Sentences with phrase «relativity when»

There sure weren't any practical applications of special or general relativity when he came up with them.

But, Thomas Albrecht - Schmitt, the Gregory R. Choppin Professor of Chemistry at FSU, found that these rules are somewhat overridden by Einstein's Theory of Relativity when it comes to the heavier, lesser known elements of the Periodic Table.

For example, Newtonian dynamics has to give way to relativity when the velocity becomes very large and approaches the speed of light, but there is no indication that it fails in any way for very small speeds.

To that end, let me first indicate that Whitehead is quoting from his principle of relativity when he says that «it belongs to the nature of every «being» that it is a potential for every «becoming».»

Not exact matches

Wage bargaining generally may not be very responsive to unemployment; wage bargains in a particular leading sector may reflect conditions in that sector, but then be transmitted, through concerns about relativities, into other sector s which experience quite different conditions; wage negotiator s may have unduly high expectations of future inflation in mind when striking their bargains.

@Vic: «but I can tell you that things like the Big Bang, the Multiverse, etc. are theories at best, and the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in a direct collision course when it comes to the Black Holes, and Gravity is the show stopper for a Unified Field Theory, and so on and so forth.»

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.»

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.

When the thesis of divine relativity is reset in terms of divine love, a love which seems to require sympathy, the thesis, which at first seemed counter-intuitive (for many are accustomed to thinking of God as transcendent and impassible), becomes transparently benign.

Next, let me indicate also that Whitehead makes it abundantly clear that an actual entity falls under the principle of relativity only when it is a satisfaction or superject.

(This is hardly surprising when one realizes that Whitehead's essay was written in the same year that Einstein struck the first major blow against the classical Newtonian - Euclidian world view with his paper on special relativity.)

For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady - state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended) 24 long before science made that determination.

The bottom line is, when subjectivity enters the analysis, relativity is substetuted for absolute truth.

Accordingly, when Whitehead says that the relativity principle is the basic doctrine on which his metaphysical system is founded, I take him to mean that it is the most basic principle for the elucidation of the Category of the Ultimate, or, equivalently, of the thesis of solidarity.

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).

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.

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.

too specialized for the historian of biological sciences to be concerned with certainly reflects Whitehead's continuing interest in mathematics; his fellows may well have been impressed by their colleague's work on mathematical logic and the equations of relativity theory when they agreed to this subsection in addition to «Prolegomena to Mathematics» (D.VI), one of three options open to the degree candidate.

Their findings dispel the so - called firewall paradox which shocked the physics community when it was announced in 2012 since its predictions about large black holes contradicted Einstein's crowning achievement — the theory of general relativity.

Their findings dispel the so - called firewall paradox which shocked the physics community when it was announced in 2012 since its predictions about large black holes contradicted Einstein's crowning achievement - the theory of general relativity.

Perhaps the first glimpse of cosmic relativity came when Copernicus (1473 - 1543) proposed that the sun and not the earth is the center of the universe.

Just how the Christian stream is to relate to the other streams flowing into the global sea may become clearer when, in the next chapter, we acknowledge the phenomenon of relativity.

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!

When we turn to the concept of relativity in Chapter 6 we shall find further reasons why such concepts as Jesus Christ and God have, during the twentieth century, lost their significance as absolutes.

At the time when Whitehead was writing The Concept of Nature, and also when he was thinking about the theory of Relativity, it was still possible to adhere to a Special Relativist view of the Universe.

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).

In this age of moral relativity, when relationships seem to be so easily trivialized and the impoverishment of other people is so easily neglected, it seems necessary to hear the Word of God from James, who chastises us for not living by the rules of right conduct.

There can be no being either when relativity is unlimited or when it is nonexistent.

Whitehead's «principle of process,» his «ontological principle,» and his «principle of relativity» can be regarded as a consistent continuation of Aristotle's doctrine on becoming as it looks when one suppresses the notion of a passive and static Aristotelian matter.

Others are texts that need explaining away by appeals to cultural relativity (although no principled guidelines exist about when that explanation should and should not be applied).

When one accepts the invariant order derived from our knowledge of the Principle of Relativity, one must supplement this with the Quantum Theory, allowing for chance, which Northrop says «operates within the restrictions specified by its invariant universal laws.»

This point was reinforced about 200 years after Newton when Albert Einstein's discovery of general relativity produced the modern theory of gravity — capable of explaining not only the behavior of our little local solar system but also the structure of the whole cosmos.

And when you're done with that, please explain, (since we know from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, that space - time is relative to speed / acceleration), who's moment you are talking about.

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.

When a «deeper» closed theory is found (as, in the case of gravitation, general relativity), the older theory is not simply discredited, but its predictions are upheld within certain parameter ranges specified by the newer theory, which adds correct predictions of its own outside those ranges.

How old was Einstein when he done his work on special relativity?

General relativity came on the scene before anyone knew that the universe is expanding, a time when astronomers could not be certain that those fuzzy splotches of light in the sky were actually other galaxies.

Such a theory would be crucial for explaining the first moments of the big bang, when the universe was dense, hot and small, or what happens near the singularity at the cores of black holes, where the effects of quantum physics may compete with those of general relativity.

When Einstein realized that general relativity accounted...

One hint of trouble came to light in the 1970s, when astronomers realized the outer portions of a significant number of galaxies were rotating inexplicably fast, seemingly pulled by more gravity than general relativity could explain.

When Einstein realized that general relativity accounted for the mismatch, it was the first sign his theory was right (SN: 10/17/15, p. 16).

His dedication to biology gave way to a passion for physics when he encountered special relativity, quantum mechanics, and Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein's special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant.

A little more than a year ago, Milgrom, a professor of physics at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, gained new support for his ideas when his longtime collaborator, Jacob Bekenstein, published a new, more powerful version of the theory, one fully consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity.

The problem is that when we try to calculate radiation effects as we enter a time machine, we have to come up with a theory that combines Einstein's general relativity with the quantum theory of radiation.

According to Einstein's theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, massive objects bend the fabric of space and create ripples when they accelerate — for example, when two objects orbit one another.

When he unveiled his general theory of relativity, Albert Einstein wasn't exactly met with applause.

The first confirmation that the theory of general relativity was correct came when Einstein proved it could be used it to accurately predict Mercury's orbit.

Their paths shift slightly from one orbit to the next — a phenomenon known as precession — but when astronomers use general relativity to predict the amount of this shift, their answers are off by a factor of four.