Sentences with phrase «see relativity»

I see the relativity of the word «unleashed», but it was an «in'thing to add to a title at the time.

(For a more detailed treatment of general relativity, see relativity: General relativity.)

«It's an enormous achievement that you can build optical clocks so good that you can now see relativity in the lab,» he says.

Not exact matches

germs have been seen, gravity has been proven, relativity has been proven by math, evolution has been disproven by God.

See especially The Divine Relativity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948, 1964).

In conclusion, even though Hartshorne himself questions divine relativity in the case of inferior emotions and ignorance, we have seen that, for any particular experience, the assertion that the relative nature of God knows that experience by feeling it in exactitude is unwarranted.

I must confess that I have never seen such an abuse of the principle of relativity!

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?

As seen through the lens of divine relativity, the type of knowing postulated of divinity is infinitely stronger than the kind of knowing possible for human beings.

Indeed, if we look at quantum mechanics and relativity together, we see that they are very different in one sense, for relativity ultimately implies complete, perfect describability in all the details of the universe, while quantum mechanics implies through the uncertainty principle that complete, perfect describability can not be achieved.

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).

He seems to me to argue that (1) human love involves relativity to its object and (2) all organisms are relative to other individuals and (3) therefore, all organisms can be said to love (see, e.g., CSPM 53 - 56).

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.

This was seen with gravity after Einstein showed his Theory of Relativity.

For example one may think of Hartshorne's well - known doctrine from The Divine Relativity that we can know and love ourselves only because God knows and loves us (see 16 - 17).

See, for example, Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948), 77; Brightman, The Problem of God (New York; Abingdon Press, 1930), 113; also, perhaps the clearest explanation of Brightman s notion of passivity is in Personality and Religion (New York; Abingdon Press, 1934), 82ff.

However, process thought seems to allow no place for such privileged objectification because if an occasion is objectified for one, it is objectified for all (see the Principle of Relativity, PR 22/33).

The general implications of which I am thinking are, so far as I can see, independent of the divergences between the versions of «Relativity» advocated by individual physicists; their value as I think, is that they enable us to formulate the problem to which Bergson has the eminent merit of making the first approach in a clear and definite way, and to escape what I should call the impossible dualism to which Bergson's own proposed solution commits him.

A revolution from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics, for instance, or from Newtonian physics to relativity, is «a transformation of the scientific imagination» in which old data are seen in entirely new ways.

See Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity with Applications to Physical Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University» Press, 1922), 16.

If that revelation can be assigned no independent authority for us, then we must see this aspect of our knowledge of God in all its conditioned relativity.

For another process analysis of the problem of relativism, see Clark M. Williamson, «God and the Relativities of History,» Encounter, XXVIII, 3 (Summer 1967), 199 - 218.

Whitehead saw a new implication in the principle of universal relativity -LRB-»... it belongs to the nature of a «being» that it is a potential for every «becoming.»

Stage 5 also sees, however, that the relativity of religious traditions that matters is not their relativity to each other, but their relativity — their relate - ivity — to the reality to which they mediate relation.

The difference between process historical thinkers and most other empiricists may be analogous to the difference between Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein: while both are empiricists, Bohr sees physical change as a function of unrepeatable quantum events, while Einstein sees change as a function of enduring relativity principles.

It is easy to see that (a) and (b) reflect a conceptualism which only differs from that of Einsteinian special relativity with regard to the Whiteheadian theory of atomic events.

Physics is sufficiently advanced today to define many substances very perfectly, in their very essence, in terms of those causes which constitute them, and in this we see that the active relationship by which, let us say, oxygen and hydrogen are defined as causes of water in a given relativity, is an active potency in those causes of dynamic finality with respect to the composite substance which is water.

2 For a more detailed statement of this point see my «Whitehead and Relativity,» Philosophy of Science, 1955, 222 - 46; also, «In Defense of Duhem,» Phi1o ~ ophy of Science, 1965, 287 - 94.

For a recent mainstream discussion of levels and the possibility of reduction, see John Cowperthwaite Graves, The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971).

See Charles Hartshorne, «God as Absolute, Yet Related to All,» chapter 2 of The Divine Relativity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948).

Whitehead saw a new implication in the principle of universal relativity.

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).

John B. Cobb, for example, quotes that passage after deriving from the principle of universal relativity the position that the world objectifies the consequent nature (see the quote above from Cobb 164).

We begin to see that if history has a meaning there must be a transcendant ethical principle which stands above the relativities and wreckage of history.

For he had seen that no existing form, no empirical reality, no manifestation of personality or society is unambiguous in time, and that we, to be authentic, have to admit doubt and relativity into our consciousness — and then marshal the courage to be on the other side of doubt about being and worth.

We see that if we only emphasize relativity we can end up in a relativism that undercuts itself and the value of critical thinking in general.

As one can see from the previous chapters, the process theologian does not share this anxiety about relativity.

I, however, know every bit of this - and how string theory harmonizes general relativity with quantum mechanics - but am still a Christian We'll see.

For a vigorous defense of the claim that a process model of divine power includes both coercive and persuasive elements, see J. Gerald Janzen, «Modes of Power and the Divine Relativity,» Encounter,» 36/4 (Autumn 1975), 379 - 406.

Though I have never been able to see why special relativity is considered incompatible with cosmic simultaneity, it's reassuring to see others agree whose mathematical skills surpass mine.

s) It is the philosophical glory of Buddhism that it saw through the relativity of substantial identity long, long ago.

The scientific discovery of the cosmology of general relativity is seen by Jaki as key in defending the Christian belief in God the Creator.

Sociologists also deal with such topics as the components of culture, i.e., beliefs, values, language, and norms; cultural dynamics; cultural integration; cultural change; ideal culture, what people profess to follow, and real culture, how people actually behave in relation to these claims; ethnocentrism, the proclivity to see one's culture as the best and consequently all others as inferior; and cultural relativity.

I'm reasonably sure that Albert Einstein would not have come up with his Theory of Relativity if he had grown up watching «Must - See TV.»»

It was not until the detection of quasars, which allow astronomers to see the light emitted by matter falling into black holes, that we had evidence that they were real objects and not just mathematical curiosities predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

In preparation for this search, physicists honed their general relativity skills on simulations of the spacetime storm kicked up by black holes, predicting what LIGO might see and building up the computational machinery to solve the equations of general relativity.

This article appears in the October 17, 2015, Science News with the headline, «Magnifying the cosmos: Using general relativity to see deep into space.»

His theories of relativity gave time a physical identity as part of space - time, a malleable fabric on which reality's events play out (see «Why now doesn't exist, and other strange facts about time»).

Often described as the fabric of reality, this four - dimensional amalgamation of space and time was set at the heart of physics by Einstein (see «How to think about... Relativity «-RRB-.

Yet wherever they do cross paths, the two theories fail to play nicely together — such as around black holes (see «General relativity at 100: The paradox of black holes «-RRB-.