Sentences with phrase «than physics in»

Nothing more depressing for the warmists than the physics in which guys like WHT piously cloak themselves, actually undermining their case.

Meanwhile, let's look at how math got even weirder than physics in the last century.

Not exact matches

In physics, synergy describes the creation of a whole that's greater than the arithmetic sum of its parts.

The D - Wave Two isn't just faster than other computers; it's the first commercially available quantum computer, which uses the fundamental principles of physics to solve problems in a completely different way.

But the inventor who had first caught Fortune's eye more than two decades earlier was someone else: a rebellious physics genius, not yet 30, who «never took the trouble to graduate from Harvard» and who had started a small company in a cellar on Boston's Dartmouth Street.

General Fusion's team of more than 50 scientists and engineers are world leaders in fusion technology, with expertise across plasma physics, computer simulation and engineering.

Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss - Italian border — have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.

The simple fact is that if matter can neither be created or destroyed in a normal chemical reaction than how does the «god» come up with something out of nothing... remember matter CAN NOT be CREATED or DESTROYED, so if this god follows the normal physics and chemistry than it could not have created the universe either... it just exists b / c it exists..

But your knowledge of science is so much less than so many Catholic Priests such as Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884) the father of modern genetics, Georges Lemaître (1894 - 1966) the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory and Stanley Jaki Born in Hungary, he earned doctorates in Systematic Theology and Nuclear Physics, is fluent in five languages, and has authored 30 books.

The symmetries that characterize the deepest laws of physics are mathematically richer and stranger than the ones we encounter in everyday life.

Paul Dirac, one of the giants of twentieth - century physics, went so far as to say that it was more important to have «beauty in one's equations» than to have them fit the experimental data.

Modern science has extended rather than radically altered our understanding of the universe, in two directions: the very large, with the expanding universe, and the very small, in genetics and particle physics.

In a recent book, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, Max Tegmark, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that the idea of equivalence means that the universe is a mathematical structure rather than a reality merely describable by mathematics.

Such a notion as emergence, for example, which is closely allied with the principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty and which was later to develop in physics, actually assumed more credence in physics before it took root in biology and psychology; yet it has more significant implications for the data of the organic and social sciences than for physics.

One needs the corrective of Bergson and James at times in reading Whitehead, however, lest the formative notions of the new physics implicit in his imagery render one's understanding of this creative nexus more external and rationalistic than it actually can be.

However, Whitehead was brought to his metaphysics of relations through the revolution in the new physics; this fact has given to his thought, in designating the nexus of events, more externality than he really means to convey, or should imply.

Yes, I understand that quantum entanglement is not actually showing anything moving faster than the speed of light, or moving at all for that matter, but it does show how little we truly understand about how both space - time and physics and quantum physics behave so if we are making a claim based on a predictor we don't yet understand then there is virtually no chance we might be correct in our hypothesis.

Isn't it amazing thinking, physics and mechanics work, but there is no design, just random happenstance... Takes more faith to believe in evolution than that God actually created the world we know.

Take an intro astronomy class and they can explain in basic terms (using basic concepts in math and physics) how time unfolded and what conditions were — and subsequently why «magical bits of everything» formed in to matter than led to the birth of the dinosaurs... It's ok to open your mind; and perhaps even God was the cause of the Big Bang.

Evolution has more holes than cheese, when you ask questions like, how did this happen in spite of the laws of physics, the answer is I do not know.

Even with a BSC in physics I often feel inadequate discussing physics with anyone who has had more than two or three years of grad - level schooling on the subject.

According to physics, all the normal matter and energy in the universe are reverberations on a much larger medium than spacetime itself.

In this concept of existences as teleological processes, Whitehead thought, we find the proper way for the philosopher to perform his task, now that the basic idea of physics has become the flux of energy rather than the particle of Newtonian matter.

Atheists can prove that science exists, that the earth is more than 6000 years old, that their is NO WAY to build the size ark that Noah built and do what is claimed in the bible, again when making extraordinary claims, we need evidence and we know that snakes do not talk, that the laws of physics can not be suspended and that nearly EVERY claim in the bible is false.

In fact, physics now resembles metaphysics more than anything else, with its theories to explain how realities unobservable by us produce the visible world.

The point of this discussion is not to give a lesson in physics, but to help the reader view the universe as composed of events rather than things.

And sometimes it seems there is more room for wonder, mystery, grandeur, delight, beauty, and reverence in astro - physics than in religion.

More than this, he was sensitive to the fact that the writing of philosophy's history can be at once technically competent and narrow He praised the «philosophical greatness achieved in American philosophy, from Peirce to Santayana, but he complained of the cultural chauvinism in failing to recognize it.5 According to Hartshorne, «One might about as easily reach great heights in philosophy without benefit of the work done in modern America as to reach them in physics without using the work of modern Germans» (Creativity 11).

And since the «heat shield» was made up of what NASA called «special plastic» back in the day, and since NASA indeed stated that reentry from such a voyage generates temperatures «10 times hotter than the sun», then we can know that one would burn - up upon reentry as do meteors and true physics confirms.

First, to say that this pear has mass might be to say that within the framework of physics and systems of physical measurement and associated units, there is some number m greater than zero, which, to some unspecified tolerance, functions as a parameter in a mechanical analysis of the pear's behavior.

question are much more likely to be found in Einstein's equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20.

But one can hardly dispute that Whitehead has engaged more fully than any other in the engagement with recent physics.

One prominent evolutionary biologist recently wrote, «In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.»

To that extent the formula more or less fits physics and biology, though to different degrees, but more than it does philosophy and other branches of inquiry which directly concern man as a whole, in his totality.

No two men are more significant in the history of physics, or assume more prominent positions in introductory courses, than Galileo and Newton.

Newton himself was more interested in alchemy than physics.

Birch and Cobb maintain that the ecological model is more adequate than the mechanical model for explaining DNA, the cell, other biological subject matter (as well as subatomic physics), because it holds that living things behave as they do only in interaction with other things which constitute their environment (LL 83) and because «the constituent elements of the structure at each level (of an organism) operate in patterns of interconnectedness which are not mechanical» (LL 83).

Rather than conclude skeptically, however, that process theism is an equally nonsensical alternative to traditional theism, this analysis of the interpoint theory discloses that the logical criteria for verifying God's location in spacetime have collapsed with the advent of relativity physics.

Considering his condition is likely what allowed him to spend most of his time thinking and doing physics, thus making him one of the world's most well respected physicists and living far longer with ALS than any other individual before him, and is still able to communicate, I would imagine Maire is correct and he is an atheist not because he is all that bitter, but because the further people tend to go in science, the less they tend to believe in religion.

The problem here is that the special knowledge that such people have (knowledge about physics) doesn't make their opinions in this area any better than those of anyone else.

The fact that in the later phases of an actual occasion this scalar form overwhelms the original vector form, and the fact that the scalar quantity of inertia was dominant in Newtonian physics, have led to a tendency to spatialize reality, to ignore the fact that all fundamental physical quantities are vector rather than scalar (PR 268, 319).

Sue, since you have a doctorate in Physics (would love to know who was on your dissertation board) please explain to Richard (the one that keeps cheerleading with no valuable inputs of his own) how Hawking's calculation of monkey's eventually typing out a Shakespear sonnet would take a prohibitive time — longer than the known universe and longer than the universe would last... hint you can google it too

Physics professor and frequent First Things contributor Stephen Barr discusses the implications of quantum physics at Big Questions Online: No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism — at least with regard to the human mind —Physics professor and frequent First Things contributor Stephen Barr discusses the implications of quantum physics at Big Questions Online: No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism — at least with regard to the human mind —physics at Big Questions Online: No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism — at least with regard to the human mind —physics, claimed that materialism — at least with regard to the human mind — is....

We feel the answers to such a question are much more likely to be found in Einstein's equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20.

In fact, by the way you arer acting and screaming and swearing, I would have much sooner profiled you as a ranting, angsty teenage boy than a PhD in physics — no gender association implieIn fact, by the way you arer acting and screaming and swearing, I would have much sooner profiled you as a ranting, angsty teenage boy than a PhD in physics — no gender association impliein physics — no gender association implied.

One begins with a restricted generalization descriptive of phenomena encountered in one field of inquiry (e.g., physics, physiology, psychology, etc.); one then (as he says) «makes a flight into the thin air of generalization» — framing the description to cover all actualities — finally landing again to see how the theory squares with observed fact in areas other than the one from which the inquiry began.

In this talk I shall, however, describe in general terms how the quantum theory, understood somewhat more imaginatively than is usually done, can point to a new order in physics, which I call the enfolded order, or the implicate ordeIn this talk I shall, however, describe in general terms how the quantum theory, understood somewhat more imaginatively than is usually done, can point to a new order in physics, which I call the enfolded order, or the implicate ordein general terms how the quantum theory, understood somewhat more imaginatively than is usually done, can point to a new order in physics, which I call the enfolded order, or the implicate ordein physics, which I call the enfolded order, or the implicate order.

Is someone with a PhD in experimental physics less stupid than one with a PhD in religious studies?

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 THERIn 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 THERin 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 THERin their own way, too small to see from here, like the atoms and parts of atoms themselves, detected indirectly, but indisputably THERE.

Surely you're not so arrogant as to think you understand particle physics and biology better than all the scientists in the world.