of Poincaré's Special Relativity that allowed the authors to universalize that the physical laws of nature are complied with regardless of the frames of reference where they apply, integrated into the Grossmann-Einstein Entwurf theory, in its further development, by those authors, therefore, this theory preserves the conservation laws of energy-impulse and angular impulse of the gravitational field jointly to the other material fields existing in nature, in the Riemann's effective spacetime, through its identity with Minkowski's pseudo Euclidean spacetime. (shrink)

Einstein structured the theoretical frame of his work on gravity under the Special Relativity and Minkowski´s spacetime using three guide principles: The strong principle of equivalence establishes that acceleration and gravity are equivalents. Mach´s principle explains the inertia of the bodies and particles as completely determined by the total mass existent in the universe. And, general covariance searches to extend the principle of relativity from inertial motion to accelerated motion. Mach´s principle was abandoned quickly, general covariance resulted mathematical property of (...) the tensors and principle of equivalence inconsistent and it can only apply to punctual gravity, no to extended gravity. Also, the basic principle of Special Relativity, i.e., the constancy of the speed of the electromagnetic wave in the vacuum was abandoned, static Minkowski´s spacetime was replaced to dynamic Lorentz´s manifold and the main conceptual fundament of the theory, i.e. spacetime is not known what is. Of other hand, gravity never was conceptually defined; neither answers what is the law of gravity in general. However, the predictions arise of Einstein equations are rigorously exacts. Thus, the conclusion is that on gravity, it has only the equations. In this work it shows that principle of equivalence applies really to punctual and extended gravity, gravity is defined as effect of change of coordinates although in the case of the extended gravity with change of geometry from Minkowski´s spacetime to Lorentz´s manifold; and the gravitational motion is the geodesic motion that well it can declare as the general law of gravity. (shrink)

We present a proposal, alternative to the curved spacetime of Einstein, which we replaced by the curved quantum vacuum, caused by its gravitational interaction with the masses of the stars, as the source of Newtonian anomalies of celestial mechanics, restoring gravity as one of the fundamental forces of nature.

Based on the Russian school of Logunov and others, with the contribution of Tom van Flandern, and his previous works on space-time, gravitational waves and speed of the gravity, the author discusses the theory of the time-space fluid that results from the supposed gravitational waves that would have detected LIGO, and reaffirms the space-time as a structural geometric property of the dynamic matter (radiation, matter and quantum vacuum), now with the strong argument that without escape, in an unnatural way, the (...) physicists and philosophers of science confer the conception of the author to that ridiculous material-space-time, while depriving Matter, of the intrinsic space-time. In addition, he warns about the conceptual contradiction existing between NASA and Caltech over gravitational waves, being absurd the concept of Caltech, operator of LIGO, since gravitational waves would propagate in five non-detectable dimensions. NASA valiant and validly recognizes that they would be waves of space; therefore, there are no space-time waves that correspond to gravitational waves that, according to the great current of relativistic physicists, would exist. Finally, the author reaffirms that the quadrupole waves detected by LIGO are waves of the quantum vacuum. (shrink)

Se presenta una técnica de bits clásicos, esto es, que solo pueden tomar un valor binario de 0 o 1, soportada en el entrelazamiento cuántico, para el teletransporte de datos superluminalmente, desde un emisor a un receptor, colocados en teoría a cualquier distancia.

A bit classical technique, supported by quantum entanglement, is presented for superluminal data teleportation, from a transmitter to a receiver, theoretically placed at any distance.

Gravity is the foundation of the current physical paradigm. Due to that gravity is strongly linked to the curvature of space-time, we research that it lacks of a valid physical concept of space-time, nevertheless that from the science philosophy, via substantivalism, it has tried respond. We found that is due to that the gnoseological process applied from the general relativity, necessarily us leads to metaphysic because ontologically space-time is a metaphysical entity. Thus, we arrive to the super substantivalism that from (...) metaphysics gives an answer on space-time rigorously exact with the vision of Einstein on physics. The result is that matter is nothing since all is space-time, i.e. geometry, therefore is a imperative of the physical science break the current paradigm. (shrink)

Presentamos lo básico de la teoría relativista de la gravitación, con la inclusión de textos originales, de varios papeles, publicados entre 1987 y 2009, por sus autores: S. S Gershtein, A. A Logunov, Yu. M Loskutov y M. A Mestvirishvili junto con las introducciones, resúmenes y conclusiones elaborados por el autor de este papel. Esta es una teoría gauge, compatible con las teorías de la física cuántica de las fuerzas electromagnética, débil y fuerte, que define la gravedad como la cuarta (...) fuerza existente en la naturaleza, como campo estático dotada de la partícula transmisora del gravitón virtual de espines 2 y 0, dentro del espíritu del principio de relatividad de Galilei, en su generalización de la relatividad especial de Poincaré que le permitió a los autores la universalización de que las leyes físicas de la naturaleza se cumplen con independencia de los marcos de referencia donde se apliquen. No obstante, integrada a la teoría Entwurf de Grossmann-Einstein, en su desarrollo ulterior, por parte de estos autores, por lo tanto, preserva las leyes de conservación de la energía-impulso y del impulso angular conjuntamente del campo gravitacional y los demás campos materiales existentes en la naturaleza, en el espaciotiempo efectivo de Riemann, mediante su identidad con el espaciotiempo pseudo Euclídeo de Minkowski. (shrink)

Based on the various documents, 1989-2002, through the original texts, in addition to the author's contributions, this paper presents the refutation of the mathematicians and physicists A. Logunov and M. Mestvirishvil of A. Einstein's "general relativity", from the relativistic theory of gravitation of these authors, who applying the fundamental principle of the science of physics of the conservation of the energy-momentum and using absolute differential calculus they rigorously perform their mathematical tests. It is conclusively shown that, from the Einstein-Grossman-Hilbert equations, (...) gravity is absurdly a metric field devoid of physical reality unlike all other fields in nature that are material fields, interrupting the chain of transformations between the different existing fields. Also, in Einstein's theory the proved "inertial mass" equal to gravitational mass has no physical meaning. Therefore, "general relativity" does not obey the correspondence principle with Newton's gravity. (shrink)

The author presents the history of gravitational waves according to Einstein, linking it to his biography and his time in order to understand it in his connection with the history of the Semites, the personality of Einstein in the handling of his conflict-generating circumstances in his relationships competition with his colleagues and in the formulation of the so-called general theory of relativity. We will fall back on the vicissitudes that Einstein experienced in the transition from his scientific work to normal (...) science as a pillar of theoretical physics. We will deal with how Einstein introduced the relativistic ether, conferring an "odor of materiality" to his geometric explanation of gravity, where undoubtedly it does not fit, but that he had to give in to the pressure that was justified by his most renowned colleagues, led by Lorentz. Einstein had to do it to stay in the queue that would lead him to the Nobel. It was thus, as developing the relativistic ether thread, in June 1916, he introduced the gravitational waves of which, in an act of personal liberation and scientific honesty, when he could, in 1938, he demonstrated how they could not exist, within the scenario of his relativity, to immediately also put an end to the relativistic ether. (shrink)

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, the structural property of static gravitational field, a geometric field, in curved coordinates, according the functions guv, that express geometric relations between material events. Course, general relativity is a relational theory, however, gravity, a thinking category, has symetric physical effects with matter. We use, analitic and critic method of reread the general relativity, since the perspective of the history of the science and the philosophy of the science. Our goal is driver the debate on (...) gravity, to the arena of the quantum physics, but without the ballast of the general relativity. We find that through of relativist aether was attempted transform spacetime in a substantia without succes, the consequence was return to problematic geometric field. The philosophy of the science intervenes, and according the best philosophical theory of substantivalism, spacetime is a inmaterial, geometric substantia. Then, the metaphysics arrives to a full solution in the super-substantivalism theory, that affirms: matter arises from geometric spacetime. Thus, it explains consistently the symetric physical effects between spacetime and matter. Surely, this solution is a medieval speculation. Our conclusion is that since general relativity do not defined physically spacetime leads necessarily to philosophical definitions of relationism and substantivalism on spacetime that are unacceptable physically. Therefore, gravity is not the curvature of spacetime. (shrink)

The General Relativity understands gravity like inertial movement of the free fall of the bodies in curved spacetime of Lorentz. The law of inertia of Newton would be particular case of the inertial movement of the bodies in the spacetime flat of Euclid. But, in the step, from general to particular, breaks the law of inertia of Galilei since recovers apparently the rectilinear uniform movement but not the repose state, unless the bodies have undergone their collapse, although, the curved spacetime (...) becomes flat and the curved geodesies becomes straight lines. For General Relativity is a natural law, within of a gravitational field, the accelerated movement of the bodies, that leads to that a geometric curvature puts out to the bodies in such geodesic movement. In this paper this error of General Relativity, like generalization of the law of inertia of Galilei, is examined and it is found that it is caused by suppression of mass and force that allows conceiving acceleration like property of spacetime. This is a mathematical and non-ontological result. Indeed, mass and force are the fundament that the gravitational acceleration is independent of the magnitude of mass of the bodies but gravity not of the mass and the gravitational force. The action of the gravity force, on inertial and gravitational masses of a body, produces mutual cancellation during its free fallen but too its weight when this cease. By means of the third law of Newton it shows that gravity is a force since weight is caused by gravity. (shrink)

While the philosophers of science discuss the General Relativity, the mathematical physicists do not question it. Therefore, there is a conflict. From the theoretical point view “the question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature of the theory 's foundations. Is this the theory that extends the relativity of motion from inertial motion to accelerated motion, as Einstein contended? Or is it just a theory that treats gravitation geometrically in the spacetime (...) setting?”. “The voices of dissent proclaim that Einstein was mistaken over the fundamental ideas of his own theory and that their basic principles are simply incompatible with this theory. Many newer texts make no mention of the principles Einstein listed as fundamental to his theory; they appear as neither axiom nor theorem. At best, they are recalled as ideas of purely historical importance in the theory's formation. The very name General Relativity is now routinely condemned as a misnomer and its use often zealously avoided in favour of, say , Einstein's theory of gravitation What has complicated an easy resolution of the debate are the alterations of Einstein's own position on the foundations of his theory”, (Norton, 1993). Of other hand from the mathematical point view the “General Relativity had been formulated as a messy set of partial differential equations in a single coordinate system. People were so pleased when they found a solution that they didn't care that it probably had no physical significance” (Hawking and Penrose, 1996). So, during a time, the declaration of quantum theorists:“I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation.” (Hawking and Penrose, 1996)seemed to solve the problem, but recently achieved with the help of the tightly and collectively synchronized clocks in orbit frontally contradicts fundamental assumptions of the theory of Relativity. These observations are in disagree from predictions of the theory of Relativity. (Hatch, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). The mathematical model was developed first by Grossmann who presented it, in 1913, as the mathematical part of the Entwurf theory, still referred to a curved Minkowski spacetime. Einstein completed the mathematical model, in 1915, formulated for Riemann ́s spacetimes. In this paper, we present as of General Relativity currently remains only the mathematical model, darkened with the results of Hatch and, course, we conclude that a Einstein ́s gravity theory does not exist. (shrink)

Spacetime and motion are interconnected concepts. A better understanding of motion leads to a better understanding of spacetime. We use the historical critical analysis of the various theoretical proposals on motion in search of clues ignored. The prediction of the general relativity that the motion occurs in the static gravitational field is not valid because the motion always occurs in a given medium as vacuum, atmosphere, water, etc. The concept of motion and the equations of the special and general relativity, (...) as the theory of Galilee-Newton reduce motion elements to particle and spacetime. In this paper, we present the medium (in special, the quantum vacuum), as the third essential element of motion, inseparable of spacetime since it is its material support of which the spacetime is its structural form, and we analyse its consequences in the theories of spacetime. Our contribution is declare, that the spacetime itself does not exist, or is a relational property of matter, but a structural property of matter. (shrink)

The General Relativity understands gravity like inertial movement of the free fall of the bodies in curved spacetime of Lorentz. The law of inertia of Newton would be particular case of the inertial movement of the bodies in the spacetime flat of Euclid. But, in the step, of the particular to the general, breaks the law of inertia of Galilei since recovers the rectilinear uniform movement but not the repose state, unless the bodies have undergone their union, although, the curved (...) spacetime becomes flat and the curved geodesies becomes straight lines. For General Relativity is a natural law, within of a gravitational field, the uniform accelerated movement of the bodies, that leads to that a geometric curvature puts out to the bodies of the repose state for animate them of the movement of free fallen. In this paper this error of General Relativity, like generalization of the law of inertia of Galilei, is examined and it is found that it is caused by suppression of mass and force that allows conceiving acceleration like property of spacetime. This is a mathematical and non-ontological result. Indeed, mass and force are the fundament that the gravitational acceleration is a constant value for all the bodies, independently of the magnitude of mass but not of the mass and the gravitational force. The action of the gravity force, on inertial and gravitational masses of a body, produces mutual cancellation during its free fallen. In addition, by means of the third law of Newton it demonstrates that gravity is a force since weight is caused by gravity force. (shrink)

Con base en los varios papeles, 1989-2002, mediante los textos originales, se presenta la crítica, de los matemático-físicos A. Logunov y M. Mestvirishvil, de la “general relatividad” de A. Einstein, paso previo para la elaboración de la teoría relativista de la gravitación de estos autores. Se demuestra concluyentemente que desde las ecuaciones de Einstein-Grossman-Hilbert la gravedad es absurdamente un campo métrico carente de realidad física.

When a theory, as the general relativity, linked to special relativity, is foundation of a scientific paradigm, through normal science and academy, scientifics, professionals, professors, students and journals of that scientific community, the paradigm, it self-sustains and reproduces. Thus, the research is obligated and limited to apply the model existent of the paradigm to formulate problems and solve them, without searching new discoveries. This self-protection of the paradigm causes it to end its cycle of life, only after a long time, (...) until that arise unresolved anomalies, some presents since origin, that they finally cause its change by other new paradigm. In this work, we study the most important anomalies that are part of the foundations of general relativity with the goal of promoting the call period of transition that is previous to scientific revolution. We use critical analysis method for rereading the general relativity, from the perspective of the history of science and philosophy of science. We find, the structural and complex anomaly of general relativity based on metaphysical spacetime that produces the metaphysics replaces physics. Also, two internal anomalies their direct consequences. These are: matter curves metaphysical spacetime, and metaphysical spacetime determines the geodesic motion of physical matter. We conclude that general relativity has no valid physical concept of spacetime, therefore of gravity. For these reasons, a new paradigm is needed. (shrink)

General Relativity defines gravity like the metric of a Lorentzian manifold. Einstein formulated spacetime as quality structural of gravity, i.e, circular definition between gravity and spacetime, also Einstein denoted "Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live" and “We denote everything but the gravitational field as matter”, therefore, spacetime is nothing and gravity in first approximation an effect of coordinates, and definitely a geometric effect. The mathematical model generates quantitative predictions coincident in high (...) grade with observations without physical meaning. Philosophy intervened: in Substantivalism, spacetime exists in itself while in Relationalism as metrical relations. But, it does not know what spacetime. The outcomes of model have supported during a century, validity of the General Relativity, interpreted arbitrarily. Einstein formulated, from quadrupoles of energy, the formation of ripples in spacetime propagating as gravitational waves abandoned, in 1938, when he said that they do not exist. LIGO announced the first detection of gravitational waves from a pair of merging black holes. They truly are waves of quantum vacuum. (shrink)

In the standard model of cosmology, λCDM, were introduced to explain the anomalies of the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters highest according estimated by General Relativity the dark matter and the accelerated expansion of the universe the dark energy. The model λCDM is based in the equations of the General Relativity that of the total mass-energy of the universe assigns 4.9% to matter (including only baryonic matter), 26.8%, to dark matter and 68.3% to dark energy adjusted according observed in (...) Planck mission, therefore, excluding bosonic matter (quantum vacuum). However, the composition of dark matter and dark energy are unknown. Due to that it lacks of a correct physical theory of gravity since General Relativity is only their powerful equations, which in their applications, their results are interpreted arbitrarily. Properties as curvature, viscous fluid, dragging frame and gravity action are attributed mistakenly to the spacetime by the materialist substantivalism, the most credible philosophical interpretation that complements the General Relativity, caused by its absence of physical definition of spacetime and static gravitational field as immaterial, but which violates, the conception of gravity as an effect of coordinates of the generalization of the inertial motion to the accelerated motion and, in particular, the description of the metric tensor of gravity as a geometric field. These properties are really of the quantum vacuum, the main existence form of the matter. In this paper we propose that the quantum vacuum is the source of dark matter and dark energy, therefore, the components of the quantum vacuum are of them. Both are opposite effects of the quantum vacuum that when gravitationally interacts with the cosmic structures, the vacuum it curves and when such interaction tends to cease by declination of the formation of these structures, occurring since near five milliard of years ago, vacuum it maintains quasi plane, since it interacts gravitationally very weakly with itself, accelerating expansion of the universe. (shrink)

The theoretical contradiction between General Relativity and Quantum Gravity about gravity was ended, since spacetime is not structural property of the gravitational fi eld like Einstein said. Exactly spacetime is the structural geometric property of the matter and energy that it gives their geometric dimensions. Thus, spacetime is not continent of the matter (Substantialism), since it is contained. Neither is the category of the relations between material bodies or between their events (Relationalism) since is not relational property; spacetime is structural (...) property. The particle-wave, of matter and eld, has intrinsically three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The spacetime is intrinsically the structural quality of particle-wave. The spacetime is the geometric dimensions of the particle-wave itself and for others. Therefore, the matter and its movements are containing itself. Now only Quantum Gravity is possible. (shrink)

El autor presenta la historia de las ondas gravitacionales según Einstein, uniéndola a su biografía y a su época con el fin de comprenderla en su conexión con la historia de los semitas, la personalidad de Einstein en el manejo de sus circunstancias generadoras de conflicto en sus relaciones de competencia con sus colegas y en la formulación de la llamada teoría general de la relatividad. Recaeremos en las vicisitudes que vivió Einstein en el tránsito de que su trabajo científico (...) pasara a la ciencia normal como un pilar de la física teórica. Trataremos como Einstein introdujo el éter relativístico confiriéndole un “olor de materialidad” a su explicación geométrica de la gravedad, donde indudablemente, no cabe, pero que él tuvo que ceder ante la presión eso sí justificada de sus más connotados colegas, liderados por Lorentz. Einstein lo tuvo que hacer para mantenerse en la cola que lo llevaría al Nobel. Fue así, como desarrollando el hilo del éter relativista, en junio de 1916, introdujo las ondas gravitacionales de las que, en un acto de liberación personal y honradez científica, cuando pudo, en 1938, demostró como no podían existir, dentro del escenario de su relatividad, para de inmediato también darle fin al éter relativista. (shrink)

The equivalence principle between the gravitational motion and the inertial motion is false because a particle or body successively in two any contiguous points while in a gravitational frame they have different kinetic energy, instead they always have equal kinetic energy in an inertial frame.

En este ensayo el autor supera la contradicción teórica existente entre la Relatividad General que define el campo gravitacional como un aspecto geométrico del espaciotiempo, bien como potencial o curvatura, y la Gravedad Cuántica que lo define como una fuerza de interacción fundamental, con el cambio de la concepción del espaciotiempo de propiedad geométrica estructural del campo gravitacional, a la concepción del espaciotiempo propiedad geométrica estructural de la materia en movimiento. El espaciotiempo no es continente de la materia (Substancialismo) sino (...) que por el contrario está contenido en la materia en cuanto constituye la estructura geométrica que le da su forma y permite sus cambios, a la cual como espacio le confiere su capacidad de contener y como tiempo su capacidad de devenir. Tampoco, el espaciotiempo es la categoría de las relaciones geométricas de los cuerpos materiales y sus eventos (Relacionismo), puesto que, no es una propiedad relacional de la materia sino la propiedad estructural espacio-temporal geométrica de la materia, a la cual la dota con sus capacidades de auto contenerse y transformarse. La teoría del autor sobre el espaciotiempo es la de la materia intrínsecamente dinámica, dotada estructuralmente de las cuatro dimensiones de espaciotiempo, autocontenida espacialmente y auto deviniendo temporalmente, puesto, que la materia en su capacidad de contener dinámicamente ésta ensimisma contenida y transformándose. La partícula-onda, de la materia y del campo, no existe en el espaciotiempo, sino que éste es la propiedad geométrica intrínseca estructural de la partícula-onda, por lo tanto, adherida a su propia naturaleza interna, como su propiedad geométrica dimensional intrínseca, que con fuerza de ley se manifiesta en sus mediciones cuantitativas, bien cuando es tomada la partícula-onda en sí o en relación con otras. Así, sólo son posibles las teorías sobre la gravedad provenientes de la Gravedad Cuántica, aunque, deben reformularse renunciando a integrarlas con la visión geométrica derivada de las ecuaciones de la llamada “General Relatividad”. (shrink)

In this essay the author overcomes the theoretical contradiction between General Relativity that defines the gravitational field as a geometric aspect of spacetime, either as potential or curvature, and Quantum Gravity that defines it as a fundamental force of interaction, with the change in the conception of spacetime of structural geometric property from the gravitational field, to the conception of spacetime structural geometric property of matter in motion. Spacetime is not a continent of matter (Substantialism) but rather is contained in (...) matter insofar as it constitutes the geometric structure that gives it its shape and allows its changes, to which as space it confers its ability to contain and as time its capacity to becoming. Nor is spacetime the category of geometric relations of material bodies and their events (Relationism), since it is not a relational property of matter but rather the geometric spacetime structural property of matter, which it endows with their abilities to self-contain and transform. The author's conception of spacetime is that dynamic energy-matter, geometrically endowed with the four dimensions of spacetime, is spatially self-contained and temporarily self-transforming. The wave-particle, of matter and of the field, does not exist in spacetime, but this is the intrinsic structural geometric property of the wave-particle, therefore, attached to its own internal nature, as its intrinsic dimensional geometric property which with the force of law is manifested in its quantitative measurements, either when the wave particle itself is taken or in relation to others. Thus, only theories on gravity from Quantum Gravity are possible, although they must be reformulated, renouncing to integrate them with the geometric vision derived from the equations of the so-called "General Relativity". (shrink)

Desde un enfoque epistemológico se busca hacer la crítica de la relatividad general en el momento en que se formula una teoría cuántica sobre la gravedad (año 1967). Como consecuencia de la restauración de la concepción física sobre la geométrica de la gravedad, en una física de partículas-ondas, se plantea, mediante un análisis formal de estructura, que el gravitón-onda gravitatoria tendrá una velocidad mayor que c.

Desde la formulación geométrica de la gravedad, según la ecuaciones de Einstein-Grosmann-Hilbert, de noviembre de 1915, como el movimiento geodésico en la variedad semirimenniana de curvatura positiva, espaciotiempo, donde por ausencias de simetrías, no es posible la conservación de la energía-impulso tomando en conjunto los procesos materiales y el del campo geométrico gravitacional, sin embargo, dadas esas simetrías en el espaciotiempo plano de Minkowski, usando el modelo de De Sitter, Einstein linealizando la gravitación, por supuesto, realmente en ausencia de gravedad, (...) en 1916, depuradas de algunos errores matemáticos en 1918, introdujó las "ondas gravitacionales" como perturbaciones en la curvatura del espacio, y en ausencia de saber físicamente qué es el espaciotiempo y filosoficamente en pleito, que previamente en 1936 y definitivamente en 1937, Einstein demostró no existían. Fue por parte de los trabajos surgidos de la dinámica del discurrir académico, desde la perspectiva no de Einstein sino de Weyl, que Bondi, Pirani, Robinson y Trautman, en la década de 1950, posterior al fallecimiento de Einstein, las "ondas gravitacionales" fueron reintroducidas y motivaron que experimentalmente se buscaran. En el 2002, a partir del experimento de VLBI de Sergei Kopeikin fue establecida su supuesta velocidad, sin que obtuviera el reconocimiento unánime de la comunidad de científicos sino diviéndolos. Y fue en febrero de 2016, que la colaboración aLIGO-aVirgo anunciaran haberlas detectado por primera vez. En este trabajo se presenta la historia que conllevo a este supuesto descubrimiento y se plantea que las ondas detectadas son realmente del vacío cuántico en el cual está inmerso todo lo existente, tésis del autor expuesta inmediatamente como respuesta a ese anunció de 2016. (shrink)

From the geometric formulation of gravity, according to the Einstein-Grosmann-Hilbert equations, of November 1915, as the geodesic movement in the semirimennian manifold of positive curvature, spacetime, where due to absence of symmetries, the conservation of energy-impulse is not possible taking together the material processes and that of the gravitational geometric field, however, given those symmetries in the flat Minkowski spacetime, using the De Sitter model, Einstein linearizing gravitation, of course, really in the absence of gravity, in 1916, purged of some (...) mathematical errors in 1918, he introduced "gravitational waves" as disturbances in the curvature of space, and in the absence of knowing physically what spacetime is and philosophically in dispute, that previously in 1936 and definitively in 1937, Einstein showed they did not exist. It was through the works arising from the dynamics of academic discourse, from the perspective not of Einstein but of Weyl, that Bondi, Pirani, Robinson and Trautman, in the 1950s, after Einstein's death, "gravitational waves" were reintroduced and led to experimental search. In 2002, from Sergei Kopeikin's VLBI experiment, its supposed speed was established, without obtaining unanimous recognition from the community of scientists but rather dividing them. And it was in February 2016 that the aLIGO-aVirgo collaboration announced that they had detected them for the first time. In this work, the history that led to this supposed discovery is presented and it is stated that the waves detected are really from the quantum vacuum in which everything that exists is immersed, the author's thesis exposed immediately in response to that 2016 announcement. (shrink)

It presents the basics of the “Relativistic theory of gravitation”, with the inclusion of original texts, from various papers, published between 1987 and 2009, by theirs authors: S. S Gershtein, A. A. Logunov, Yu. M. Loskutov and M. A. Mestvirishvili, additionally, together with the introductions, summaries and conclusions of the author of this paper. The “Relativistic theory of gravitation” is a gauge theory, compatible with the theories of quantum physics of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, which defines gravity as (...) the fourth force existing in nature, as a static field equipped with the transmitter particles of the virtual gravitons of spins 2 and 0, within the spirit of Galilei's principle of relativity, in his generalization of Poincaré's Special Relativity that allowed the authors to universalize that the physical laws of nature are complied with regardless of the frames of reference where they apply, integrated into the Grossmann-Einstein Entwurf theory, in its further development, by those authors, therefore, this theory preserves the conservation laws of energy-impulse and angular impulse of the gravitational field jointly to the other material fields existing in nature, in the Riemann's effective spacetime, through its identity with Minkowski's pseudo Euclidean spacetime. (shrink)

From the geometric formulation of gravity, according to the Einstein-Grosmann-Hilbert equations, of November 1915, as the geodesic movement in the semirimennian manifold of positive curvature, spacetime, where due to absence of symmetries, the conservation of energy-impulse is not possible taking together the material processes and that of the gravitational geometric field, however, given those symmetries in the flat Minkowski spacetime, using the De Sitter model, Einstein linearizing gravitation, of course, really in the absence of gravity, in 1916, purged of some (...) mathematical errors in 1918, he introduced "gravitational waves" as disturbances in the curvature of space, and in the absence of knowing physically what spacetime is and philosophically in dispute, that previously in 1936 and definitively in 1937, Einstein showed they did not exist. It was through the works arising from the dynamics of academic discourse, from the perspective not of Einstein but of Weyl, that Bondi, Pirani, Robinson and Trautman, in the 1950s, after Einstein's death, "gravitational waves" were reintroduced and led to experimental search. In 2002, from Sergei Kopeikin's VLBI experiment, its supposed speed was established, without obtaining unanimous recognition from the community of scientists but rather dividing them. And it was in February 2016 that the aLIGO-aVirgo collaboration announced that they had detected them for the first time. In this work, the history that led to this supposed discovery is presented and it is stated that the waves detected are really from the quantum vacuum in which everything that exists is immersed, the author's thesis exposed immediately in response to that 2016 announcement. (shrink)

On March 27, 1572 Fray Luis de Leon was imprisoned, among other reasons, because according to his informers, fray Luis, in addition to «be a friend of novelties» has argued that to understand the Sacred Scripture is not necessary the scholastic Theology. Fray Luis, who was always opposed to this view, will try to defend himself on the basis of the work De doctrina christiana of St.Augustine and putting forward that to correctly interpret Scripture is necessary the scholastic Theology, (...) but also other wisdoms such as history or language knowledge. (shrink)

I defend the hypothesis that the semantic paradoxes, the paradoxes about collections, and the sorites paradoxes, are all paradoxes of reference fixing: they show that certain conventionally adopted and otherwise functional reference-fixing principles cannot provide consistent assignments of reference to certain relevant expressions in paradoxical cases. I note that the hypothesis has interesting implications concerning the idea of a unified account of the semantic, collection and sorites paradoxes, as well as about the explanation of their “recalcitrance”. I also note that (...) it does not necessarily imply that one should not expect the sometimes hoped for “unique” solution to a paradox of these kinds. (shrink)

“Hay momentos en la vida en los que la cuestión de saber si se puede pensar distinto de como se piensa o percibir distinto de como se ve es indispensable para seguir contemplando o reflexionando” (Foucault, 2003, p. 8). Esta declaración foucaultiana es la que impulsa la voluntad genealógica que presenta este ensayo, así como su pretensión proyectiva para pensar hoy la educación. El momento filosófico crítico consiste en volver sobre las prácticas que día a día llevamos a cabo y (...) configuran nuestras vidas y nuestras instituciones. Este es necesario para realimentar y reorientar la savia de las instituciones, y especialmente la savia de nuestras instituciones académicas, suelo en el cual se teje la sustancia ética que posteriormente dará lugar a la articulación social. Si se aplica el elemento crítico que la actividad filosófica supone a la experiencia de la educación, entendiendo por ella la correlación dentro de una cultura entre campos de saber, tipos de normatividad y formas de subjetividad, podemos preguntarnos: qué es la educación y qué función desempeña hoy con respecto al ejercicio mismo del pensamiento en un contexto atravesado por las nuevas tecnologías y la IA. (shrink)

La sociedad del siglo XXI ha sufrido una mutación histórica en lo que respecta a los métodos de producción y los impactos derivados de la generación de información. Este período se caracteriza por su inmersión en el entorno digital, donde los individuos, como ciudadanos, se encuentran bajo la manipulación, por un lado, de sus datos mediante técnicas de vigilancia y, por otros, expuestos a cámaras de resonancia mediática. Este panorama plantea desafíos significativos en cuanto a la manera en que interactúan (...) con la información y cómo esta afecta sus vidas. La relación entre los medios de comunicación y los acontecimientos, además, se encuentra atravesada por el concepto de interpretación, donde la capacidad de comprender y la habilidad para reconstruir narrativas son elementos que determinan la comprensión y el sentido de lo que ocurre en nuestro mundo. (shrink)

Quien enseña sin emancipar no solo embrutece, predicaba Joseph Jacotot, sino que también adoctrina. Pasado un siglo y medio desde entonces, el filósofo y esteta francés emérito de la Universidad de París VIII y European Graduate School Jacques Rancière, en un ejercicio característico de la filosofía de la educación, publica en 1987 El maestro ignorante a partir de la experiencia de Jacotot. A lo largo de su vida y producción literaria, Rancière reflexiona concienzudamente sobre la naturaleza del proceso de enseñanza (...) y aprendizaje humano y se pregunta: ¿es posible enseñar? ¿qué decide el alumnado en su proceso de aprendizaje? ¿Cuáles son los límites de la palabra transmitida en el aprendizaje? ¿Es la determinación del saber un ejercicio del poder? ¿Son todos los seres humanos capaces de comprender lo que otros hacen y saben? ¿Qué relación hay entre el poder del maestro y el poder de la palabra? (shrink)

Explorar la posibilidad de una nueva micropolítica crítica del signo a partir de Foucault, inspirada en la genealogía nietzscheana, y examinar las políticas y estrategias de alfabetización mediática e informacional necesarias para desarrollar competencias digitales en la transformación del ecosistema mediático es una tarea fundamental del quehacer filosófico actual. La pregunta por la posibilidad de la verdad retorna en un contexto en el que el pluralismo semiótico y la conducción mediática son dos elementos que rigen y ordenan la sociedad actual, (...) sociedad que se caracteriza por la abundancia de información y la omnipresencia de los medios de comunicación como tecnologías de poder. Desgranar su significado y vínculo nos conduce directamente al estudio del poder y el signo en relación con los efectos de la verdad de la posverdad. En este marco conceptual, la obra de Foucault proporciona herramientas teóricas valiosas para afrontar esta problemática. (shrink)

It’s constitutive of classical theism that there is a necessarily existent personal god who is also the creator of the universe, where the latter claim includes at least the following three theses: (i) God is wholly distinct from the natural world; (ii) God is the originating or sustaining cause of the natural world; and (iii) God created the natural world ex nihilo, i.e., without the use of pre-existing materials. Call this tripartite component of classical theism the classical view of creation. (...) In this paper, I offer a new argument against classical theism. In particular, I argue that creation ex nihilo is prima facie impossible, and that since the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is constitutive of classical theism, classical theism is false. (shrink)

En estas páginas se reúnen tres trabajos elaborados en diferentes fechas, pero estrechamente interrelacionados bajo la intención global de aportar algunos elementos a la evaluación de las opciones metodológicas y epistemológicas en el campo de la investigación en Ciencias Sociales. Esos tres escritos nacen de la preocupación por los riesgos a que se ven expuestos los procesos de producción de conocimientos en el área social, sobre todo si consideramos que, dadas ciertas circunstancias del debate epistemológico actual, casi a diario aparecen (...) ofertas bajo la con?signa del nuevo paradigma o del paradigma emergente. Ante estas ofertas suele ocurrir que unos se muestran entusiasmados y otros incrédulos, pero muy pocos, relativamente, se dedican a evaluarlas. Así, sin evaluar las distintas opciones, la investigación social podría llegar a extremos de li?bertinaje académico, inoperancia y descrédito, incumpliendo de ese modo con el delicado compromiso que tienen los investigadores -tesistas, tuto?res y profesores- con respecto a las necesidades de la sociedad actual. En general, el supuesto inicial más importante aquí es que no pode?mos asumir ciegamente una determinada oferta metodológica y epistemo?lógica, por atractiva que parezca, si previamente no la sometemos a una crítica dura, desinteresada y honesta. Bajo esos términos, tomando en cuenta el predominio y la creciente influencia que han llegado a ejercer las propuestas del «paradigma emergente» sobre noveles investigadores sin que éstos dispongan de un cuerpo amplio de contrargumentaciones y señalamientos divergentes, los trabajos aquí presentados se orientan a deslindar aspectos que parecen significativos para una crítica severa y puntual. Esto es aun más urgente si consideramos que, apartando el caso de muchos investigadores respetables y serios que trabajan bajo la óptica del paradigma emergente, recientemente han pululado las posiciones anárqui?cas y descabelladas que también se declaran bajo esa misma óptica. Y, según parece, es aquí donde late un importante peligro para la investiga?ción social. Esperamos que de los trabajos aquí recogidos puedan también deducirse esas diferencias. (shrink)

Quadruple Helix Collaborations (QHCs) is a cooperation model in which industry, government, academia, and the public interact to innovate. This paper analyses the impact of a training intervention to provide specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes to deal with barriers commonly found in the progress of QHCs. We designed, implemented, and evaluated three training programs in Austrian, Colombian, Danish, and Spanish institutions. We analysed trainees’ (n = 66) and trainers’ (n = 9) perceptions to identify the competencies acquired with the intervention (...) and the approach’s limitations. We used online questionnaires (35 trainees; 9 trainers), semi-structured interviews (10 trainees), and a focus group (6 trainers). Trainees answered positively regarding their self-perception about the impact of the course and highlighted the acquisition of inspiration for their practice (score 4.1 out of 5.0) and knowledge (3.7). In contrast, they perceived that a deeper interaction with other participants (2.7) was challenging. After the courses, 74% of respondents indicated that they know more about how QHCs work in practice, and 86% about collaboration or engagement methods. Moreover, participants plan to be more sensitive towards setting common goals (71%) and power imbalances (63%). Trainers’ perceptions align with those expressed by participants, except that they considered that the interaction amongst participants during the course was higher. Qualitative analysis of interviews with participants and the focus group with trainers provides more detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Our study shows that the collaborative design and implementation of training impact the participant’s learning competencies, with potential implications in their medium- to long-term practice. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Berger and Nanay consider, and reject, three ways of addressing the phenomenon of unconscious perception within a naïve realist framework. Since these three approaches seem to exhaust the options open to naïve realists, and since there is said to be excellent evidence that perception of the same fundamental kind can occur, both consciously and unconsciously, this is seen to present a problem for the view. We take this opportunity to show that all three approaches considered remain (...) perfectly plausible ways of addressing unconscious perception within a naïve realist framework. So far from undermining the credibility of naïve realism, Berger and Nanay simply draw our attention to an important question to be considered by naïve realists in future work. Namely, which of the approaches considered is most likely to provide an accurate account of unconscious perception in each of its purported incarnations? (shrink)

This chapter provides an overview and critical discussion of cosmological arguments for theism, with special focus on the Kalam argument and arguments from contingency.

L. Gazziero, « “Οἰκείως τῇ λογικῇ πραγματείᾳ” (Simplicii in Aristotelis categorias commentarium, 12.11). Contraintes disciplinaires – anciennes et modernes – de l’interprétation logique des Catégories d’Aristote », dans V. Brière et J. Lemaire (éd.), Qu’est-ce qu’une catégorie ? Interprétations d’Aristote, Leuven, Peeters, 2019, p. 9-59 [ISBN 9789042936621] -/- In addition to understanding the very notion of « category » according to its different Aristotelian contexts, the first order of business of an archaeology of Aristotle’s categories is to inquire into its (...) influential evolution at the hands of Late Ancient commentators. The essay retraces the origin and development of the « logical » interpretation which held sway both in ancient and modern times. It shows first that the key to understand the debate between Benveniste and Derrida over Aristotle’s categories is to be found in the Neoplatonic exegesis of the work of the same name. It shows next the powerful dynamic that led the commentators to dismiss more than a few hints in the text itself in order to build a remarkably consistent interpretation that understood the notion of category as the simplest and most fundamental element in a building block theory of linguistic expression and argumentation. -/- Face au foisonnement qui caractérise l’instruction contemporaine du dossier des « catégories » d’Aristote, il est encore et toujours utile de suivre le fil historique inauguré par Adolf Trendelenburg, réinventé par Emile Benveniste et élevé par Jacques Derrida au rang d’impératif méthodologique. Le geste inaugural d’une archéologie de la notion de « catégorie » consiste donc à se prémunir contre le risque d’évacuer le problème historique des catégories à la faveur d’une catégorialité anachronique ou passe-partout : ce qui n’est possible qu’à condition de replacer les « catégories » dans les différents contextes aristotéliciens où elles sont utilisées et d’interroger les contraintes disciplinaires qui ont structuré le débat autour de leur nature chez les commentateurs de l’Antiquité tardive. (shrink)

The primary aim of this chapter is to evaluate whether considerations about a priori domains and abstract objects favor atheism over theism.

It has been claimed that naïve realism predicts phenomenological similarities where there are none and, thereby, mischaracterises the phenomenal character of perceptual experience. If true, this undercuts a key motivation for the view. Here, we defend naïve realism against this charge, proposing that such arguments fail (three times over). In so doing, we highlight a more general problem with critiques of naïve realism that target the purported phenomenological predictions of the view. The problem is: naïve realism, broadly construed, doesn’t make (...) phenomenological predictions of the required sort. So, as a result, opponents must resign themselves to attacking specific incarnations of naïve realism, or approach matters quite differently. (shrink)

In this paper I present an overview of the doctrine known as Positive Aesthetics regarding aesthetic judgements about nature. According to this view, all pristine nature is always beautiful and, generally, although not necessarily, human intervention tends to introduce ugliness in nature. One of the strong practical motivations behind this claim is an attempt to ground our reasons to preserve natural environments in aesthetic reasons. Positive Aesthetics has been defended within contrary approaches to nature appreciation such as the cognitivists and (...) the anti-cognitivist. Recently, the possibility of real ugliness in nature has been defended; at the same time, it is argued that the presence of ugly items in nature does not lead necessarily to the idea that they are not aesthetically valuable. Hence, natural ugliness can be a reason to preserve nature. In this sense, the denial of the Positive Aesthetics claim is shown to be compatible with the appeal to aesthetic negative qualities as a source of reasons for preserving natural environments. (shrink)

In this paper I propose a set-theoretical interpretation of the logical square of opposition, in the perspective opened by generalized quantifier theory. Generalized quantifiers allow us to account for the semantics of quantificational Noun Phrases, and of other natural language expressions, in a coherent and uniform way. I suggest that in the analysis of the meaning of Noun Phrases and Determiners the square of opposition may help representing some semantic features responsible to different logical properties of these expressions. I will (...) conclude with some consideration on scope interactions between quantifiers. (shrink)

What do we owe each other when we act together? According to normativists about collective action, necessarily something and potentially quite a bit. They contend that collective action inherently involves a special normative status amongst participants, which may, for example, involve mutual obligations to receive the concurrence of the others before leaving. We build on recent empirical work whose results lend plausibility to a normativist account by further investigating the specific package of mutual obligations associated with collective action according to (...) our everyday understanding. However, our results cast doubt on a proposed obligation to seek the permission of co-actors before exiting a collective action, and suggest instead that this obligation is a function of explicit promising. We then discuss how our results pave the path for a new normativism, a theory that neither under- nor overshoots the target given by our common conception of the interpersonal obligations present in collective action.*. (shrink)

[ES] En recientes décadas se ha observado un renovado interés por algunos de los temas clásicos de la ontología, desde áreas de conocimiento externas a la filosofía, sin embargo, este renacimiento ontológico ha «estimulado» una multiplicidad y diversidad de teorías y concepciones «ontológicas» que ha dado como consecuencia una proliferación de «ontologías» y de interminables batallas para determinar qué tipo de «entidades» estudian sus respectivos «dominios», que a su vez se consideran autónomos e independientes entre sí, inclusive de la propia (...) ontología. En este sentido, el propósito de este trabajo es caracterizar y representar de manera adecuada estas «ontologías», dentro del marco general del debate acerca de la naturaleza de la ontología. Es así que, en la primera sección haré un diagnostico de la ontología contemporánea; en la segunda proporcionaré algunas definiciones y caracterizaciones de las principales concepciones, en especial de las denominadas «ontologías aplicadas»; y en la tercera analizaré sí estas concepciones pueden ser consideradas diversos tipos de ontología o simplemente son diversos niveles de ontología. El marco de la discusión no se centrará en confrontar todas estas nociones, sino en describirlas y analizarlas para ofrecer un enfoque sobre el estado actual de la ontología y sus problemas. [EN] In recent decades there has been a renewed interest in some of the classic themes of ontology, from areas of knowledge external to philosophy; however, this ontological revival has «stimulated» a multiplicity and diversity of «ontological» theories and concepts that has resulted in a proliferation of «ontologies» and endless battles to determine what kind of «entities» study their respective «domains», which in turn are considered autonomous and independent, even of ontology itself. In this sense, the purpose of this work is to adequately characterize and represent these «ontologies», within the general framework of the debate about the nature of ontology. Thus, in the first section I will make a diagnosis of contemporary ontology; in the second I will provide some definitions and characterizations of the main concepts, especially the so-called «applied ontologies»; and in the third I will analyze whether these concepts can be considered different types of ontology or simply are different levels of ontology. The framework of the discussion will not center on confronting all these notions, but to describe and analyze them to provide a focus on the current state of ontology and its problems. (shrink)