Sentences with phrase «mean by physics»

Not exact matches

Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?

I mean if the quantum physics proposed by so many Physicist are correct, string theory, who knows right.

By education, I mean one can not learn physics or engineering from a blog any more than an entire theology.

If I have had any success in communicating meaning to the reader by writing this book, are physics and chemistry capable of completely explaining this achievement?

In a recent book, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Max Tegmark, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that the idea of equivalence means that the universe is a mathematical structure rather than a reality merely describable by mathematics.

Even if we don't remember — or never learned — what Einstein meant by general or specific relativity, we need to understand that theoretical physics has drastically changed our understanding of reality.

Given the impossibility of conceiving of the emergence of higher - level physical individuals, the materialist version of physicalism interprets this principle to mean that all causal efficacy must be exerted by the level of physical entities studied by physics.

Part and parcel of this reductionism is the claim that «macrocausal relations should be viewed as in general reducible to microcausal relations» (SM 99), meaning those that are studied by physics.

He looks for guidance to the seventeenth century, specifically to Descartes, whose philosophy was meant as a handmaid of science and whose physics — developed much more fully by Newton — became the foundation of the new cosmology.

This is what I mean by «neo-classical metaphysics,» analogously to what is or may be neo-classical physics — if and when physicists find out how to unite relativity and quantum physics in a unitary theory, and how to relate the many kinds of particles and waves (or strings) and the four (or three) forces.

An example of what is meant by self - organization from physics is the formation of the myriad symmetrical shapes of snowflakes.

E. Farber, «Chemical Discoveries by Means of Analogies», Isis, vol.41, 1950, p. 20; M. B. Hesse, «Models in Physics», British 7ournal for the Philosophy of Science, vol.4, 1953, p. 198; E. H. Hutten, «The Role of Models in Physics», ibid., vol.4, 1953, p. 284.

Most of my physics colleagues take it to mean that nature is for some reason described by mathematics, at least approximately, and leave it at that.

A successful detection would give astrophysicists a better understanding of the astrophysics at the hearts of galaxy mergers, Mingarelli says, and provide a new avenue to study fundamental physics not accessible by any other means.

But the decision by the self - effacing former physics professor to retire from Congress doesn't mean he's giving up his lifelong passion for science education.

«This means if we look back to the universe when it was less than a quarter of its present age, we'd see that a pair of galaxies separated by a million light years would be drifting apart at a velocity of 68 kilometers a second as the universe expands,» says Font - Ribera, a postdoctoral fellow in Berkeley Lab's Physics Division.

In the study entitled «The effect of giant lateral collapses on magma pathways and the location of volcanism,» authored by F. Maccaferri, N. Richter and T. Walter, all working at GFZ, in section 2.1 (Physics of earthquakes and volcanoes), the propagation path of magmatic intrusions underneath a volcanic edifice has been simulated by means of a mathematical model.

But the crazy thing about empty space, weighing something --[well,] there are many crazy things — it produces a gravitational repulsion, rather than the attractions so the expansion of the universe is speeding up; but this stuff is so mysterious and inexplicable — completely inexplicable right now — that many physicists have been driven wild and mad and have changed what we might mean by fundamental physics by suggesting, for example, that the fundamental concepts in nature are not really fundamental at all, they are accidental; they are an environmental accident; that the are many universes and we just happen to live in the one that has the values it does because if you changed it a little bit then we wouldn't be living.

LIGO was originally proposed as a means of detecting these gravitational waves in the 1980s by Rainer Weiss, professor of physics, emeritus, from MIT; Kip Thorne, Caltech's Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, professor of physics, emeritus, also from Cphysics, emeritus, from MIT; Kip Thorne, Caltech's Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, professor of physics, emeritus, also from CPhysics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, professor of physics, emeritus, also from Cphysics, emeritus, also from Caltech.

«The novelty in this research is that by using nanotechnology, we've made holograms that are highly efficient, meaning that very little light is lost to create the image,» said Federico Capasso, the Robert L. Wallace Professor of Applied Physics and Vinton Hayes Senior Research Fellow in Electrical Engineering and senior author of the paper.

The answer is yes if we understand that by «realistic,» we mean methods that violate no laws of physics.

It is by no means a replacement for any of the current high profile racers, and staunch simulation fans will surely laugh at the wonky physics and weak driver AI, but for the affordable budget price you really can't go wrong by snagging a copy of Ford Racing 3.

That means abandoning his children, one of whom grows up into a physics genius (played by Jessica Chastain) who holds onto her grudge for decades.

The game is a physics based endurance run that succeeds at what it intends to do, but fails to bring anything new to the genre but isn't a bad attempt by any means.

The innovative - looking platformer, a new project by Silent Hill and Siren creator Keiichiro Toyama, will be confounding Newtonian physics on European Vitas come May 30, which means a US version can't be far off either: the game releases in the US one day before its European launch, after all.

By being right at the heart of cutting edge research, Chantal transformed from a student who struggled to find the meaning behind her science lessons, all because she was shown physics applied to real life.

Clinically competent and compassionate while simultaneously thinking logically about harmonizing quantum physics and general relativity by means of M theory.

«Regression to the mean is the most powerful law in financial physics: Periods of above - average performance are inevitably followed by below - average returns, and bad times inevitably set the stage for surprisingly good performance.»

But while Vampire Killer is by no means a bad game, most consider Castlevania as the template for the first ten years of the franchise, and its rigid physics and highly deliberate level design have yet to be matched.

Also, by default, your control scheme is set to «assisted» with regards to the physics — this means the game will try and auto right you as you jump and land.

This means that you can have intense fights while walking upside down or use the physics to your advantage by orbiting around the arena to surprise your opponents.

Clunky Physics By no means do I expect a game of this nature to have realistic driving physics but the way the car moves in this game is very clunky and everything feels heavy andPhysics By no means do I expect a game of this nature to have realistic driving physics but the way the car moves in this game is very clunky and everything feels heavy andphysics but the way the car moves in this game is very clunky and everything feels heavy and junky.

Likewise, Milestone's WRC 4 was another solid entry improving on WRC 3 with improved graphics, physics and authenticity, but its release towards the end of the current - gen console era meant it too was held back by hardware limitations.

It's a theory now substantiated by physics and observations regarding total radiative forcing and sensitivity, and in our current case of warming attributable to increased forcing agents form human / industrial means we are experiencing a change in trends pertaining to weather events driven by total change factors.

What deniers want to do is skip all that, misrepresent the models by claiming they predict steady warming (conflate multi-model ensemble means with individual model runs), and conclude the physics is wrong and CO2 causes less warming.

(mostly by faster transport of radiation, which compensates for the CO2 slowdown, since tha amount of energy is fixed by what comes in from the sun) The failure to return to equilibrium means that the Laws Of Physics ie the Stefan - Boltzmann Law (SBL) is NOT allowed to function.

By the way, my arguments assume that tokamak physics and technology works well and is reasonably simple, meaning that not many more components will have to be added to the system to allow it to operate on a steady basis for very long periods of time between the long shutdowns needed to change out radiation - damaged, radioactive materials.

The whole of the AGW scenario is created out of mangling real world physics by giving the properties of one thing to another, taking laws out of context, excising whole real world properties and processes, deceitfully changing the meanings of words and so on.

Just as the real gases of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide have been replaced by sleight of hand by the real world physics imaginary «ideal gas», without mass therefore not subject to gravity and without weight, and without volume and attraction, which means, their Greenhouse Effect atmosphere is empty space, which is why they have no sound.

The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics.

«Stopped» means there will be no more warming and if you agree that adding more CO2 will cause more warming via radiative heat transfer physics, then by adding more CO2 you can not «stop» the warming.

This whole line of discussion has no meaning until a meaningful definition of Climate is agreed to by at least 20 % of the Bloggers or maybe it should be 15 % depending on what you consider as a «consensus» Let's also consider the words of Dr.Lewis when he resigned from the American Physics Society after 67 years - simply stated AGW is a fraud!

By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average.

In your argument about phenomenology in Physics, you have neglected the central point that any such phenomena are given meaning strictly by reference to an overarching and falsifiable physical theory.

AGWSF Greenhouse Effect fisics is created by sleights of hand, by tweaking real physics, one of the techniques used in this con is to play on word meaning, as I gave example in its use of the word «absorbed», this is deliberately done to confuse further; another is juxtaposition of real physics facts next to word play sleight of hand or a meme from AGWSF.

It is my own position, except that the «strength» of the isothermal argument is so much greater than that of a temperature lapse — given that it straight up violates the second law of thermodynamics — that the default position of any real scientist should be roughly the same as it is whenever somebody proposes a perpetual motion machine, or that they can negate gravity by means of a simple electronic device they built in their basement, or have worked out the One True Theory of Everything in their spare time, in spite of the fact that they never actually took calculus or physics in college (or may not have attended college).

Einstein said that if you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor, by which he meant it was already elegant enough for the purposes of physics.

You don't need a physics Ph.D, you just need to stop burying your head firmly in the sand because you don't want to face the fact that a thermodynamically stable, DALR undriven by a thermal differential maintained by other means is bullshit magic.

As fast as you warm the top, gravity has to move the heat to the bottom to restore the lapse rate, which means that it keeps flowing through the silver to the top, where it flows back to the bottom, where it flows to the top — perpetual motion — of naked heat, absolutely predicted by high school physics.

You make this argument (which is hopefully fairly obviously not even logically valid, let alone unsupported by any actual physics), and attempt to «support» it by means of waving your hands about how gravity has to do work and the work has to turn into heat without considering what happens to all that heat when gravity stops doing work because the atmosphere achieves a static force profile such that.