Sentences with phrase «relativity there»

However within half a dozen years of Einstein's introduction of his theory of special relativity there were at least a dozen physicists able to explain it.

But by the principle of relativity there can only be one non-derivative actuality, unbounded by its prehensions of an actual world.

I also find it unacceptable scientifically because if one is approaching it from our current understanding of Relativity, the thing that corresponds to our awareness of the universe over an interval of time is not a simultaneity slab, because in General Relativity there is no such thing.

Feyerabend maintains that in the switch from Newtonian physics to relativity there was a change in the meaning of all the basic terms.

Not exact matches

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)

The concept of plate tectonics was laughed to scorn, there was no «theory of relativity,» and we literally had no grasp of what truly lay beyond our solar system.

There is the additional weight of the atheist nut jobs like those at Wiki, who deny relativity, but science has not been in conflict with the bible since 1919.

Yet there was in him a light that compels us to seek the transcendent for its source, a light in which all our relativities are themselves relativized.

Indeed, until there is some willingness to recognize the relativity of one s own beliefs and values, dialogue can have only a very limited function.

While I still believe there is an element of relativity to the gospel because the gospel is about Jesus and everyone encounters Jesus a little differently, McKnight reminded me of just how important it is to acknowledge the fact that the writers of the New Testament had something specific in mind when they used the word «gospel.»

There is no substance or proof the sun doesn; t revolve around the earth, it's just a exercise in translational mathematics... a perspective... or call it relativity.

There can be only one as even relativity and quantum gravitational phase find themselves in conflict.

There is a good analogue from the field of modern physics which will clarify our answer about relativity of values.

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!)

Without the relativity principle, therefore, there can be no intelligible theory of causal objectification and no logically consistent thesis of solidarity.5

Bohm agreed and mentioned that his point is that there is no consistent theory of the particles in relativity theory.

There are, as far as I can tell, two areas of possible inconsistency with the idea of divine relativity.

His metaphysics was strongly influenced by Einstein's theory of relativity.3 Instead of a separate space and a separate time, there is, according to that theory, space - time.

My results regarding divine relativity are tentative, but there are already ramifications for the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence as well as for the problem of theodicy.

There is no causal or logical connection, thanks to degrees of relativity, between being objectively immortal and believing or accepting that we are so.

Read http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's perspective of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies.

It would, therefore, be premature to characterize God as the Wholly Other just for the reason that there are metaphysical problems with the theory of divine relativity.

Contrariwise, divine relativity can make sense of omnipresence, especially when seen in terms of Hartshorne's understanding of the world being the body of God: «For God there is no external environment, the divine body just is the spatial whole; moreover, this body is vividly and distinctly perceived» (OOTM 94).

Whitehead points out that the science of physics presupposes the principle of universal relativity, but that such a principle can not itself be arrived at within physics, since it is a postulation about intrinsic reality and from the limited perspective of physics «there is no intrinsic reality» (SMW 223).

Accordingly, the principle of relativity, as I construe it, not only saves the ontological principle from issuing in an extreme monism, but also explains how there can be «one world without and within.»

God knows all things, but in such fashion (it was held) that there is zero relativity or dependence in God as knower, and maximal dependence in the creatures as known.

Even if God is thought of as having slightly less than perfect knowledge, the idea of God being able to fully appreciate ignorance seems categorically impossible.6 There are further problems for the theory of divine relativity.

While many scientific theories together, like gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, etc. explain much of what we see today, there aren't many generally accepted scientific theories that both explain something equally well and contradict each other.

In particular, because of the relativity of simultaneity, there is no absolute present.

For similar reasons, which Alston grants, there must be what the title of one of my books implies, a divine relativity or dependence.

In my rather blunt way, there are myriads of universes within one cosmos and untold myriads of cosmos outside our neck of spatial relativities!

Even within physics there is not much interest in developing a coherent quantum theory or integrating relativity theory with it.

It is just here, as I think, that the broad philosophical implications of the theory of Relativity come to our aid, and would still be forced upon us as metaphysicians, even if there were not well - known specific difficulties in the details of physical science, which seem to be most readily disposed of by the theory.

There will usually be enough overlap between the assumptions of the two parties that a common core of observations - statements can be accepted by both — even, I would argue, in a change as far - reaching as that from classical physics to relativity.

Why isn't relativity in there?

On the other hand, Whitehead seems to accept (with some reluctance) the physical doctrine of relativity, according to which there could not be a solidarity of entities in a unison of becoming.

Relativity tells us that there is a mysterious elasticity about time and space, that all physical reality is in a state of flux, and that the cosmos was not made for any obvious purpose.

«Only in Self - Relative Act can there be Self - Reflexive Terms which are Necessary and Subsistent Relativities, which are best named as «Persons» in human language, and which again are much better reflected than in the language of technical theology by the titles of «the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.»

However, in a section appended to his lecture on «Relativity,» Whitehead changed his mind.7 On this atomic theory of events, there was a lowest threshold for actual events, below which it can not be subdivided into smaller actual events.

Modern relativity physics holds that there may be a definite cosmic past and a definite cosmic future but not a definite present.

From General Relativity, «Gravity is mass bending Time»; there has been no question about where gravity comes from in science for almost a century.

Chastened by our new awareness of the historicity, relativity, and linguistic constraints that shape all modes of human experience and consciousness, we may nonetheless attempt here to demonstrate that there already exists, even in the consciousness of skeptics and critics of revelation, a natural and ineradicable experience of the fact that reality at its core has the character of consistency and «fidelity» that emerges explicitly in the self - revelation of a promising God.

Some thirty years ago Charles Hartshorne raised two questions concerning the Whiteheadian understanding of the temporal structure of God.1 He asked first if, in spite of relativity physics, there must not be a cosmic present, a divine immediacy in which the de facto totality of simultaneous actual entities exist.

There is law of birth, growth, and decline, the whole order of nature from the ultimate particles to the body of man is a relativity built upon finality and purposiveness.

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.

Whitehead appeals to the principle of universal relativity to argue that there are physical prehensions of the world by God and of God by the world.

Thus, in a series of works published in 1919 and the early 1920s, in opposition to relativity theory, Whitehead argued not only that the geometry of the world was uniform, but that «the properties of time and space express the basis of the uniformity in nature which is essential for our knowledge of nature as a coherent system» (R 8, 29).1 Furthermore, he held that this uniformity was actually discerned there (H 14).

But space is so basic in our experience that there is something rather fishy about a development that has to introduce Special Relativity to get it.

Even within eternal being itself there is a principle of relativity, which is its power of existing and of being known, so that motion and life and soul and mind can be present with it.

There are important modifications in Whitehead's theory in his later, more metaphysical, writings; but these modifications only serve to emphasize that the development of such a theory remains a major task in his attempts at philosophical analysis (see especially chapters IV and VII in SMW and part IV in PR).1 In general, Whitehead constructs a theory that is reactionary in its analysis when compared with the theories of space - time structure in the special theory of relativity (STR) and in the general theory of relativity (GTR), 2 and that is in opposition to the theory of absolute space and absolute time in the Newtonian cosmology (see PNK 1 - 8; and PB part II, chapters II, III, and IV).