Sentences with phrase «objects seen at»

The measurement of the expansion rate requires the use of telescopes to measure the distance (or light travel time) of objects seen at different size scales (or redshifts) in the history of the universe.

Not exact matches

The video, taken from the cockpit camera, shows a glowing object traveling at high speeds while rotating and includes audio of Navy pilots struggling to process what they are seeing.

Also, as I'm wrapping up my doctorate in astrobiology, I will spend a great deal looking at objects I can't see with my physical eye while peering off light years into the galaxy in search of life.

Indeed, those who have argued that the figure of the emperor is a sustained concern of any part of the New Testament have often found themselves the object of ridicule and their interest regarded as, at best, somewhat eccentric (an example of this can be seen in R. P. Martin's remarks about Karl Bornhäuser's Jesus imperator mundi in the former's Carmen Christi).

At times, even to this day as we have seen, they understand the beautiful, the valuable, the purposeful as mere projections of our own «subjective» desires and wishes back onto the blank indifference of the material objects abstracted by science.

Now if I make a space - time diagram of a particle at rest whose boundaries are given by two lines and then suddenly accelerate it to another velocity, I see that if I push on one side of the object it immediately responds on the other side.

- «The scholarly community will need to see the full report and images of the artifacts to make a judgment in regard to the interpretation of these objects as coins,» Steven Ortiz, associate professor of archaeology and biblical backgrounds at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said.

Intercession forces supplicants to take those nearest and dearest, the beleaguered objects of their worry, and to see them at a distance and in a strange light, and to recognize that their ultimate well - being does not depend upon their own efforts to contrive their good.

On the face of it Santayana rejects all three of these departures from the tradition, since (1) he makes no very explicit move from a continuant to an event ontology, (2) regards the inherent nature of an object as a matter of the individual eternal essence which it actualizes and (3) regards the distinction between matter and form as at least a virtually inevitable way of expressing the obscure manner in which one state of things takes over from another (see RB 278 - 284).

Whereas Aristotle, as we have seen, took the first factor to be peculiar to conscious experience and the second to be the more general factor lying at the base of consciousness, Whitehead took the subject - object structure as general and fundamental and interpreted causal efficacy in terms of it.

It is at the opposite pole from seeing the client, or oneself, as an object.

On reflection we can see that the above argument for the internal relatedness of God as cognitive subject presupposes that there are alternative possibilities for God, at least with respect to what creatures, or what states of creatures, He has as objects of knowledge.

Projecting one's own beliefs to society at large, even going so far as to make up false resons that can not be backed up by fact, «women are seen as objects», as to why others should do the same, is just plain odd.

Hmmm, a quick google and every result I see for «farthest observable object speed of light» says that they're only moving at 90 % of c.

The problem is that while at times Whitehead conceives of God's ordering of the eternal objects to be eternally unchanging, at other times «the ordering is such as to specify the initial aim for each new occasion... (it) is extremely difficult to see how one unchanging order can provide a specific and novel aim to every new occasion.

«The best view is by no means the closest view... we consciously stand back and create distance in order to look at the world, i.e., at objects as parts of the world: and also to be unembarrassed by the closeness of that which we wish only to see; to have the full liberty of our scanning attention.»

By the same token, you can not see an object in two places at the same time.

But at present psychologists are tending, first, to admit that the actual unit is more probably the total mental state, the entire wave of consciousness or field of objects present to the thought at any time; and, second, to see that it is impossible to outline this wave, this field, with any definiteness.

By considering the simplest instance of the physical ingression of eternal objects as in the case of two sensa (PR 115 / 176f), we see that the physical ingression of any eternal object requires the concurrent ingression of at least two other nonidentical eternal objects so that an actual contrast obtains.

In a few thousand years of recorded history, we went from dwelling in caves and mud huts and tee - pees, not understanding the natural world around us, or the broader universe, to being able to travel through space, using reason to ferret out the hidden secrets of how the world works, from physics to chemistry to biology, we worked out the tools and rules underpinning it all, mathematics, and now we can see objects that are almost impossibly small, the very tiniest building blocks of matter, (or at least we can examine them, even if you can't «see» them because you're using something other than your eyes and photons to view them) to the very farthest objects, the planets circling other, distant stars, that are in their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERE.

John Rodman points out that logical arguments will not persuade anyone who looks at nature and sees objects and mere resources.

Hahhaa i always scream at everything especially flying objects and things so definitely gonna scream if I saw that magpie ~

We spend a lot of time looking at the objects on our desks, so we might as well like what we see.

You'll see that at about 9 months most babies understand the concept of object permanence (that an object still exists, even when they can't see it), and that by their first birthday most children can non-verbally communicate their desires.

These objects are fun to look at and manipulate, and when your toddler sees you using them, he wants to do the same.

At this point, he may be able to recognize an object after seeing only part of it — like his favorite toy peeking out from under a blanket.

Without physically evaluating her I can't be sure if this is a «preferred position» for her (i.e. if she already has underlying muscular or skeletal asymmetries) but too much time in this position will likely lead to shortened muscles on the right side of her body (your left when you're looking at her), which can then make it harder for her to use her right hand, to lift her head in Tummy Time, to turn to see objects on her right side, to turn toward sounds or touch sensations on her right side, to roll, to use both arms equally to assume the hands and knees position for crawling, to sit upright.

This is evidence of her budding understanding of object permanence (knowing that things exist even when she can't see them at the moment), which is why she loves to play peekaboo.

Elana — first — you are doing a good job second — at 9 months your bubba is learning about object permanence — if he fusses when you leave the room — he is developmentally right on track don't worry — it doesn't last — and is actually a good sign — it signals that he is well attached to you — which is highly desirable in terms of raising happy well adjusted children that are willing to explore their world He isn't to young for independent play — It just might be for a little while that it happens while he can see you As he chooses to — allow him to move himself out of your sight (somewhere safe of course) i.e around the edge of a couch, through a door way etc — playing disappearing and reappearing games like peek - a-boo and hiding things under boxes / blankets for him to «find» etc is good too as time goes on — he will learn that things re-appear when they disappear

If you don't take care of him / her in the right way even though he behaves in the wrong manner, that effect will be seen in the future, because such behavior will be continued through out the future if you do not object at the right time.

Piaget believed that developing object permanence or object constancy, the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they can not be seen, was an important element at this point of development.

Unlike a baby on its back (who sees only the ceiling and objects on either side) a baby in a wrap or other carrier will lift his / her head and view the world at eye level.

About this time, I started noticing some asymmetry in Rowan's head lifting - you see his head is cocked a little toward his right shoulder and he definitely looked at objects on his left in Tummy Time more than his right.

Some people only associate a breast as a sexual object instead of it's purpose for feeding, so they may find it weird or bothersome to see an older looking baby or toddler at the breast.

Because newborns see black - and - white objects most clearly, San Francisco - based photographer Jock McDonald waves a black - and - white sheet of cardboard at his youngest subjects to get their attention.

He can now see things that are in the distance, and thus you will find him staring off at objects that are farther across the room.

Newborns are nearsighted and can only see objects that are at most 15 inches away from them.

At six months, your baby is starting to understand the concept of object permanence, which means that things are still there even when she can't see them.

The terms 20/20 and 6/6 are derived from standardized sized objects that can be seen by a «person of normal vision» at the specified distance.

For example, if one can see the normal object that can usually be seen at 20 ft at a distance of 20 ft, then you have 20/20.

See at night to observe wildlife or other warm objects.

Anticipated but never before seen, the existence of tens of thousands of these dark objects at the galactic center could have far - reaching implications for astrophysics

You will be able to see objects at considerable distances, and you will never have to worry about fog impeding your view.

As postdoctoral students at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University in the 1960s, they set out to solve a long - standing mystery: What happens in the brain when we see objects and shapes?

Using the same adaptive optics principles that let astronomers see distant objects with such instruments as the Keck Telescope, researchers have created a new device for ophthalmologists to see the eye's retina at the individual cell level.

This supernova remnant, named RCW103, and the intriguing object at its center, can be detected with an X-ray telescope like the one on Swift but is invisible at wavelengths that human eyes can see.

Dr Simon Vaughan, Reader in Observational Astronomy at the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy, explained: «The seemingly random fluctuations we see from the black holes and white dwarfs look remarkably similar to those from the young stellar objects — it is only the tempo that changes.»

Joshua Ackerman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his colleagues ran six tests on people in the street, to see whether the objects they were touching could influence judgements and decision - making.

As people use their hands to hold objects and make gestures, a camera is unlikely to see all parts of the hand at the same time.

«In other words the human brain compensates for receiving increased information from a mobile phone conversation by not sending some visual information to the working memory, leading to a tendency to «look at» but not «see» objects by distracted drivers.