Sentences with phrase «n't know the physics»

By now, all aficionados of physics news — and quite a few people who don't know physics from phonics — have heard about the discovery of the Higgs boson.

The British company manufactured a radiation - absorbing carbon material that could hide battleships from radar detection but didn't know the physics of how it worked.

A few people here don't know their physics in regard to this thread and where the calculus must take you.

You don't know physics!

If Neutrino has not answered a solitary question, it only means that Neutrino doesn't know the physics of heat transfer.

I don't know the physics, but from living in a snowy country it seems obvious that snow or ice cools the surface temperature.

Not exact matches

Unless you majored in physics or read obscure journals, you probably didn't know that.

The answer is no, the technology does not break the laws of physics... if it broke the laws of physics, that's something you can find out pretty early with basic principles and math.

Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto have postulated that future civilizations simply don't want the nature of Higgs boson to be revealed for reasons we apparently will never know.

My physics training tells me since I don't know the measurement's uncertainty I can't trust the number.

Science is not religion, it is a method of enquiry based upon direct observation which transcends religion (the laws of physics are the same for everyone, no matter how you name God or even whether you believe).

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?

The people who wrote religious texts didn't know what micro and macro physics were.

I agree with the big bang guy... if we talk about proof... let's first figure where we all came from... we have all heard this «Well we know what happened after the big bang... but have no clue what came before» well first figure that out... and if you can't in the next 20 years then there has to be something beyond Physics...

I won't win a prize for knowing high school physics scientist / believer.

That is, if we had souls they would not likely be «supernatural» or extra-dimensional since we see absolutely NO evidence of anything like that in physics at all.

This might indicate that something has made those values suited for human life — but this is very speculative: we don't even know if the parameters could be different from what they are, all we know is that we don't know how to derive their values from more fundamental physics.

Also, I never proposed that randomness created anything (I only argued that some simple set of laws of physics are all that need be behind the designs of nature that we observe), so I don't know why you are going on about randomness in your last few sentences.

Therefore, we don't know if laws of physics, etc. would have been the same.

====== @mama k «Therefore, we don't know if laws of physics, etc. would have been the same» @Chad «no. . .

It can not be done in a lab with everything we know about chemistry and physics and yet it supposedly occurred randomly in nature without even the slightest directed intelligence.

You claim science disproves Joshua's account of God stopping the sun and moon - > I said no science can not and does not make claims about - > you said: «Newton's Laws of Motion are a CRITICAL part of physics and other science.»

These goat hearders probably could not read nor write and knew nothing of the universe, let alone biology, physics, etc..

I would agree that beliving simply because science has not «yet» explained it, is also poor judgment, but to say that you know due to physics, is also silly.

Doesn't a bright man like Steven know that there is no way that God can be explained by science or physics.

I suggest you go to people you trust and ask them if they have ever experienced things that really could not have happened by the laws of physics as we know them.

``... the future of Christian philosophy will therefore depend on the existence or absence of theologians equipped with scientific training, no doubt limited but genuine and, within its own limits, sufficient for them to follow with understanding such lofty dialogues not only in mathematics and physics but also in biology and wherever the knowledge of nature reaches the level of demonstration.»

By the way: Even the best physics people and experts on the topic of time don't know exactly what time is.

We all live only so many years... there is no way each of us can study all of the science we need... scientists (Complexity - Chaos - Systems) tell us that computers can not even predict the future given the known laws of physics, etc...

To the layman who might not know much about physics, this new data of the Big Bang may be their entry point to the subject.

Space can expand faster than the speed of light; this does not violate any known laws of physics.

We already have what could be considered faster than light travel with quantum physics sp00ky action at a distance so we already know our understanding of the physics is what is flawed, not that there is some need for a supernatural being to explain the parts of it we don't yet understand.

I don't know enough about physics to have a firm opinion about whether this provides evidence for some superior being (I doubt it), but I'm quite confident that, even if there is some superior being, it's probably nothing like the biblical god.

Gravitational Singularity is only a theory at best, and what it concerns is something of this world, that is infinite gravity and density — however, they are not really infinite but because all the known Laws of Physics breakdown at that point, they call them infinite, hence a created matter, so it can not possibly be self - existent nor «First Cause.»

Isn't it amazing thinking, physics and mechanics work, but there is no design, just random happenstance... Takes more faith to believe in evolution than that God actually created the world we know.

Evolution has more holes than cheese, when you ask questions like, how did this happen in spite of the laws of physics, the answer is I do not know.

Or does anyone know of a new law of physics which I am not aware of?

As theologian - physicist Robert Russell of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences said: «Why would physics know if there is God or not?

Physics - lite @ CN77 & Andrew Andrew's Quote «It's not all that pointless, see while you would never be convinced that your bronze age mythological beliefs about the creation of the universe are wrong, since I can rebut (with peer reviewed journal articles no less) any claim you make, in rather stunning detail, those who are not so well versed on the subject who read the dialogue could be swayed to the side of science.

I am not claiming you are elitist... but at the same time... you should know better... not every Christian is equipped to handle deep theological questioning, in the same way that not every atheist can give a dissertation on quantum physics.

He can not distinguish questions regarding the existence of the universe from questions regarding its physical origin; he does not grasp how assertions regarding the absolute must logically differ from assertions regarding contingent beings; he does not know the differences between truths of reason and empirical facts; he has no concept of ontology, in contradistinction to, say, physics or evolutionary biology; he does not understand how assertions regarding transcendental perfections differ from assertions regarding maximum magnitude; he clumsily imagines that the idea of God is susceptible to the same argument from infinite regress traditionally advanced against materialism; he does not understand what the metaphysical concept of simplicity entails; and on and on.

Atheists can prove that science exists, that the earth is more than 6000 years old, that their is NO WAY to build the size ark that Noah built and do what is claimed in the bible, again when making extraordinary claims, we need evidence and we know that snakes do not talk, that the laws of physics can not be suspended and that nearly EVERY claim in the bible is false.

i do know reincarnation exist but not until enlightenment, i believe its a physics law.law of conservation of energy.

I know this sounds mean, but it's not very different from a television news reader writing a paper in American Journal of Physics.

I am a well trained Physicist and I know about the history of the earth with evidences from [Geo] chemistry, physics, biology and the like and yet know that they all have holes and are «not proofs» of anything

Placate, I haven't spun anything for I have know doubt that there is a creator of the universe who makes if perfectly clear through his works, IE The Universe, The Solar System, The Laws of Physics, Life, and then eventually MAN.

Not only their specific results in analyzing motion and force but also their methods of investigation make them the founders of physics as we know it today.

He knew that what is essential is a combination of reason and experiment, and without one of them it is just respectively speculation or observation, and without both of them it is not physics.

In the 19th century mechanistic physics developed into a rational determinism, Darwin contradicted not only the Bible but also Aristotelian natures, which, known through abstraction, should remain always the same.

Second, most evolutionary biologists agree that you can not know evolution without a basic foundation in history, geology, biology and physics.