Sentences with phrase «of relativity does»

Einstein's special theory of relativity does not say that nothing can go faster than light.

That is, the theory of relativity does not have a theory of matter.

Similarly, people often compare Cubism and abstract art to Einstein's spacetime, but his general theory of relativity did not appear until the middle of World War II — and artists could not possibly have understood it.

Not exact matches

The reason some scientists want to prove time really does not exist is that if times does not exist then they can unify the «subatomic atomic world of quantum mechanics with the vast cosmic one of general relativity.»

The theory of Evolution is more of a fact but since there is still some that we don't know, it is still a theory but the most supported theory (that and the theory of relativity)

Some new additions to the theory of evolution could (like it has done before) very well make it better, or perhaps a new theory could turn up that explains things even better like it happened to Newtons theories on gravity with Einsteins theories of relativity, but rocketengineers often still use Newtons laws because they are good enough for many, many apllications.

Did you just group the creator of Facebook with the creator of Relativity or the Atomic model?

Scientists don't consider the theory of relativity, theory of evolution, quantum theory, etc., truth.

What the relativity of values does show is that no one system of preferences can win assent for all people and under all circumstances.

The neutrino test you are referring to was a huge deal, which is why most of the scientific community was skeptical and didn't immediately rewrite Einsteins theory of relativity.

We know a great deal today about how our thinking is conditioned by culture, gender, and class interest, and is thoroughly perspectival in character, and we become rightly suspicious of every claim to truth that does not acknowledge its own conditionedness and relativity.

The infusion of historical relativity into the orders can also break their linkage to an ethical conservatism that finds it necessary to stand against every revolutionary development, thus denying the freedom of God to do any new thing in the world.

I personally think it's just presumptuous of us to think that some fairy tale about a God and his prophet explains EVERYTHING... look up chaos theory, quantum theory, relativity,... there are SO many FUNDAMENTAL things we DO N'T know (any physicist worth anything will agree with you!)

Although Hartshorne has not articulated the inconsistencies of the idea of divine relativity as openly as we did earlier, it seems that he is willing to take recourse in something like a spectator God who remains in «mere happiness» (not fearing) just as much as Plato denied existence to forms of negative elements of the world such as mud.

But actual entities do fall under the principle of relativity; therefore, the view in question must be false.

More specifically, how do we reconceptualize the three concerns of traditional theology which seemed to call for divine relativity if, in fact, the thesis that God feels the world is not acceptable?

Of course, people have generally concentrated upon the attempt to describe things in detail, but that is just the point at which it doesn't work very well — when you try to understand the quantum mechanics and relativity together.

(3) Kraus also insists that only a «tota simul» in God is compatible with faith, arguing much as she did above that the Hartshornean alternative is by the principle of relativity irreconcilable with faith as well as freedom — with free faith, that is.

For further definition of «the problem of radical particularity,» the position from which Hartshorne is criticized later in this article, and for more detailed discussion of Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity, please see my «Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike,» International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pain?

Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity allows God to know in exactitude the experience of the individual whereas a denial of divine relativity does not.

On the other hand, finding a unitary principle for the manifold of discreet entities, which includes human experience, is made problematic by a denial of divine relativity because the relative nature of God did at least that unify the world into an ordered and organic whole.

But it is necessary in relativity to explain the essence of matter, and this has never been done.

Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes... The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible.

You don't sound like a Scientist, Scientists do not use words like «prove» or «fact» even when discussing Newton's Law of Gravity or Einstein's Law of Relativity.

In dealing with God, we are like ants who demand Albert Einstein explain to us the theory of relativity, then when we can't understand the answer, we choose to believe Einstein doesn't exist.

And like Evolution, the Theory of Mechanics has been supplanted by more complex and more accurate theories (in the case of Mechanics, both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have arisen to deal with its flaws; in the case of Evolution, the technical theories - such as gene borrowing and virus - guided genetic drift - do not have catchy names).

You've probably heard of the attempts at unifying quantum physics and relativity and finding a single theory that can explain everything, did you?

Gravity from space (Einstein's relativity) operates on mass through space and matter interaction is a natural process like centrifugal force which made its appearance when a body is morning in circle Jean mass is the amount of matter that must be present before gravity becomes effective or felt, once this minimum amount of matter is reached or exceeded, gravity with mass interact with space - time to bring geodesics and gravity begin to control other bodies and then orbit around each other, another aspect of the twin effect of gravity and mass is the necessity to account for energy required to sustain gravitating mass and where does this energy originating from Einstein's field equation says from space but never refer to the origin of gravitation.

Indeed, to the best of my knowledge Hartshorne does not explicitly link his position on creation with his position on relativity, contingency, and potentiality, as he does link the latter with his position on temporality.13 On the other hand, he does present other arguments against the traditional position, none of which seem tome to have any substance.

This question, of the relativity of different types of religion to different types of need, arises naturally at this point, and will become a serious problem ere we have done.

This probably has to do with our broad use of QM and the fact that Maxwell's Equations are the basis of Relativity.

Placher cites Frei's Barthian - like emphasis on the factual historicity that the gospel narrative contains, and, with Lindbeck, Placher argues that the relativity of our understanding does not negate or preclude the reality of that which we seek to understand.

To return once more to our historical example: in the history of the theory of relativity, the Michelson - Morley experiment did not play the determinative part most textbooks assign to it.

Unlike some feminists, I do not rest my conclusions on any supposed contradictions within the writings of Paul, or between Paul and Jesus, on any alleged «rabbinic interpretations,» or on the cultural relativity of any text.

Later Einstein on other grounds developed the theory of relativity; only then did the Michelson - Morley experiment, performed twenty - five years earlier, appear as important evidence against all ether theories.

I am a disciple of Alfred North Whitehead, who did develop a metaphysics able to deal with the complexities of relativity and quantum theory as well as with religious experience.

Einstein's Special Relativity speaks of «the creation and annihilation of matter», but I do not know what the elaboration of this amounts to.

Special relativity showed, however, that space - time has a more subtle four - dimensional structure, in which it does not make sense to speak of the past, the present, or the future of the universe as a whole.

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.

But I would remind you that Durrell came to write the fantastically structured Alexandria Quartet, in which, even though the selves in it do not escape from the relativity of their own selfhood, nonetheless memory, and thus the past, plays a central and creative role.

In a senior class in atomic theory they may enter seldom, though even in this field relativity and quantum mechanics did involve precisely such examination of basic assumptions.

As Holloway puts it, «It involves also «I», «myself and again «myself in a threefold and different relativity, and in doing this it realises «me» as me, itdoes not disintegrate but manifests the unity of my person.»

What seems important is the distinction of the Church from the realm and rule of God; the recognition of the primacy and independence of the divine reality which can and does act without, beyond and often despite the Church; and the acceptance of the relativity yet indispensability of the Church in human relations to that reality.

John's premise is true in that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, The Big Bang Theory, The Particle Physics Standard Model, Quantum Physics / Mechanics, etc., let alone Darwin's Theory of Evolution, DO NOT PASS the «Modern Scientific Method» when tried!

Do not also the atheists have faith in much of sciences theories that many atheists can less understand yet do remain faithfilled by thoughtless amalgams in obscured relativitieDo not also the atheists have faith in much of sciences theories that many atheists can less understand yet do remain faithfilled by thoughtless amalgams in obscured relativitiedo remain faithfilled by thoughtless amalgams in obscured relativities?

Acceptance of this relativity, however, does not mean that theology is forced to accept relativism, the view that nothing is absolute.

But again, why did the majority of thinkers prefer Einstein to Whitehead on the subject of relativity?

Oddly enough, in The Principle of Relativity, where one expects a rigorous treatment of such topics, one does not find Whitehead's own definition of simultaneity or even an argument against Einstein's.

This, however, does not constitute an essential insight into reality but an existential one, that is the radical relativity of God, World and Man.

You don't believe in the theory of relativity: either you understand it or you don't understand it; there is no question of belief.